What makes the nude into a work of art?

[luis_g]

<p>[My wi-fi at home has croaked, they're sending me a new modem/router thing, until then, I'm geeking on the fly, so it may take a long time for me to respond to things]</p>

<p>My view of Hujar is that he personally is an above average passionate guy (from his themes and what I've seen and read), particularly concerning the ephemerality of life, but in his photography, this is severely restrained, and secondary to more formal and intellectual concerns. The picture of the man pleasuring himself on the chair is a great example. In spite of the unavoidable punctum, it's fairly cerebral, and I could even see it as a commentary on art.</p>

<p>One thing I like about him is that he leaves a lot up to the viewer.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred, my stuff ...</p>

<p>They are to me strongly felt, but I never expect them to be to other people in the way they are to me (and that's fine). The only way I can think of to put this -- and it applies to all pictures that I look at -- is that I feel <em>weight</em>. I feel stuff from the inside out. If it's good, I feel it from the inside. That one word, "weight" seems to always be there for me (and I can't imagine that it means much of anything -- I'm at a loss to explain it; it's just a visceral thing for me).</p>

[luis_g]

<p>In the picture of Heys, what makes it for me is the fact that his hand isn't moving, and his eyes closed in ecstasy. He's clearly and objectively depicted at a tantric, weightless moment, a short-feedback cycle that most men could identify with. The photographer has photographed other series in which what the subjects are ideating was the theme. This one is along those lines.</p>

<p>I think Hujar may have identified with his holding back.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, I understand. These things are hard if not impossible to explain. I sometimes feel at a loss and sometimes know there are things that are, as you say, visceral, and just can't be put into words. The flip side is that a very close photographer friend often pushes me (we actually push each other) to articulate things and it can be very helpful at times. (He also sometimes stops me in mid-sentence to tell me it doesn't matter, depending on what I'm going on about!) It can all be painful. But in forcing that verbal and descriptive articulation, I often get to see how much I'm not focusing on as well as how much denial I can be in. Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that is going on for you or that you would find it as useful. Mine own experience with it is possibly one of the reasons I push sometimes.</p>

<p>_____________________________</p>

<p>By the way, here are two photos by Moriyama.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thetrilogytapes.com/blog/uploaded_images/moriyama_04-777174.jpg">THIS ONE</a> seems to be a photographically passionate handling of passionate content.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dismuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/daido-moriyama-5.jpg">THIS ONE</a> seems to be a photographically passionate handling of not-necessarily-so-passionate content. I think in this one the passion is the photographer's, though clearly he wrung it out of the scene.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Oops! Backing up a bit, Fred I mistook your "I notice many of the same aspects of the composition that you do." -- to be "compositions that you do" as meaning <em>my</em> work (my composites) -- which sort of puzzled me [laughing]. Anyway, my idea of passion is to do with "deeply felt." I don't really get that from either of the Moriyamas but I'm not a fan of him so there's a bias to start with.</p>

<p>I would offer almost everything that Roy DeCavara has done [photographically] as being quietly passionate. For example this picture. [ <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/decarava_hand.jpg">link</a> ]</p>

<p>Luis, did you mean Heys or did you mean Bruce [the man in the chair]? The picture of Heys that I'm looking at (there may be more; I just leafed quickly through the book I have) shows him eating a strawberry.</p>

<p>Some nude humor for Lannie, whom I sense is getting restless ... [ <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bravo_eyesintray.jpg">link</a> ]. By Alvarez Bravo.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Oops, Bruce, not Heys. Sorry.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Okay, Julie Mindreader, are those extra eyeballs (I could use a pair) or spare nipples (I could. . . , no, better not say it)?</p>

<p>Although I would certainly not want to pass it off as a litmus test for what is art, I confess to sometimes having a fondness for <strong>the wholesome</strong>:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/13912874 (Check out Thomas Mann's antiqued version, way down the page.)</p>

<p>(I confess to also sometimes having a weakness for the unwholesome, but I shall not elaborate here.)</p>

<p>I know that the picture linked to above is not a nude. I really do. It is about as close to a nude as one is likely to find in my PN portfolio, however, although this one might be a wee tad closer to that blesséd state of being:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5227506</p>

<p>What I really do not like is anything which seems forced, especially where sexual themes are concerned. That is a disgusting turnoff for me. (There's that word again.)</p>

<p>This forum can be a very pleasant adult sandbox at times.</p>

<p>[end of confessional]</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"deeply felt."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, that may be a key. I think my idea of passion is more than deeply or strongly felt. It's got that excess heat I talked about and also, I think, a sense of desire.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>I just came across something interesting and relevant about George Bernard Shaw.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shaw insists that there are passions far more exciting than the physical ones..."intellectual passion, mathematical passion, passion for discovery and exploration: the mightiest of all passions".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Discovery and exploration seem to suggest some sort of desire to me.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>I've broken up with people where I felt deep sadness, even when I was not longing for them. I was sad for being alone now, for memories of good times gone by, for what I was seeing in myself, etc. But when I've broken up with someone who I still desired, who I would now long for even more . . . well, that was a more passionate sadness.</p>

<p>So I guess I think a lot of photos are deeply felt that aren't necessarily passionate.</p>

<p>I think Avedon's work can be like that. Deeply felt. Important. Passionate? If so, much less than a lot of others.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><strong>REGARDING EXCESS, THE FORCED, ETC.:</strong></p>

<p>By contrast, Charles Griffin's shot reminds one of the power of the unseen:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5702537 (And the art part would be. . .?)</p>

<p>I can almost hear the slap on the cheek and the squeal of delight.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Oh, Lord! I just remembered that on this date sixty-six years ago, a great flash was seen in the sky, and upwards of fifty thousand people disappeared from the face of the earth:</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/search?q=hiroshima+pictures&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</p>

<p>and slightly over thirty-six years ago, people in the beautiful land where these photos were made saw a great power in full retreat:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=662527</p>

<p>Today, n the hard land where these photos were made, thirty-one souls were extinguished in a helicopter crash:</p>

<p>http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2002/04/afghan-girl/index-text</p>

<p>Where there is beauty, the human spirit is not easily extinguished.</p>

<p>Life is short, but art--whatever it is--is long.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"passion for discovery and exploration": Discovery and exploration seem to suggest some sort of desire to me.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I really like that, Fred. Thank you for that one.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>Lanny,</p>

<p>Just now picking up the thread. I was at my grandgirl's summer horse camp, but the hand print and the hand that printed it was not hers, but that of another young lady. I had captured the same of her hand two years earlier when she first went to camp and the girls were shorter. It was the red print that made me want to get a shot of the hand.</p>

<p>The oldest known signed art is a hand print outlined in red. I do not have a shot of that because it was forbidden for tourists to shoot images in the French cave. But a human with delicately long fingers left an impression beneath spotted horses.<br>

http://www.donsmaps.com/images20/pechmerlehanddots.jpg</p>

<p>This is my grandgirl's hand from 2009 on a spotted (and painted) horse. What's a mere 15 or 20 or 27 thousand years of humankind's creative impressions, perhaps something in the DNA?</p><div></div>

[clgriffin]

<p>And who knows how far back our fascination, our passion for the art of the female form goes? This is in the Delhi National Museum from an early Indus valley civilization. A young dancing girl, artfully posed:</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Those are wonderful! Thank you, Charles.<br>

--Lannie</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>And in the same museum, a short distance away, from the same era and the same area, all that remains of a woman who may have danced. Someone who was respected or loved enough to be left with unbroken bracelets. Someone who might have been a young dancer.</p>

<p>This is as nude as we get. For some this may be a horror. To me she is still beautiful--long and delicate--the essence of womankind.</p><div></div>

[clgriffin]

<p>And you will recall that high-key nude of mine. Just how long have we been enslaved by a woman on a bed? From The Musee D'Orsay, Paris.</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>And in the same museum, a short distance away, from the same era and the same area, all that remains of a woman who may have danced. Someone who was respected or loved enough to be left with unbroken bracelets. Someone who might have been a young dancer.<br>

This is as nude as we get.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, it gives new meaning to the phrase "the naked and the nude," immortalized in the poetry of Robert Graves. She's downright naked in the ultimate sense.</p>

<p>I love the one from the Musee D'Orsay.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>Lanny, I went back to reread your opening statement. After viewing all the links and browsing within the galleries of some links, I've come to what is probably a simplistic (not necessarily correct) answer to your query at the last of the comment.</p>

<p>If a person decides to take his point and shoot and get 5000 nudes over a period of time, the same concept of give a monkey or a group of monkeys a keyboard and eventually they may produce a Shakespearean play applies. Sooner or later one of the nude images may strike a chord among viewers, whether law of averages or simple serendipity.</p>

<p>The opposite is usually the case when someone starts out with passion. Whether a passion for technique or for sex or for some undefined urge. More things we think of as art comes out of a passion for either the medium or the subject matter than out of random acts of energy.</p>

<p>And all of the above is subjective. What appeals to me as art will offend the fellow next to me. Perhaps it will always be this way.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>After a lot of days and a good many posts, here's what I come away with.</p>

<p>It is often desired that art will be easy. Many go to museums on vacations and on their days off and want to relax by doing so. </p>

<p>The best art, IMO, is not all that easy, even if it appears to be on first glance or on the surface or even if there is a simplicity and ease about it. The best art takes me to deeper intellectual and emotional places. It is often challenging. It, therefore, may have many negatives to it. It's why I reject formulations about art that rely on beauty, purity, moral goodness, or spirituality. </p>

<p>In order to be challenged -- intellectually, visually, emotionally, etc. -- there are roadblocks and negatives. So art will have some ugliness, some disappointment, some strife. We may have to kick and scream at the thought of giving up assumptions that have been, until the artist nudges us, paradigms or givens, about lots of things that are emotional, political, personal, universal, religious, and more. The artist may also insist that we give up assumptions we've had about what is art. Transformational artists have done that throughout history.</p>

<p>If there is a uniqueness to the photograph of the nude, it may lie in being about our bodies. We have a particular relationship to our bodies that, I think, is like no other. When we touch ourselves, we also feel ourselves being touched. There's a lot more about our relationship to our own body and the bodies of others that's different from our relationship to other kinds of objects. Because nude bodies show what most of us consider to be sexual organs, there is also a long history of the ups and downs and sideways glances of dealing with sexuality, both the good and the bad. There are hangups about sex, there is a lot of abuse around sex, there's misunderstanding about sex, and there's a history of shame, guilt, liberation, and lots of other stuff about sex. While not all nudity is sexual by any means, I wouldn't be caught trying to deny how closely related they are, especially given civilization's history with it.</p>

<p>The nude art is not good, or moral, or pure, or wholesome, or spiritual, or uplifting, or relaxing, or entertaining. It is all those things BUT it is also other things. It is bad, immoral, impure, naughty, physical, depressing, anxiety-producing, and serious.</p>

<p>The nude in art, if it is to be art, has to be multi-faceted and not limited. That doesn't mean everything that's nude is art. But it also doesn't mean that any one criterion or group of criteria will be available to define it at any given moment in time.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>In re-reading, I'd like to change this line:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If there is a uniqueness to the photograph of the nude, it may lie in being about our bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd prefer: <em>If there is a uniqueness to the photograph of the nude, it may lie in it's being created by using our bodies.</em></p>

<p>It is not always "about" the body. As people have said, sometimes it is more about form, light, or other things.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Let me start by saying that the nude is invariably a political statement, even when it does not try to be. I shall have more to say about this below. First, let us look at a comment by Fred.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The nude art is not good, or moral, or pure, or wholesome, or spiritual, or uplifting, or relaxing, or entertaining. It is all those things BUT it is also other things. It is bad, immoral, impure, naughty, physical, depressing, anxiety-producing, and serious.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred. I think that, if I were restating this as my own, I would want to rephrase it somewhat:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The <em>art nude</em> is not <em>by any necessity</em> good, or moral, or pure, or wholesome, or spiritual, or uplifting, or relaxing, or entertaining. It <em>can be</em> any or all of those things, but it <em>can also be</em> many other things. It can be bad, immoral, impure, naughty, physical, depressing, anxiety-producing, or serious. (Italics are mine to show the specific ways that I would change the statement--LK.)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I yet believe that the art nude is unique in certain respects not covered by attempts to label or categorize it. The nude almost invariably contains a sexual or potentially sexual component, and sexuality is unique in human experience in terms of the intensity of feelings and beliefs about it, as well as in the variety of strictures used in attempts to control it. </p>

<p>Discussions about sexuality thus often contain language that is common to all political discourse, specifically the language of repression and the language of liberation. Even so, the usage of such terms can (but does not always) differ from usage in the politics of other things. Sexual liberation can, for example, imply freedom from external (political) constraint, but it can also imply liberation from internal psychological restraint. "Repression" can likewise refer to that which is imposed from without in overtly physical coercion, or the threat thereof, or it can refer to certain social mores or constraints imposed by society--or by the self.</p>

<p>The importance attached to sexuality--and perhaps especially to visual expressions of sexual pleasure--thus makes judgments about the aesthetics of the nude somewhat (and to varying degrees) different from judgments about the aesthetics of other types of art.</p>

<p>I thus see attempts to claim that the aesthetics of the nude is no different from that of other aesthetic judgments a bit facile. Luis G. does not quite seem to be facing this when responding to the opening question with "The same thing that makes a portrait, landscape, street view, architectural, etc. into art. The nude is not exclusive in this sense."</p>

<p>I understand the obvious similarities, but, as I have tried to show above, there are differences as well. We did not dig too far into that realm, and perhaps we should have. In any case, these are some lingering thoughts about the subject.</p>

<p>I doubt that we will resolve the issues which I do see as (at least sometimes) unique to discussions of nude aesthetics simply by trying to define "art" or by attempts to categorize the various types of art.</p>

<p>As far as I am concerned, the topic or question of the thread remains open--and thus unresolved. I am quite sure that it always will be.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>The importance attached to sexuality--and perhaps especially to visual expressions of sexual pleasure--thus makes judgments about the aesthetics of the nude somewhat (and to varying degrees) different from judgments about the aesthetics of other types of art.</p>

<p>I thus see attempts to claim that the aesthetics of the nude is no different from that of other aesthetic judgments a bit facile. Luis G. does not quite seem to be facing this when responding to the opening question with "The same thing that makes a portrait, landscape, street view, architectural, etc. into art. The nude is not exclusive in this sense."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't be too quick to judge what Luis G. is or isn't facing. </p>

<p>Nude photos are not the only kinds of photos that are related to sexuality. Portraits obviously can be. Street shooting often is. Landscapes are. Photos of peppers are. Look at Georgia O'Keeffe's flowers sometime. Sexuality is such a strong part of our humanness that it's hard to imagine avoiding it in any passionate (artistic) endeavor. If Michelangelo used his sexual energy in creating the David, why not consider that he might use that same sexual energy in creating the Pieta or statue of Moses. Are Edward Weston's Monterey landscapes devoid of sexuality because they don't have breasts? Is Nan Goldin's self portrait not of a partly sexual nature because there's no big old erect penis in it? Some of the best non-nude art is, in fact, orgasmic.</p>

<p>Sure, the nude can't easily be separated from sexuality. That's an issue because so many people mistakenly try to claim that they are separate in the name of elevating art above sex, which says more about hangups over sex than anything about art. Perhaps what they should be doing instead is actually looking at the passionate/sexual nature of a lot of art. It goes deep.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>As you do? Your response does not convince me of the truth of much of anything--much less any insight on your part as to others' motives.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[luis_g]

<p>At this point, I'm not sure anything is going to sway Lannie in any direction, but...</p>

<p><strong>Lannie - </strong>"I thus see attempts to claim that the aesthetics of the nude is no different from that of other aesthetic judgments a bit facile. Luis G. does not quite seem to be facing this when responding to the opening question with "The same thing that makes a portrait, landscape, street view, architectural, etc. into art. The nude is not exclusive in this sense."</p>

<p>Fred did a good job of responding to that, but I would like to add that there's nothing facile involved. As we can see in countless other threads, it remains an exceedingly difficult thing to answer without writing a book or several. Because it's an understanding, not a facile Sword of Solomon thing, brass key, feeler gauge, or app. I am facing and have faced this, Lannie, and although you reject my answer, that is my present understanding on this matter.</p>

<p>There is a reason for the accompanying drama for this type of question (look at Luca's thread). Why people feel compelled to reject the dictionary definitions of art (though most would accept those for God) and replace them with (often Rube Goldberg-ian) personal ones. At the heart of the heart of this matter, I believe there's several crucial things.</p>

<p>One of them is that whatever your definition for what art (or trash) is, the one thing it is highly unlikely to do is to change the art world. What it is almost certain to do is define <em>how your art is going to be, </em>and how blinkered your views on art will become. My advice: At least leave a few doors ajar.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>At this point, I'm not sure anything is going to sway Lannie in any direction</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, what is the position that I am staking out such that I cannot be moved from it? (I wasn't aware that I had a position, I have vacillated so much.) In any case, congratulations to you and Fred and anybody else if you succeed in getting it all figured out--if you haven't already. It still sounds a bit facile to me, but I can consider it: "The nude is just like any other type of art." Yeah, maybe. I really can't see how, given all the intense feelings--and social strictures and mores--related to nudity and sexuality that seem to far transcend the feelings about other types of art, but I will try to keep an open mind.</p>

<p>What's this about drama? Drama, schmama. That's Fred's territory, and he can have it. As for Luca's thread, it is very admirable, and very safe. (Good luck in finding the answer to the logically prior question to the one raised here.)</p>

<p>If you consider yourself so open-minded, Luis, consider the possible truth of the ultra-conservative position: the view that all nude portrayals of the human form are profane. Not our territory? Well, no, it is not about art <em>per se</em> anymore. It is about something else, ethics, value theory, metaphysics, superstition, whatever. If it were correct, however, it would surely affect the way we think and argue about nude photography--and about claims of "nude art."</p>

<p>In any case, whether true or false, the possibility (that the nude as an art form is profane) stretches my mind far more than any liberal position--and no one has argued for it here, including myself.</p>

<p>But what if it should be so true? Can you open your mind, Luis, so wide as to get it around that possibility? Can anyone who has been on this thread since its inception thirteen days ago?</p>

<p>Not trying to get your goat here. I understand, in fact, how lame and ridiculous it sounds--not the way one leads off if one is worried overly much about winning an argument. I'm just considering an idea that I haven't seriously considered in a very long time (after having been raised on it, more or less).</p>

<p>What if it should be true? I can almost hear a bunch of biblical fundamentalists sitting around debating that one. They could not post any pictures to make their points, of course. (That would be, well, profane.) I am reminded of an exchange on PN some years back when someone attacked me (on a discussion forum about a nude photo), accusing me of being a purveyor of porn for simply linking to another nude photo. He insisted that linking to a nude was just as "evil" as posting a nude photo. That one spun off into the void somewhere. . . .</p>

<p>I mention all this because the idea (that artistic portrayals of the nude human form are profane) does seem hopelessly benighted--and it does seem to be linked to reactionary religious currents. Yet, yet, I suppose that the idea that the artistic portrayal of the nude human form is inherently profane would have to presuppose a theistic metaphysic of some sort--otherwise, what possible foundation could there be for such a claim? What, that is, would one be profaning? </p>

<p>I mention all this also because, insofar as anyone might try to defend such a view on the grounds of reason alone (sounds very Kantian, no?), considering such a vew as possibly valid would require a more open mind than I have seen on this thread, including my own--even though the position seems terribly closed-minded.</p>

<p>What if it just happened to be correct?</p>

<p>Not trying to rattle anyone's cage here, or pull anyone's chain. Just thinking out loud--thinking unthinkable thoughts. <strong> </strong><strong>Imagine--the artistic nude as inherently profane!</strong> What I like about it as a thesis is that it renders my question for the present thread more or less moot, or at least not too interesting anymore. Maybe it was the issue all along and I simply did not know it.</p>

<p>Let me sleep on it.</p>

<p>

<p>--Lannie</p>