What makes the nude into a work of art?

[alan_zinn]

<p>The nude on the bench reminds me of a New Yorker "write a caption" cartoon. A lot of nudes seem that way to me because the first thought is "Why, oh why is that person naked?" An attractive young woman sitting in quiet repose in a park doesn't need to be naked to make an interesting picture. OK, maybe if she were wearing a bicycle helmet. <br>

One undertakes the study of the academic nude or geometry to attain a skill not to make art.<br>

The romantic, foggy bottom nudes couldn't be a more perfect "empty calorie" picture. Invent a sweet title for that one too. </p>

[indraneel]

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps that is what is behind the human creative instinct: the impulse to reveal something of ourselves, to communicate to others, to say, "Look at this!" In so doing we reveal what we think is worthy of contemplation. In so doing, our simple photographic acts may reveal more about our thoughts than do our many words.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is incidental. We create (or are passionate) to reveal ourselves, to ourselves (consciously, or unconsciously). This is the trail of breadcrumbs that leads us to who we truly are, our personal knowledge of ourselves. When we say "look at this", we are refining that boundary of our knowledge about ourselves, against the social context. When we see another's work or words, most often we see the apparent social context, then some of the breadcrumbs and then, some of our own breadcrumbs, all of course from our own viewpoint.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Indraneel, those are quite profound remarks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, thank you, but I should not. I've been told not to think too much far too many times already!</p>

[johnw63]

<p>As has been said before, "One person's art is another person's trash". Art is purely subjective. In some countries and in some religions, those shots could get the photographer in big trouble. In some places, it would not cause a stir at all. So, the question about what makes some nudes art and some nudes trash depends on who you ask. We each may give a different answer.</p>

<p>For me, I'd have a simple mental test. If I felt comfortable hanging it on my wall, no matter WHO was going to visit, my friends, my mom, or the pope, I would say it is well in the "art" category.</p>

<p>Some, I would guess, are going to say that is just projecting my hangups and insecurities on the photograph. I would counter that is not the case. If the subject of the photo could walk into their place of work, undressed as they were in the photo, and not have anyone take any notice, THEN you could build a case that some of us with my view have issues. Of course, everyone sees things through their cultural bias. You might say that a photo of a topless woman, shown in the more rural villages in Africa would not cause any stir, but it just might, if the woman was not covered in red mud first. </p>

<p> </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>O</p><div></div>

[seandepuydt]

http://www.photo.net/photo/1368471

 

 

This is one of my favorite nudes.

[sjmurray]

<p>I'm purposely evading any kind of definition of art or answer to your question. I think there is a lot about art that is simply a mystery. For me it is something that connects with me for some reason. "I know it when I see it." Period. It is also really easy to make a boring or cliched portrait, landscape or nude as well. But, at the same time, it is very difficult to make a really good portrait, landscape, or nude photograph for that matter, but they do crop up from time to time and we all have our favorites. </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I have two answers for you Lannie, but both only bring up more questions.</p>

<p>1) My answer. A nude can be art if the subject being nude is not central to the reason why the image was taken. By this I do not mean that nudity does not enhance the image; I mean that the nudity is not the image itself. As an example, I'm citing Titian's Venus of Urbino, which is a painting done in 1538. While the subject is nude, the painting would have been successful if she were not nude, as it is artfully posed and executed. Also there is Robert Mappelthorpe's Three Nudes, in which the fact that the figures are nude allows us to see their musculature and the tonalities in their skin which we would not see were they clothed. Also, depending on your perspective, Three Nudes can also be a statement on racial equality, or on the power of women over men, as the black and white male figures seem to be fighting (albeit passively) over a female. But again, it would still be a photograph worth taking if the subjects were clothed.</p>

<p>By contrast, pornography is entirely about the nudity. If everyone in a porno mag put their pants back on, Hugh Hefner would be out of business. Thus, pornography is not art. Pornography can be <em>artistic</em>, and some photographers straddle (heh heh) that line very well. But if the entire reason you're taking a photo is to say, "Hey, look at her bits," then it's not artistic.</p>

<p>The question that asks is whre is the line? Some of Mappelthorpe's other work (which I won't link to here) is very much about the sex and the nudity, often showing very graphic sexual acts. Arguments can be made that this too is art, but it gets into an entirely different class of discussion than what I suspect you meant to bring up. Almost thirty years after he first made waves, we still haven't hashed that one out.</p>

<p>Someone else mentioned 'failed art.' I want to point out that bad nude art is absolutely not the same as pornography. Personally, I don't see any artistic merit in the image that you posted of the nude on the bench. I think that it would be an equally good photo if the girl were not nude (thus not pornography), but I don't think that the nudity adds anything. I feel that she is nude for the sake of being nude. Since her nudity doesn't add anything (to me anyway), I would call this bad nude art. But since the image is not ABOUT her nudity, I wouldn't call it dirty or pornographic.</p>

<p>I feel the image of the two nude women walking in the field benefits very much from the nudity, as it creates a greater feeling of nature, and these women's connection to the Earth.</p>

<p>And again, we have the arbitrary line. If she were nude in public would it be art, or pornography? Which brings us the answer number two ...</p>

<p>2) "I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it." I don't remember which Justice said this, but it was part of the United States Supreme Court ruling in one of the Larry Flynt trials. It doesn't advance the conversation any, but it does explain a lot.</p>

<p>Since human beings are more complicated and irrational than machines, and often operate not on programming but on previous (sometimes negative) experiences, it's not always possible to predict that Image X will yield Response Y. Because of that, ANY rule that states what is and is not art or pornography will have a list of exceptions a mile long. No one - not even a panel of experts - can produce an answer that is argument-proof. I feel that my answer is very good, but I will be the first to admit that where <em>I</em> draw the line is not where <em>you</em> may draw the line.</p>

<p>Venus of Urbino<br>

<a href="http://www.oneonta.edu/faculty/farberas/arth/Images/110images/sl9images/Titian_Venus_Urbino.jpg">http://www.oneonta.edu/faculty/farberas/arth/Images/110images/sl9images/Titian_Venus_Urbino.jpg</a><br>

Three Nudes<br>

<a href="http://images.publicradio.org/content/2007/05/09/20070509_threenudes_2.jpg">http://images.publicradio.org/content/2007/05/09/20070509_threenudes_2.jpg</a></p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Here are a couple of "artistic" nudes that have a little more oomph than those Lannie has linked to (IMO). They are more physical, more narrative, they are sensual and there are sexual impulses I get from them as well. Yet they are loosely in the genre of nude study or classically nude figures.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.chrisbeetles.com/gallery/images/pictures/C28136-b.jpg">THIS</a> and <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eCJQNzK73Pg/S2B1yQhT42I/AAAAAAAAGpQ/ibRuaUViE1A/s400/Bill+Brandt2.jpg">THIS</a> by Bill Brandt.</p>

<p>Here are two. Not as pretty, or as safe, a little more gritty, maybe more "trashy," the second obviously more sexual. Every bit as much art, IMO.</p>

<p><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bMSJJ4LPn3Y/TA8BqCfdKuI/AAAAAAAAAPk/HXejYbzTu8A/s1600/nan+goldin+1993.JPG">THIS</a> and <a href="http://storage.canalblog.com/83/84/577050/36486785.jpg">THIS</a> by Nan Goldin.</p>

<p>Sometimes, it's a matter of excellent craft combined with breaking new ground that elevates to the level of art what might otherwise be considered pornography. Consider Mapplethorpe.</p>

<p>In short, art nudes don't have anything particular in common, just as art doesn't. They are certainly not defined as lacking trashiness or as somehow elevating the human form. Art, IMO, is best not understood as a classification with particular qualities. Its definitions are more like a web of overlapping and disappearing and reappearing ideas, creators or perpetrators, and audiences rather than anything singular. It's not completely subjective and it's not anything you want it to be. Generations have loosely understood what art is and what things are art and that couldn't happen if there weren't a good amount of objectivity to it and often some sort of public recognition of it, if not in its own time then at some later date.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Art and the photographic nude also evolve, so amy supposed definition would have to leave room for the unknown or as yet undiscovered, which means no definition can be complete or certain.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Well, we're talking about nudes and photography, so if we have done some nudes we might as well share them here. I have been taking pictures for over 40 years, and I have purposely avoided doing nudes as a main theme, probably because I didn't think I could add artistically to what has already been done. However, I have done a few nudes from time to time, and I did post a couple of them here on pnet. The first is from the 1970's and for me it is mostly about the curves and geometry of the female form:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10717411&size=lg<br>

The second is a little more lighthearted, showing my wife sunbathing in the garden, and it is again mostly for me about the curves of her female form, although there is a certain sexual element too (well, she's my wife!).<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/13447852&size=lg<br>

Are these artistic? I don't know. For me they are. </p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>If, as many Western American/Europeans do, consciously or unconsciously, part of your sense of the body in art starts here [<a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/grunewald/crucifixion/crucifixion.jpg">link</a>], then, if you go directly to Lannie's first example [<a href="../photo/13197832">link</a>], tensions should be apparent in the traversal from one to the other.</p>

<p>Further tensions:<br>

face (not the head) vs body<br>

eyes vs mouths<br>

force vs choice<br>

glory [the Greeks, for example] vs shame</p>

<p>How is your gaze being handled? What is she/he doing to you? What are you doing to her/him?</p>

[indraneel]

<p>Julie, great comparison! And, it also seems that in a lot of religions, the object of worship tends to be mostly disrobed...</p>

<p>Alan, is that picture real? No photoshop?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>How is your gaze being handled? What is she/he doing to you? What are you doing to her/him?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, I am not sure what you are saying. It appears that you might not have completed the verb form in the first sentence you offered us. I am thus left to try to decipher your meaning.</p>

<p>What I think that I gather from your post has very little to do with worship, as Indraneel seems to think. Given your previous posts, on this thread and others, I think that I hear you saying that the gaze has something to do with power relationships--or at least that it can.</p>

<p>I am left wondering if you think that the presentation of the nude is always a political act, even (perhaps) an act of domination--a move in the game of male domination of women (at least on the most common scenario: female subject, male photographer, male viewer).</p>

<p>Please give us more of your thoughts. I am aware that I might be reading too much into your remarks--or quite possibly not enough.</p>

<p>Is the male gaze too intrusive in the photo by Owen O'Meara that I posted at the outset? I confess that I certainly did not see it that way. I am interested in hearing more of your interpretation, especially now that you have counterpoised it to a rather curious painting with a religious motif--but filled with certain incongruities. The nun, for example, is being groped by a male figure, although whether willingly or not I cannot tell:</p>

<p>http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/grunewald/crucifixion/crucifixion.jpg</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Yet, even the worshipful gaze can be threatening. "I adore you." "Does that mean that you want to own me? Perhaps you just want to devour me."</p>

<p>The cat comes to mind, this time as captured by Steve Murray:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/13658632</p>

<p>Who is watching whom? Why?</p>

<p>What is the point of the nude, anyway? Why are there so many female nudes? Why are there so many male photographers? Are men naturally watchers? Are women naturally those who are being watched?</p>

<p>"As if we had any choice!" --Julie Heyward, from a previous thread (approximate quote)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Lannie, I would have the say that the groping of the nun by the Roman soldier represents the violation of the Christian faith by the Romans. It is used to take a religious theme (The Cruxifiction) and turn it into a social one, without breaking the rules of what could and could not be shown at the time. Since there weren't actually any nuns then (and not even the most fanatical Christian could believe that monastaries and nunneries were built and clothing designed and made en masse in the few years Christ was teaching His message), it's pretty clear that the nun is meant to be symbolic.</p>

<p>Also, do keep in mind that the use of the nude as a worship figure in classical work very rarely has anything to do with the actual nude. In many Western societies, nudity is (in this context) a symbol of purity and innocence. Think back to Exodus; God knew that Adam and Even had eaten from the Tree of Life because they had covered up their bodies, and were no longer nude.</p>

<p>The Gaels often fought nude or nearly nude for the same reason. It stands to reason that if they are pure, they will be pure in battle. Of course they were destroyed by Romans wearing armour, but you get the point :)</p>

<p>When you look at Botticelli's Venus, her nudity is not meant to convery sexuality. If it were supposed to be sexual, her hands would not be covering her naughty bits, and there would not be cherubs preparing to drape her with a cloth. In this case, at least, nudity again represents purity and innocence.</p>

<p>Julie's statement is based on a Postmodern view of nudes in artwork, while mine is based on a Classical one. Until around the 1940's, the viewer had nothing to do with the art.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How is your gaze being handled? What is she/he doing to you? What are you doing to her/him</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a very new question, at least compared to the length of time that 'fine art' has been around and been discussed. The idea of the viewer as an element to the work suggests that the work is never "completed" until it is shown to an audience, as the audience's reaction is a part of the work. If the nude is supposed to express shame, it does not effectively do so unless the audience feels shame while looking at it. A Postmodern view of the Cruxifiction would be that we, the viewers, become Christ's tormentors by viewing the image.</p>

<p>My only issue with the Postmodern view (and apologies to Julie - I'm arguing the idea - not you) is that it relies on the audience having similar knowlegde to your own. Or if not, then at least the artist has to 'guess' his audience. I'm going to use a totally unrelated example to illustrate this, as everyone (I hope) can relate to an image of someone being tortured and crucified.</p>

<p>Andy Warhol, who is one of my favourite artists, produced a series of Cambell's soup cans. Seen individually, it's a neat silkscreen, and they look cool. When many of them are hung on the same gallery wall, the Postmodern take is that it is a statement of the repeatability and endlessness of modern culture and consumerism. By walking through the gallery covered in Campbell's cans, the viewer is transported to a supermarket or other mass retail centre, and becomes a part of the endless sameness and repetition of consumer culture. Many artists have used this as a jumping-off point, and have produced their own versions of the Campbell's cans, often by 'vandalizing' Warhol's own, to make an angrier version of the same statement.</p>

<p>The only problem here is that for any of this to work, the viewer must (A) know what Campbell's soup is, (B) be aware of current consumer culture, and © not be so deeply ingrained in the consumer culture as to be 'a part of the problem.' If A, B, and C are not true, then 48 silkscreens of Campbell's soup cans will have exactly the same effect as a single one will. In the event of the 'redone' versions, the viewer ALSO needs to be aware of (D) the original versions and their intent, and (E) have some opinion of them, good or bad, or else the 'vandalized' versions won't strike any chords.</p>

<p>This is why I don't like Postmodern theory. While it was good years ago, Postmodernists have become so self-referential and presumptious of knowledge that it becomes a Family Guy episode - you just can't possibly understand all of it.</p>

<p>This is also why I tend to view nudes from a Classical standpoint, and not a Postmodern one. If you want your nude subject to appear victimized (just to go back to Julie's example), something in the pose, facial expression, scene, or exposure should suggest that. You don't have to beat a viewer over the head with it, but we need some hints. If you merely place a woman with slumped shoulders (nude or otherwise) in the frame, an Asian will say she is shameful, and an Westerner will say she is tired. Shame is pretty close, but if you show that image in the wrong country it won't have the desired effect.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thank you, Zack, for a very profound response. One knows that, when one posts a serious question on the web, one is likely to get any number of inane responses. One typically gets at best a handful of truly enlightening responses from enlightened respondents who bring even more to the discussion than I could possibly have hoped for or even anticipated--and who always see far more than I do. I had not quite thought of counterpoising the post-modern to the classical, which does indeed give a new perspective on post-modern thought. (I just happened to be reading Lacan when I thought to look to see who might have posted in response.)</p>

<p>Thanks to Julie as well for opening this kind of discussion with her sometimes cryptic posts--and thanks to Fred and Luis and others who always redeem these threads with their contributions.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[indraneel]

<blockquote>

<p>but if you show that image in the wrong country it won't have the desired effect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree...<br>

<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/</a> and probably also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations</a></p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>And, Zack, your portfolio is absolutely astonishing!</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=5657447</p>

<p>I never knew when I first happened upon Photo.net after returning to grad school in 1999 at the age of fifty-four (to study Spanish and Spanish-American literature) that PN would be--could be--such an educational place. The internet had not been around that long for most of us at that time, and the most profound thing I had done on the web during the mid-nineties was to engage in an online forum on Augustine's theory of the nature of temptation and the forbidden.</p>

<p>The theme of the forbidden is with us still. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[indraneel]

<p>On a similar note from darkroom work... The eye goes first to the area of highest contrast. Would that have anything to do with nudes as art..?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thank you, Indraneel! I had been thinking of context all morning as I tried to grapple with Lacan's concept of "the gaze."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The eye goes first to the area of highest contrast. Would that have anything to do with nudes as art?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure that i follow you here, Indraneel.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[indraneel]

<blockquote>

<p>I am not sure that i follow you here, Indraneel.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exposed nudity (in real or as art) is in contrast to what society commonly sanctions (or is commonly visible)... that is why we notice it first, even before we can make sense of our response towards it.</p>

<p>And to take that further, it appears our brains are wired to notice contrast as part of a survival mechanism. Can it be not so in distant "life" forms, on faraway planets.....theoretically...?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thank you, Indraneel. I understand now. Yes, surely it is the unexpected that always brings us up short, that catches our breath. If we witnessed not only nude photographs but nude persons every day in the course of our daily activities, I daresay that we would not even be having this conversation.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[indraneel]

<p>Sorry, I made a stupid "Wittgenstein's example" mistake..! It will be.. Can it be<em>, not so,</em> in distant "life" forms (on faraway planets).....theoretically...?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>When you look at Botticelli's Venus, her nudity is not meant to convery sexuality. If it were supposed to be sexual, her hands would not be covering her naughty bits, and there would not be cherubs preparing to drape her with a cloth. In this case, at least, nudity again represents purity and innocence.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Zack, an alternative view of <em>The Birth of Venus</em> would suggest that her covering her "naughty bits" (not sexual you say! LOL) with hair and hand is very much sexual and a reminder of her own very appealing physical beauty . . . and, as the strong influence of neo-Platonism in the Renaissance would remind us, it is through her physical beauty that we can get to the Ideal of Beauty, the more spiritual side of it. Even the purest responses to the nude can't, I think, turn a blind eye to the sexuality on which that desired purity rests. No, it's not sexual in the way much contemporary nudity is sexual. But I wouldn't discount the sexual element that's been present, even through the Renaissance. Modesty sort of depends on sexuality to gain a foothold, doesn't it? What is it that modesty protects (or hands, or strands of golden hair)? Again, I'm not reducing all nudity to sexuality, but it doesn't undermine innocence to recognize this kind of contrapuntal sexual element even in the most supposedly pure of nudes.</p>