What makes the nude into a work of art?

[arthur_gottschalk]

<p>I like Owen's picture because the girl is lovely and the setting beautiful. But unfortunately it lacks meaning for two reasons: It's silly to see her sitting casually on that bench without any explanation. If her clothes were on the bench beside her it would make more sense. The picture also needs to show what she might be looking at. If there was a person in the distance it would have added some drama, tension, or reason for her pose. As is, it simply looks like she is hiding her face from the camera. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Good luck, Zack! Enjoy it. I am sure that you will find going back to school to be an overwhelmingly good experience. I wish that I could do it just one more time.</p>

<p>--Lanie</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I had just finished a page and a half post when I got shut down by someone, hopefully not PN. What I had said essentially was that I was honored that Lannie had chosen one of my images to start this discussion.<br>

I have no idea what makes anything a work of art, much lessons of my images. Thomas Aquinas once defined art as "Making things reasonably well." That worked for me in college and it works for me now. This image was one I took at the end of a long shoot and the model was not even aware I took it. It tells no story nor rights a social injustice, I simply like it and I think it fit's the definition of Aquinas.<br>

The nude has always invited critique as a subject as has photograph as a medium. Put them together and they end up under the microscope. Sculpture and painting rarely attract comment the way that photography does and hopefully that will change in my lifetime. When someone creates something in any medium that create an emotional response then I think it is legitimate to call it art. I will accept the recognition of something as beautiful as being an emotional response. I truly believe that the human form is the greatest subject of art but many of you will not agree with that. I think that history is on my side on this one.<br>

Compared to a lot of my images that may be better in an artistic sense, this image make me feel good and that works for me. I hope Robert Persig would agree with me.<br>

I don't think anyone can tell you what makes something a work of art but I love looking at them when they come along. I hope we can continue this thread for a while longer. This is what it is all about. Again, thank you Lannie.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Thomas Aquinas once defined art as "Making things reasonably well." That worked for me in college and it works for me now. This image was one I took at the end of a long shoot and the model was not even aware I took it. It tells no story nor rights a social injustice, I simply like it and I think it fit's the definition of Aquinas. --Owen O'Meara</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Owen. I am so glad that you have been willing to post to this thread. I like the photo, too, which is why I started the present discussion by allusion to it.</p>

<p>I am also very glad to finally find out the circumstances of the making of the photograph in question:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/13197832</p>

<p>I now feel justified somehow in choosing this photo as the center of the opening discussion, since I always felt that it had both artistic merit (ahem--the current topic!) and a certain authenticity that can be rare in all branches of photography. "Authenticity" and "honesty" are closely related concepts, and Fred has been talking about honesty in photography for some years now. Above all, the photo seemed somehow natural and unpretentious to me--almost a candid. Well, it turns out that, for all intents and purposes, it<em> was</em> a candid shot.</p>

<p>Since the actual taking of the photograph took place during a break in the shooting (okay, literally at the end of a shoot), it represents what may be a rarity among nude shots: a candid photo of an undressed woman that is not in any way an invasion of privacy. I confess that I like the photo very much, and I have always sensed that it comes quite close to having no particular or obvious sexual content except that the young woman in the picture is indeed nude--naturally and unashamedly so. On another day, I might have found that to be a starting point for an intriguing fantasy. On the day I "discovered" it and decided to post it here, however, it seemed not so much to stimulate me as to relax me. I have noticed that reaction many times when viewing nudes, something that I do quite frequently, and without apology to anyone. (Thank you, Lord, for the female form. Please do not think that I do not appreciate it.) I still do not know how to explain my "relaxation response" to portrayals of the undraped female form . Perhaps a good psychotherapist could help, though I must affirm that I do not feel sick in the least.</p>

<p>Surely the skeptics will agree that "nudity" and "sexuality" are at least distinct concepts, even if many claim that it is impossible to view the nude unless one is sexually motivated. I will not waste a lot of time right now with that issue, except to say that many photos of persons who are fully dressed can convey much more explicit sexual content. (I feel that I am beating a dead horse on this issue, even though some seem to want to establish that the nude is always about sex, pure and simple, and I consider that claim to be nonsense--less pure but equally simple, if not simple-minded.) </p>

<p>I do not want to deny that a component of the photograph's appeal for myself is no doubt related to sexuality, however subliminally, but I think that persons who would not be attracted sexually to the subject in the photo can appreciate it as well, and for reasons that have nothing to do with sexual attraction <em>per se</em>.</p>

<p>Fred's comments on "sexual attraction" and "sexual component" come to mind here. See the post made at 1:05 a.m. on July 30. I do think that Fred is onto something with his distinction, although there is obviously much more that can be said by way of refining a theory of nudity in art as it relates to sexuality. I have no coherent theory on the subject, but I am not ashamed that I find the issue intellectually fascinating--and I always will. I am no prude, however, and so I will not deny that viewing the female form can and often does give me much pleasure on a number of different levels. That is so obvious and natural to me that I do not think that I should have to address the issue further, but, as I said near the outset of this thread, it seems that it is impossible to post either pictures (or links to pictures, which is morally equivalent to posting them oneself, I think) or comments on pictures without being thought (by some persons) to be some kind of sex fiend. No, I am simply a sexual being, and I like what I like in that regard, no apologies offered. Why, then, do I keep responding to the issue, or even bringing it back up? Because it's there. And it shows no sign of going away!</p>

<p>Many photographers of the nude seem in particular to be under constant siege as to their motives. This fact both disturbs and offends my own moral sensibilities--let such critics of the nude (artistic or otherwise) speak for themselves. I tire of the issue, but it keeps coming back over and over. Fortunately no blatant claims of such a nature have been made on this thread--even though many of the photos linked to in this thread are not something that one would want to introduce in Sunday school class, much less in the waspiest worship service. (Is waspy a word? Well, if it isn't, then it ought to be. I am not afraid of neologisms any more than I am afraid of nudes. One of my book titles [<em>Militerrorism</em>] was a neologism, or at least I think it was new. if not, then I at least came up with the word independently. It has proliferated on the web since I wrote the book, which proves nothing, of course. Nonetheless, I am not ashamed of the word. So there!)</p>

<p>In any case, I can in all honesty reaffirm that, although a component of the photograph's appeal for me is somehow related to my own sexuality , my pleasure in viewing the picture stops short of being about sexual attraction. This is certainly not always my response to the female form, clothed or otherwise, but as a straight male I can honestly say that it is and was the case when I view (and first viewed) this particular photograph. That is enough for me to establish that, in my own case at least, I really can and often do view the nude without the least sexual titillation or obvious sexual motivation. Doing so is not a precondition of viewing it as art, as Fred has affirmed numerous times (as I understand his position).</p>

<p>I should probably leave the issue alone, lest I be accused of protesting a bit too much, but I cannot. The same issue keeps coming around too often at the hands of those who would castigate all photographers and connoisseurs of the nude. I am not only tired of being so accused. I am even more tired of the ceaseless assaults upon photographers who actually do make and post nudes. They share the severest brunt of the Revenge of the Puritans, those misguided souls who know not their own nature. John Peri has spoken to me in private correspondence about the pain and trouble of trying to fend off such assaults. I am happy to count John among my friends, and I am happy to say as well that I like many of his photographs very much--especially some of the better ones in his "Backstage" folder. John, like I, probably posts too many photos and might do better at the hands of the critics if he posted only his very best, but that is another issue. I get the sense, however, that Peri does not worry about the critics. Good for him.</p>

<p>As for your own work, Owen, I have to say that it represents some of the most beautiful and original work that I have seen, and I am so glad that you came by to visit this forum. Whether or not the thread has run its course (as they all must), I cannot say, but it has been a fun ride.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>The "nature v. nurture" distinction has figured prominently in this thread and in others which I have either started or contributed to. I have rather consistently maintained that the source of most norms regarding the display of the body are founded not in human nature but in social convention (and typically explicit socialization).</p>

<p>Here is an article in yesterday's <em>The New York Times</em> that bears upon the "nature v. nurture" distinction. Thus, though it does not bear directly upon the issue of what makes a nude photo or painting into art, it seems germane to the conversation which we have been having:</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/world/asia/31herat.html?hp</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><strong>A CAUTION</strong></p>

<p>In spite of all of my liberal remarks above (if such they be), I have to say that viewing of nude photos (or even paintings) for the sake of explicit sexual stimulation makes me more than a bit uneasy. There is art and there is porn, and porn does not, for the record, agree with my soul. That is not a confession but a caution for those who might misconstrue the significance and implications of my remarks.</p>

<p>If so saying seems like a contradiction with what I have just posted, I can only say that a more careful rereading can surely resolve the problem. I will not further address the issue on this thread, nor in private e-mails. If one still has problems factoring out nudity and sexuality, in spite of my repeated attempts to clarify my own rather complex views on these matters, then there is little more than I can say. </p>

<p>Yes, of course, the nude form can be sexually stimulating. That is so obvious as not to require further elaboration. Even so, porn does exist, and it is NOT something that one wants to endorse--or at least is not something <em>I</em> want to endorse. I say this even though I firmly believe that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, what we call "pornography" comes from within and does not (with infrequent exceptions) inhere in the photo or painting itself.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[i'm not talking about Owen's photo. I'm riffing on his mention of Aquinas and Lannie's bringing up candidness. So I'm addressing candidness in general and not as it specifically relates to Owen's photo.]</p>

<p>When Aquinas says art is "making things reasonably well" (is there a context or citation for this quote?), my guess is "reasonably" is the key. With "<em>reason-</em>ably," he would be emphasizing <em>purpose</em>. I'm not sure about his aesthetics but his ethics were about goal-oriented action, action with a purpose, an end.</p>

<p>Candidness is neither honesty nor authenticity. Candidness may need purpose to become authentic or honest.</p>

<p>The difference between "mere" candidness and authenticity may be a key to photographic art or at least photographic significance.</p>

<p>In itself, candidness is not necessarily either authentic or honest, especially when captured in a photo. Often, candidness captured in a photo is simply gawking . . . purposeless.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Technique and craft.</p>

<p>Knowledge and craft were intertwined in Socratic thought. Socrates was not fond of idleness. Techné (technique, craft) was the practical and purposeful <em>application</em> of knowledge, it was knowledge combined with SKILL, such as what doctors and flute players and house builders do. CARE was an important part of techné and skill. Craft without care can be hollow. </p>

<p>Craft, skill, and care are significant aspects of art. I often wonder if the difference between a significant shot and a gawker shot is the SKILL of the photographer. Maybe a good photographer, whether in camera or with post processing, in some way crafts (skill, care) the photo, does not just take it.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>While I also think that the Aquinas quote needs to be put into the original context, if we just take the line as it stands, does it not refer to a multitude of things we do in life and which are products of our own specific abilities and the outcome of which cannot be predicted in a concise manner?</p>

<p>Art is a somewhat difficult term to pin down precisely and once you try to define it you are also putting up boundaries around it that may not be reasonable. A craftsman, like the timber-framer who will be making jupiter joints and other connections this week as he tries to save an old shed on my property, is practicing a type of art, just like the fellow down the road who is continually evolving his art of making folk-art like wooden and metal representations of birds and other animals, or his wife who makes woven art based on photographed images off nature. Reasonably well refers back to the abilities of the artist and the expectations of the viewer. I briefly looked at Owen's work and I think the term reasonably well (purposeful or not, for me that is not the most important or what I take from the Aquinas quote) applies to a number of his images. None strike me as being particularly candid (and need not be), even the image that Lannie mentioned. I am impressed by one or two amongst the many poses and compositions, which simply tells me that my appreciation is very subjective, but possibly also, if my analysis is of any value at all, that photographing the nude body (male or female) is an extremely demanding activity if the aim is to produce art.</p>

<p>I am sensitive to what I consider "mechanical" or "contrived" poses and find that in most work I have seen in this category of photography. Sometimes I feel that a certain degree of abstraction or blur or diffusion of high key or play of contrasts is necessary to enhance the power of the image, that can be a bit wooden when portrayed with perfect exposure and resolution. The interaction of the model and the photographer can be very sympathetic and yet the result may appear unrelaxed or the tensions, if important to the message, wrongly placed. I know this is not necessarily getting closer to what makes nude photography art, but it relates I think to some of the difficult problems in attaining that objective. I commend Lannie for bringing up this difficult subject and Owen for his purpose in attempting to do it "reasonably well" and better..</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Candidness is neither honesty nor authenticity. Candidness may need purpose to become authentic or honest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might be right, Fred. I had not thought about this issue as you have. I do think that the candid shot <em><strong>is</strong></em> honest in the most basic sense of being very often an honest or accurate representation of reality. That does not make it art in the traditional sense, of course, unless one considers documentary work to be inherently artistic. It is not, of course, although certain documentary shots can be done artistically--and have been done artistically. The relationship between honesty and art continues to elude me. I cannot quite figure it out, but I think that you are onto something essential about art. Your introduction of "purpose" does not to me clarify the issue between honesty and purpose. It <em>does</em> have immediate implications for me about art, however.</p>

<p>Rachmaninoff said that every piece of music should make a point. That is a very approximate quote, but it stays with me from decades back because I thought that the ending of his Symphony No. 2 (one of my favorites) exemplified his position very well. I presume that the same kind of logic can be applied to photographic art. Every photograph that purports to be art surely does have a purpose, a point. Even so, the purpose is in the photographer's head, not in the image. Thus I am still having difficulties.</p>

<p>Let me be clear: I do think that purpose is essential to something's being art. I do not think that it is essential to something's being honest--at least not in <em>all </em>possible senses of that term. Honesty is simply too vague a word with too many meanings for me to make it the defining attribute of art. Purpose might yet me essential, in my opinion, but, again, the purpose of the artist cannot always be known simply by viewing the finished work.</p>

<p>I made allusion to John Peri's work above. Since I am no fan of glamour photography, this might seem to be a curious statement. I confess that I have to look long and hard in the "Backstage" folder to find what I like <em>in terms of specific photos</em>, but, when I do find what I like there, I really like it. Is it because it is art? I do not look at John's work with the question "Is this art?" in mind.</p>

<p>John's larger purpose in making his photos is sometimes obscure to me. Since there often is no clear purpose in each individual shot besides what I believe to be his sheer joy in making them, I will make no claim for most of them as being artistic. The corpus of his work as a whole, however, gives a context that I find intriguing. I often look at the photos entranced by the level of trust and the sense of rapport between artist and model. That is not enough to make his work into art, but it is enough reason for me to be intrigued enough to look further.</p>

<p>Am I yet simply a "gawker" into the backstage scene? Well, it is my question, but it is a serious question that merits a serious response. The term "gawker" has such a negative connotation that I would prefer to use the word "spectator." What impels me to be a spectator in his parade of beautiful young women, many of whom have a body type which is not my preference? What impels me to view them when I do not care for glamour photography? I hate high heels in nudes, for example. I hate hose that come up to above the knee and stop, with the rest of the body being nude. I am not taken with "girls" whom I can only call "skinny." I am not taken by the "cute" outfits. About the only thing that draws me to his work in most cases--with some important exceptions--is indeed simply the level of trust and the sense of rapport between photographer and model (to which I have already alluded). When I view his portfolio, I view it as perhaps the amateur psychologist. Perhaps, for all I know, he has a similarly idiosyncratic reason for making the photos. He tells me that he simply enjoys the shoots. I believe him.</p>

<p>In any case, even the barrage of "glamorous" young women in "cute" outfits still can be a vehicle for communicating something about the artist-model relationship. Whether or not that is his express purpose, it is part of my reason, perhaps the great part of my purpose, for viewing.</p>

<p>Is John Peri's work "authentic"? Immediately the problems start with the use of that word in this context: authentic in what sense, in what context, for what person and his or her reason for making the shot? Since I cannot look inside John's or anyone else's head, I cannot say whether his work is authentic in and of itself.</p>

<p>In short, Fred, I am not sure that "honesty" or "authenticity" inhere in the image divorced from context and divorced from the photographer's purpose, which often (perhaps usually) cannot be known.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Even so, the purpose is in the photographer's head, not in the image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not so sure about that.</p>

<p>_________________________________</p>

<p>The nude is often used in photography precisely because the aim is art and the nude has a strong history in art. That can be done with an art historical consciousness and with great skill and vision, or it can just be used as an easy and unconvincing entré into art. It's not unlike the use of homeless people to elicit photographic pathos. On the most superficial of levels, homeless person equals care and naked body in black and white equals art. (Of course, it takes much more than that to achieve either care or art and that's why so much of both genres fails.)</p>

<p>The nude photo can also be used as an excuse to get subjects to take off their clothes. There's nothing at all wrong with that except if the photographer is in denial about it. (I'm NOT saying all photographers who shoot nudes do it for this purpose. In some cases, it has nothing to do with it. And in some cases, it's just a side benefit.) When I do it, I try to be aware of it and find I can be honest about it both with myself and with the subjects I tend to work with, who are also honest about their own exhibitionism at times. We don't tend to prettify it or to falsesly elevate ourselves by referring to it as art. Art is usually about other things besides art. Passion, for example. And it's aim is often something other than art. Through those aims, art emerges. For me, honesty about the variety of components to working with nudes, when and if those components are present, is an opportunity to be real. And I think it can be seen. In the photographs.</p>

<p>I don't see it in John Peri's work. They LOOK emotionally distant (though he might maintain that he is emotionally involved), mannequin-like, inhuman which, in itself could be an interesting approach if I sensed some self awareness of this. But I don't. To me, his nudes avoid the subject and the subjects. So, regardless of what's in his head, that becomes their purpose. I wonder if that's why you and so many others are so drawn to them. Because they keep the nudity and the women at arm's length. They are anything but intimate, except in the Victoria Secret sense of intimate. They are, however, skillfully rendered.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>A not-very-good snapper may have great intentions and take pictures of homeless people with the purpose of getting viewers to care and highlighting an ill of society. Despite that purpose, which is in the photographer's head, most of those kinds of photos wind up simply being exploitive. In that case the photo serves a purpose much different than the photographer's purpose. The purpose that shows in the photograph is NOT the purpose that was in the photographer's head. To get the purpose the photograph serves, you DON'T have to see into the mind of the photographer. You have to look at the photo, and often the context of the photo (body of work, etc.)</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Gentlemen, do continue your intensive personal dialogue. Interesting. Good luck.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Even so, the purpose is in the photographer's head, not in the image. --LK</p>

<p>I'm not so sure about that. --FG</p>

<p>The purpose that shows in the photograph is NOT the purpose that was in the photographer's head. To get the purpose the photograph serves, you DON'T have to see into the mind of the photographer. You have to look at the photo, and often the context of the photo (body of work, etc.) --FG</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I believe that only sentient beings can have purposes, and therefore I am not sure that inanimate objects such as photos can be said to have purposes apart from the purposes of those who created them, or of those who expropriated them for their own purposes or uses. I admit that this latter category could include viewers.</p>

<p>Lest I be misunderstood, I am simply saying that the purpose cannot inhere in the photograph itself. I thought that your introduction of "purpose" had something to do with some purpose <em>qua </em>point being a precondition for a work's being considered a work of art. I am sorry if I am not understanding you.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I am reminded of <em>The Gods Must Be Crazy. . . .</em></p>

<p>What is the purpose of a Coke bottle, after all<em>?<br /></em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>To get the purpose the photograph serves, you DON'T have to see into the mind of the photographer. You have to look at the photo, and often the context of the photo (body of work, etc.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I would submit to you that, if I am looking at a photo in the context of a photographer's <em>oeuvre</em>, then I am in some sense looking into her head,<em> i.e</em>., trying to understand her and her work--and thereby quite possibly her purpose.</p>

<p>Perhaps we are simply talking past each other.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I thought that your introduction of "purpose" had something to do with some purpose qua <em>point</em> being a precondition for a work's being considered a work of art. I am sorry if I am not understanding you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please don't be sorry. It's a good discussion.</p>

<p>When I talk of something being a <em>key</em>, I'm not talking about it being a precondition. I'm talking about it being worthwhile considering it when thinking about art. I think fakery and artificiality are every bit a key to art as honesty. They're all worth thinking about relative to photographs and art.</p>

<p>I introduced "purpose" relative to candidness, not art (though I think it's worthwhile considering it relative to art as well), in order to explore whether <em>photographic</em> candidness without purpose was honest. I understand that there is a level of honesty in candidness. We see someone acting candidly on the street and assume a level of honesty. But there are problems with a candid photograph necessarily being the kind of honesty I really care about.</p>

<p>We might catch a politician being candid on the street. He's acting like himself, not posing for the camera, not aware that anyone is watching. If I take a picture of him, the picture might portray him very innocently, maybe just walking along benignly minding his own business. But if I wanted the photo to portray him honestly, it might need to show him for the swine he is (if that's the case). So my candid photograph could (since honesty has so many layers) actually be somewhat dishonest, at least on any significant level beyond catching him doing what he's actually doing at the moment. Are candid pictures of Nixon smiling and playing with Checkers honest? Well . . . yes . . . and no. It's why I always laugh when people who don't know any better talk about portraits needing to be candid to be honest. Sometimes, a lot of thought and setup needs to be done in order to get to a significant level of honesty in a portrait.</p>

<p>Candid pictures of homeless people SEEM honest, in that superficial sense of Nixon delightfully playing with his dog. But the kind of honesty that might be of more significance and consequence might be the kind of honesty that needs some engagement so as to be sure not to be showing something candid but misleading. Sure, the candid photo of a homeless person sleeping in the doorway under the blanket wrings our sympathy and pathos bells. But the kind of honesty I appreciate may require more knowledge which might only come from a kind of engagement.</p>

<p>You talk about documentary. Think of the photographers of the previous century like Dorothea Lange, who worked for the FSA and lived their photos. They didn't just snap candids. When I look at their photos, the honesty doesn't come through candidness alone. It comes through in the perspective and engagement. You don't have to interrupt someone or get their attention to form a photographic engagement with them. It can be done by knowing how to handle a camera, how to edit, how to sequence, and how to process. So, you can shoot candidly, without them knowing, but still engage them photographically and with purpose and get something more honest than just the candidness would get.</p>

<p>And you can, of course, get meaningful honesty without candidness. Lange, talking about <em>Migrant Mother</em>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I saw and approached the hungry and desperate mother, as if drawn by a magnet. I do not remember how I explained my presence or my camera to her, but I do remember she asked me no questions. I made five exposures, working closer and closer from the same direction. I did not ask her name or her history. She told me her age, that she was thirty-two. She said that they had been living on frozen vegetables from the surrounding fields, and birds that the children killed. She had just sold the tires from her car to buy food. There she sat in that lean-to tent with her children huddled around her, and seemed to know that my pictures might help her, and so she helped me. <strong>There was a sort of equality about it. </strong>[my emphasis]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a kind of honesty well beyond candidness.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>That was a very good post, Fred. I don't think that there is a line in it that I would disagree with.</p>

<p>Thank you for taking the time to clarify. I know that you have thought about these issues much longer than I have, in spite of my age, and I do not always know the larger context within which you use certain words or have used them in the past. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I can't speak for anyone else, but sometimes I'm impressed by the form and fitness (or lack thereof) of the model(s). Sometimes I find the composition interesting as when bodies are intertwined in interesting ways. Sometimes there's some element of texture that adds to the effect such as light passing through Venetian blinds onto a nude body (a <em>cliché</em>, but you get the point).</p>

<p>What makes a nude a work or art? Good luck answering that one.</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>This debate goes on since the dawn of humanity, or at least art as we know it. For me, the artistic nude is that particular image that has been thought of and completed in the purpose of glorifying the human body as a work of art in itself, not an image done to turn someone on. I don't get aroused by an artistic nude, I just sit there gasping at the composition, light, curves. If anything, I get aroused by the artist's vision and talent of transforming something we all see in something never been seen.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>To get back to the tail end of the original question: "...[W]hat makes the nude into a work of art? What, that is, makes this or that nude worth viewing among the many thousands of nudes that really are not worth viewing at all?"</p>

<p>What can be said for a nude photo can be said for a landscape, pet, baby, flower or wedding photograph. There are not thousands but millions of those kinds of photographs floating around--more than nude photographs, I am sure. All are works of art in the widest sense of the definition. Not all are good. Most are probably awful or only okay. There is likewise a lot of bad and so-so nude photographs. But they too under the widest definition are works of art.</p>

<p>So the question is what makes a nude photograph a good work of art? The same criteria that makes anything a work of art. There is, of course, a strong prejudice against nudity among many people. But that is irrelevant to question. No amount of artistic excellence will change a prude's mind.</p>

<p>The most important thing is that a good nude photograph, like any other good photograph, does not exploit the obvious.</p>

[leigh_youdale]

<p>This is starting to look like a fishing expedition where Landrum Kelly can display his fine philosophical thinking in response to other's postings. I think he said in his original posting that he didn't want to generate a marathon thread as in previous years - but that's exactly what has happened. Maybe it's an annual outing.</p>

[m_m7]

<p>Can you please post one of your nude pictures ?If you don't have one than maybe first try to find someone to pose for you and then come back here.Sure,someone can talk a lot about something he never tried or doesn't know but I think it is kind of irrelevant.Otherwise it looks like the "reviews" of the Ferrari on Yahoo Autos made by people who admit they never drove one.Cheers</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>This is starting to look like a fishing expedition where Landrum Kelly can display his fine philosophical thinking in response to others' postings. I think he said in his original posting that he didn't want to generate a marathon thread as in previous years - but that's exactly what has happened. Maybe it's an annual outing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Leigh, the thread in 2009 was active from May 11 to June 6 (26 days), and the thread in 2010 went from April 20 to May 13 (23 days). Until you posted, this thread had virtually ended last night after almost exactly five (5) days by comparison.</p>

<p>The mere fact that the previous threads were very long, however, was less significant than the fact that the philosophical exchanges often degenerated into personal attacks involving speculations as to persons' motives (usually mine!) for addressing such issues in the first place. Such personal attacks involved, that is, <em>ad hominem</em> attacks from time to time, and it is the nature of <em>ad hominem</em> attacks that they involve attacks against persons (or their motives or morals) rather than being rational arguments that address the issues themselves.</p>

<p>I do not mind long discussions as long as they are not characterized by personal attacks. (The exchange over "What is justice?" raised by Socrates in Plato's <em>Republic</em> started over two thousand years ago is still going strong in many publications in print and now on the web. I even put my own footnote to that discussion on the web several years ago. It was a chapter in a book of mine that was published in 1994. I have not published anything on that topic since, but, needless to say, many others have continued to do so. That issue ("What is justice?") will almost certainly never be settled, and I strongly doubt that the "art v. pornography" debate will ever be settled (and that is ultimately the larger issue that has been behind all of these threads about nude photography as art).</p>

<p>The present thread has been almost totally free of personal attacks or innuendo as to my motives. The exchanges between Fred Goldsmith ("Fred G.") and myself have been remarkably civil, even if they have involved fine discussions over definitions. I like such discussions, and so does Harvard-educated Fred. It is always a pleasure to lock intellectual horns with Fred, and I was disappointed that the moderator closed the discussion between us in 2009 after only twenty-six days. I thought that this thread was going to go down when Fred and I started diverging over persons' motives for viewing John Peri's photographs, but we recovered from that and finished strong, I thought. Since John and I are long-standing "e-mail pals" over these and related issues, I do not want John's own motives to be impugned--nor Fred's nor mine nor those of anyone else. In fact, for many years John Peri has told me of the sometimes horrible verbal attacks that he has received claiming that his work is pornography. When I linked to a Peri photograph early in "The Power and the Glory" in 2009 (the first of these "annual outings"), I was jumped immediately because of disputes over his photos. Fred has no doubt also come under assault for posting nudes from time to time. Fred and I agreed long ago to channel our e-mail exchanges into discussions on this forum, and I think that the remarkable energy of these exchanges has resulted in part from that decision. John Peri and I have continued to interact by private e-mails rather than on Photo.net, however, because we are both a bit gun-shy when it comes to the ceaseless tirades about claims of "pornography" that have too often marred the photo discussion forums on John's pictures. In many cases, John has been forced to delete some of his own pictures to get rid of some of the more hostile postings. He has always reposted, however, to the best of my knowledge, after the hullabaloo over some of his pictures has gone away.</p>

<p>As a near absolutist on the First Amendment right of freedom of expression, I have always felt the obligation to return to the fray sooner or later.</p>

<p>So, Leigh, if you are wondering why I continue to post on such matters in spite of the sometimes personal attacks that result from posting either nude photos or comments on nude photos or related issues, that (belief that I must defend freedom of expression on controversial issues) is the real reason. I am puzzled that you would characterize my posts as "fishing expeditions." (What would I be fishing for except the rational opinions of others?) As to whether or not I want to show off my "fine philosophical thinking" (as you say), I can assure you that, if that were my motive, I would choose a safer topic than issues relating to art, nudity and pornography.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Can you please post one of your nude pictures ?If you don't have one than maybe first try to find someone to pose for you and then come back here.Sure,someone can talk a lot about something he never tried or doesn't know but I think it is kind of irrelevant.Otherwise it looks like the "reviews" of the Ferrari on Yahoo Autos made by people who admit they never drove one.Cheers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>MM, why should I post a picture of myself nude??!! Oh, wait, I see that I misread.</p>

<p>Well, MM, I do not actually do nude photography. Perhaps when I am eighty. . . (I am still a youngster of sixty-six years and still a bit shy about asking a woman to actually undress for me. It does sound fascinating, though. Perhaps I shall have to try it.)</p>

<p>I will certainly consider doing and posting figure studies if you will post a single photo--OF ANYTHING!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>