What makes the nude into a work of art?

[charles_h2]

<p>Thank you Lannie:</p>

<p>The biggest drawback to questions like these, is there's so much to say, and the computer isn't the best way to convey context. This is face to face stuff over beer, wine, etc. Just like art, sometimes you have to be there to truly see what's being communicated, otherwise you're just assuming. Or better yet, knowing the artist gives you a better perspective on what they're trying to communicate.... </p>

[dd_toth]

<p>Some nude photography on here just makes me shake my head and feel bad for the model. But then some take my breath away and have me mesmerized. To me the difference is where one makes me feel awkward because it has the model in this sleazy pose where it clearly is about sexuality, that borders on pornographic. Where the other, I'm attracted to the form of the body, as it emphasizes the beauty of it not the sexual nature of it. I think a lot of the times, the breathtaking ones, the lighting is done very well too. There are some ones I have seen where it's almost there but not quite because of technical aspect of how it was shot.</p>

<p>The one you chose as an example, has more intrigue as it asks questions rather then being bluntly put in front of you. You see the environment, her posture, the mood it's creating. It creates a conversation, not just look at my breasts or vagina. I also think posing does play a role in it as well. And yes there is definitely blatantly sexual poses, even though they may argue it's about the beauty of the model. I think when it's art there isn't any sexual undertone.</p>

<p>To me when it's artistic I call them nudes because it's about the nude form. When it's not artistic I have a hard time calling it a nude as it's more just a naked woman/man. There is nothing artistic about it, they're just naked.</p>

<p>And when I think of it another question arises, is it just male photographers that produce the "naked" shots....Of course there are male photographers that produce breathtaking artistic nudes as well. There are some amazing ones on this site. But when I come to think of it, I don't think I have come across any female photographers that produce "naked" shots. I'm sure there is out there but I don't browse nude portfolios that often because most of it on here tends to not be artistic driven, so I tend not to seek out nude photographs. I'm not trying to be sexist or anything, but it just got me thinking...I think women have the ability to put aside sexual desire and can focus on the beauty and not involve sexuality. I'm also not saying artistic nudes have no sexuality in them either. I think it's a given since we are viewing the human body at it's purest form. But sexuality tends to be on the bottom of the list as to what attracted you to the image when it comes to artistic nudes. It's just not the first thing you see.</p>

<p>Anyways I have thought about this a lot and have thought about making a post about it too. I think this is the best description for me and what I feel defines an artistic nude compared to a naked photo.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I think when it's art there isn't any sexual undertone. --D.D. Toth</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, D.D., that issue has been at or near the center of this discussion so far. Many strongly disagree with your position, of course, and without that tension and disagreement I do not think that the thread would have taken off as it has.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When it's not artistic I have a hard time calling it a nude as it's more just a naked woman/man. There is nothing artistic about it, they're just naked.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have heard many people say that, DD. Last summer in a comparable forum, a related question was raised: "Why does the photographic nude vary so greatly in its impact on us? More specifically, why do some <em>nudes </em>appear more <em>naked</em> than others?"<br>

<br /> http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00WHuX<br>

<br /> The idea for the question came from my stumbling upn a nude in which there was no display of genitalia, breasts, or buttocks, yet in which the model somehow looked naked. The implicit question was whether the resulting shot still struck one as art or not. I argued that it did (which possibly challenges your point of view, since you have strongly counterpoised the naked v. the nude), but some argued against the photo's artistic merit without yet going so far as to call it pornography. Here is the photo that set off that discussion:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8937273&size=md</p>

<p>I never did ask the photographer, Jim Phelps, whether he used the title "Deep Thought" as a challenge to the obviously pornographic (so I am told) movie <em>Deep Throat</em>. Was Jim, that is, implying that the degree of thought provoked by a shot redeems it from being pornography? I do not think that I ever asked, nor did I even ask whether the title was intended to convey anything at all in particular.</p>

<p>The question raised in last summer's thread is relevant to your stance, D.D., since it was obvious that Jim's model was naked--but it was <em>not</em> obvious to me, at least, that the power of the picture was solely about her nakedness. I still felt that it had substantial artistic content. Not everyone agreed with me that it was an artistic photo, of course, but at least the discussion allowed for a pretty thorough airing of the "naked" v. "nude" distinction.</p>

<p>Thank you for raising that issue again, D.D. We could perhaps refine it or modify that issue for this year's thread and ask, "Does the sense of nakedness detract from the artistic impact of the photo?"</p>

<p>The question for this year's thread has not changed, of course: "What is the essential difference between the nude as a piece of trash and the nude as a work of art?"</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Just for the record and in case anyone is interested in the history of these long threads abuot nude photography, in the summer of 2009 the thread that went so long on a related topic was this one:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00TK0V</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dd_toth]

<p>One thing that the photo link brought up for me is that it isn't nude photography. Whats weird is that now that Boudoir photography has become more popular, as well as the direction that photographers are taking with fashion and glamour photography, I see those kinds of photography to be different from one another.</p>

<p>I shoot boudoir photography and to me that photo seems more boudoir with a touch of fashion to it. When people ask me about my boudoir photography there is a distinction bewteen boudoir and artistic nudes. It's not the same thing to me. Boudoir is more about who the person is, implication, less is more, emotion, sensuality, involving bedroom settings, lingerie, props, etc...That shot seems more fashion/boudoir to me because of the sunglasses, make up center, and the attitude she is putting off in the look she is giving, but still partially covered up not revealing everything. I wouldn't even consider that a "naked" photo. Those are blatantly sexual and force you to look at them. They're in your face and tend to not have any emotion behind them either. You look at it and the first thing you see is their genitalia. Where you open up the photo and it's like "Whoa, Penis!" You don't see the person or get any sense of sensuality. It's just a photo of a naked person.</p>

<p>Artistic nudes tend to be more about body/form/lines/lighting etc...Not too often do I see an artistic nude where the subject is giving a sassy look. In fact I don't even know if artistic nudes have any sense of who the person is in it. It's just about the body form. To me there is a difference with boudoir, so it has it's own category and doesn't really fit into the artistic nudes.</p>

<p>It also got me thinking that there really is even a difference between nude photography("Nudes"), artistic nudes, and the "naked" photos that are borderline pornographic. The original photo you posted I would probably put into the nude photography category because it's not really an artistic nude, it's not solely about the body and it's beauty. The environment she is put in as well as her pose tells a story and evokes a response from the viewer, rather then just admiring/photographing the beauty of the human body, as I believe is what artistic nudes do. Maybe because I'm an artist as well, that is why I view it that way. When we paint artistic nudes it's about the body, not about the person or environment...Something else to think about...Yup, I think Nudes, and Artistic Nudes are separate from one another. As is Boudoir, and Pornography.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>redeems it from being pornography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Listen carefully . . .</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Categorize. . . .</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/12904172</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/10123263</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/13882943</p>

<p>Or is a given work sometimes irredeemable?</p>

<p>The question reminds me of discussions in the sixties or seventies as to whether the plots of certain movies were merely thinly-veiled attempts to prevent them from being judged as having "no redeeming social value," in the words of one Supreme Court decision involving claims of "obscenity."</p>

<p>Fred, the inclusion of the link to one of your photos should not be thought to imply a judgment on my part--simply a recognition that certain photos are more controversial than others because they are contrary to prevailing norms or "contemporary community standards." (<em>Miller v. California</em> 1973)</p>

<p>The public discussion has typically proceeded on two levels, that of the moral versus that of the legal. By introducing the realm of the (a)esthetic as a presumed independent third standard, are we thereby free of the other two types of judgments?</p>

<p>More to the point, <strong><em>to what extent do our moral judgments inform our aesthetic judgments?</em></strong></p>

<p>Perhaps that should be the title of a separate thread, although it would seem to be germane to this discussion as well, since words of approbation ("art") and disapprobation ("porn") so often seem to mask ethical judgments of the worth of a work.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Since I have made reference to the Miller case above, here is a link to it for anyone who might be interested:</p>

<p>http://supreme.justia.com/us/413/15/case.html</p>

<p>I want to point out that my reference to legal decisions is for me admittedly tangential to this thread. Whether the law leads or follows where community standards are involved, neither the law nor the moral judgment of the community gives any guidance whatsoever into either the ethical or the (a)esthetic value of a work, in my opinion.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>While I am on the subject of the law (again, admittedly tangential to this thread), the standard for obscenity prior to the Miller case was <em>Roth v. United States</em> 1957.</p>

<p>The case is noteworthy in more ways than one, but two phrases in particular have always stood out for me: "patently offensive" and "without redeeming social value."</p>

<p>As I said, this case was superseded by the even more conservative Miller case, which, by appealing to "community standards," could make artists at risk in one jurisdiction but not in another. The Supreme Court thereby seemed to give up on a general or national standard for adjudging the legality of certain works of art.</p>

<p>The problem with the Roth case, on the other hand, was obvious enough: "patently offensive" to whom? "without redeeming social value," in whose opinion? The subsequent Miller case did not resolve these issues, simply shifted the burden of judgment back to the states and localities.</p>

<p>For the record, my own opinion regarding the law's judgments on such matters is that a given legal dictum is simply another another anthropological datum. It has no independent moral force for me, much less any aesthetic force.</p>

<p>The question as to what is "art" or "trash"(or "porn") remains, simplistic though it may be.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is the link to the Roth case:</p>

<p>http://supreme.justia.com/us/354/476/</p>

<p>The link to the Miller case which superseded it is above.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>simply a recognition that certain photos are more controversial than others because they are contrary to prevailing norms or "community standards."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>May be time to get beyond that stage and start looking at and feeling the photos themselves. Looking at photos from the standpoint of "prevailing norms" won't do much help to allow you to see what's there. It's a very restricted view, IMO.</p>

<p>SF MOMA is currently showing an exhibit of Leo and Gertrude Stein's collection. It was interesting seeing the paintings of Matisse, Picasso, Gris, et al within the context of the appreciators who helped support and introduce their work. Leo said this of Matisse's <em><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Matisse-Woman-with-a-Hat.jpg">Woman With a Hat</a>:</em></p>

<p>"[it is] a thing brilliant and powerful, but the nastiest smear of paint I have ever seen."</p>

<p>The first point is to help undermine your art/trash (in this case, nasty) dichotomy. It's not just a simple way to begin the discussion. It's false. Leo understood that art and nastiness could be bedfellows, and I understand that nastiness is transitory. What was nasty in 1904 was no longer nasty by 1908.</p>

<p>The second point is to suggest that, at one point, people missed the relevance and depth of Matisse because they were busy worrying about the controversy and his supposed flouting of prevailing norms. Leo and Gertrude Stein, on the other hand, were looking. And Matisse was painting as he saw. His goal was something more than to shock the world by defying prevailing norms. Now that the world has come past that limited assessment of his work, we look at the painting itself and allow ourselves to SEE it and to FEEL it.</p>

<p>If you keep seeing vaginas and penises as "controversial," will you ever allow yourself actually to see them and go beyond them to what may be a deeper view or message in photos that may contain them?</p>

<p>I have no clue why you posted the two Peri photos and mine in your last post. You're flinging vaginas and penises at us as if they were bullets. Please, what's your point? Do you see anything more than controversy in them? If we were adolescents, I could see getting hung up on them. As adult photographers, I'm hoping for more.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, Fred, just because I compared your work and Peri's in the same post is no reason to get so emotional.</p>

<p>I am quite aware that the fact that something is controversial is no judgment as to its worth on any level, whether aesthetic or moral. I just said so--more than once.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Who will photograph the photographers?</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/12877395&size=lg</p>

<p>We judge in many ways, Fred, but nothing that I have said was intended to be a judgment of you or your work.</p>

<p>Methinks thou dost protest a bit too much.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Julie H]

<p>You post links to three totally uncontroversial nudes and then talk about legal definitions of pornography ... it's just bizaare. Fred's reaction and questions make perfect sense to me.</p>

<p>Link to what I find to be interesting nudes, to get off this weird tangent:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.chanchao.net/portfolio/echo/images_echo.html#1">http://www.chanchao.net/portfolio/echo/images_echo.html#1</a></p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thanks, Julie.</p>

<p>Lannie, my questions were quite genuine. You haven't attempted to consider or respond to those questions. You seem to want to toss about vaginas, penises, pornography, art, legality, and not to want to look at, talk about, and feel the photographs beyond that. I don't know what you think I'm protesting too much against. I'm simply trying to move this discussion past puberty.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>The Chan Chao link is great, Julie.</p>

<p>One never knows what is going to be controversial. Some photos--and some posts--are "patently offensive" and "without redeeming social value"--to some persons.</p>

<p>I am not here to hurt feelings, simply to keep the philosophical conversation alive in what I think is a civilized, non-judgmental, and non-threatening way.</p>

<p>People bring to their reading and to their viewing much more about themselves than they know. I am not responsible for that--or for their reactions.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm simply trying to move this discussion past puberty.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I thought that you were above <em>ad hominem</em> arguments. Physician, heal thyself.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>I'm paying absolutely no attention to the debate. Looking at the proffered image link, I was impressed by the classic style of the photographer. Browsing through his gallery showed many more nudes that were intrinsic elements of the whole image--rather dispassionately, in fact. While a few might have been of prurient interest to an 11-year-old, a goodly number were truly artful.</p>

<p>It is my opinion that it is as difficult to produce an artful nude by way of photography as by any other method--just a bit quicker, however.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>My arguments are the things you haven't been addressing. My comment about puberty is an observation, not an argument. It's meant somewhat as an attack, to be honest, but definitely not an argument. It's meant to attack the way you approach this subject. That's my moral, philosophical, and aesthetic judgment for you in a nutshell.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>It is my opinion that it is as difficult to produce an artful nude by way of photography as by any other method--just a bit quicker, however.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I like that, Charles. It seems that there are far too many persons who think that the forms represented and interpreted through photography are somehow aesthetically inferior to those done with oil and a canvas--and, as you say, simply because photography can be much easier and quicker than painting.</p>

<p>There is yet that group that thinks that the graphic nature of the photograph, with its capacity to reproduce in explicit detail, somehow debases the subject. I have never thought so.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>From my early film days--when I really didn't know what I was doing</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it is a truly beautiful and evocative photo, Charles. I would not want anything more in a photo by anyone, at any stage of artistic development or maturity, but then I have always been partial to the "nude in nature" sub-genre, even if some consider it to be a cliché. (No one ever explained that last claim to me, although I have heard it more than once.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Thanks for the Chan Chao link, Julie. I had seen the Burma pics exhi9bited, but never gone to the site and seen the others. The nudes <em>are</em> interesting. In the same deadpan vein as his portraits, they come across to me as serene, open, without shame (even those that are shy), with apparent references to art history, and (don't laugh) they make me feel exposed also.</p>

<p>Count me in among those who think there's a lot of self-repression and ensuing distortions in this thread, right from the OP, which is why I've mostly lurked.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Not of any particular relevance to this thread, but I ran into this nude/art event online yesterday:</p>

<p>http://hyperallergic.com/31223/50-people-get-naked-for-art-on-wall-street-3-get-arrested/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+hyperallergic+%28Hyperallergic%29</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Speculations about my motives are interesting in a perverse sort of way, but are way off target in this case. Such speculations invariably have a way of getting personal, even though persons say that they are not getting personal. The personal (<em>ad hominem</em>) attacks tend to drive many persons from this forum, and they have no place in philosophy or photography. They discourage me from posting on a regular basis. </p>

<p>I have attacked no one, especially not Fred. Nor have I thrown penises and vaginas at anyone. The only link to a photo involving a penis was to Fred's photo, and there have been no links by anyone to vaginas on this entire thread. I have done my best to make this thread free of sensationalism. If a vulva or two has peeked out, I hope that no one's tender sensibilities have been hurt too much.</p>

<p>The reason for counterpoising Fred to John Peri was simply that the two photographers could not be more different. That's it. No hidden agenda. Anyone viewing could thereby address the issue of whose body of work is the more artistic. I did indeed choose the one I did by Fred because it was bold enough to leave itself open to attacks from the public and therefore would attract or provoke controversy, which in my mind is not a bad thing at all. I am often accused of being a controversialist, especially in the academic setting. My political views are radical, and the fact is that I do not have to try to be controversial. I simply say what is on my mind, and that usually suffices to provoke controversy, here and in every part of my life. That fact does not rattle me, although sometimes I tire of the simple-minded madness that lies behind it. I have not deliberately tried to provoke controversy here on this forum. The issues are still controversial enough in the larger society without any help from me. In an earlier era, Fred's photo would likely have been attacked as obscene or pornographic. There are yet many who would so adjudge it today, but we do not evaluate art by plebiscite. It is not Fred's best work, in my opinion, but that is neither here nor there. It is yet art. It is not pretty. It is yet art. It is not even wholesome, in my opinion (for what that's worth). It is yet art. Peri's work? Peri has not said too much about art, but he has had to defend himself from many zealots against the charge of posting pornography. I can imagine that the very same zealots would have a field day with Fred's photo. I thought that a brief look at the two side by side could be interesting, since both men's photos have generated controversy--even though their bodies of work are very different.</p>

<p>I have tried to patiently explain that, yes, the original post by me contained an oversimplification, but I also tried to explain that questions often start that way by some necessity. (See my earlier post on that matter if you are interested.) I anticipated problems by counterpoising "art" to "trash"--but there is trash and there is trash, and some nudes are trash, and not necessarily because they are offensive in some way. They are simply no good. I let the ambiguity in the word "trash" stand. I did not want to lock the discussion into one or another avenue. Let it flow as it would, I said to myself.</p>

<p>Let me say one thing to all of you sunshine posters: this is hazardous duty, and I invite you to try posting threads which are as direct as mine have been on such topics. I know and knew before I started that I would likely come in for the same nonsense that invariably comes when these issues are broached. I think that it was Anthony Flew who said that one cannot frame a philosophical issue in such a way as to make oneself invulnerable. I agree, and so I have not tried to be invulnerable. </p>

<p>There is a tendency for these threads, the longer they go, to become more and more about the poster than about the topic. That is regrettable but unavoidable. I knew the risks. I would do it again. It is not easy, but it is not terrible, either. The cacophony reminds me of the bitchiness of faculty meetings. I am always glad to get back to real work. I cannot try to rebut every claim, but let me say this much:</p>

<p>I went off on the legal tangent only as it relates to controversy, and I addressed controversy because controversy has been at the heart of public discussions of art, obscenity, pornography, etc. The legal realm has actually come down on the side of the view that there is art that might be offensive while yet having redeeming artistic and social value--and which therefore should be adjudged as being protected by the First Amendment. I did not want to go into detail in comparing the Roth and Miller cases. I yet thought that a passing reference to them might be an interesting footnote for some, and so I went to the trouble of tracking down the links, especially for those who have not witnessed the way that the courts have arrived at the current view, and who have no idea how to find such material on their own. I could have linked to issues involving attempts to censor since the rise of the internet, but that was even further afield, and so I let it go.</p>

<p>I could go on in this vein, but at some point one goes ahead with one's posts and invites others to do the same. No one has an obligation to respond to my posts, and I do not have an obligation to respond to theirs. My view is that, when things get crazy, I should try to remember what the original point was.</p>

<p>Oh, yes, it had something to do with what makes for great art. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I am quite aware that the fact that something is controversial is no judgment as to its worth on any level, whether aesthetic or moral. I just said so--more than once.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lannie, what I (and a few others) are trying to tell you is that nude photographs are not inherently controversial. Your assumption that posting the nudes of John Peri and me is looking at something controversial is just that, an assumption. It is controversial in your head. As you said:</p>

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>People bring to their reading and to their viewing much more about themselves than they know. I am not responsible for that--or for their reactions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And should it be fair game, then, to look into that, since you bring it up, or will that get deflected with the usual claims of "ad hominem"? Presumably, you are responsible for your reactions as well. It is in YOUR mind that there is controversy in those three photos. At some point, after several threads over several years, you will have to start to take responsibility for the way YOU see these nudes and not try to escape that responsibility by claiming it is something about the nude photograph, something somehow related to Kant, pornography, trash, or a fabricated academic discussion punctuated by titillating photos of naked girls and boys accompanied by defensive claims that "art" must be beyond such titillation.</p>