Nude photography and arousal.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Andrew (and John A), I ask men to whom I'm not attracted to pose for me all the time, some stay dressed, some not. Often, I meet them over the Internet (and don't ask for a picture in advance), sometimes I photograph friends, sometimes friends of friends, sometimes people I meet on the street. I'm pretty much happy to photograph anyone who's interested, for a variety of reasons. I want to photograph all kinds of guys. What I find sexually attractive and what I find photographically compelling can be two very different things and can also sometimes converge. (And what may not at first seem visually compelling to me can be a challenge. I can create visual interest as can certain conditions.) Also, even when photographing guys I'm not sexually attracted to, sexual energy can come up and be used.</p>

<p>I've actually found that photographing men has affected to whom, why, and how I'm attracted much more than attraction has influenced who I photograph. I've been particularly interested in exploring middle-aged (and above) guys and the beauty (and sexuality) both within and on the surface is being revealed to me as I do.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Glad to hear it, Fred. :-) John's question somehow managed to shake my confidence in the artistic integrity of my fellow photographers. Which isn't to say that sexuality is harmful, that it shouldn't be explored in photography, and that there's necessarily anything wrong with arousal (in this context or otherwise) - I just didn't like the implication that the beauty of the subject might be a major factor for the majority of photographers. Perhaps I should learn to accept some shallowness less judgementally.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>I don't know that it's shallow to photograph pretty people, but I expect it's easier to get pretty people to pose. Attractive people know they look good and usually have good self-image and are confident. Less attractive people often have poor self-image, and I'd expect it to be harder to get them into the studio.</p>

<p>As far as the photographer choosing attractive subjects, I'm not at all surprised. I notice that more photogs choose to shoot pretty landscapes instead of the town dump.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>"Shallowness" was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but well said, Doug - and I suspect you're right on the confidence issue. Short of deliberately asking someone who is not (unusually, conventionally) attractive in front of a more (unusually, conventionally) attractive friend, which is a bit psychologically devious, I'm not sure of the solution to that. Perhaps having a portfolio would help - the traditional problem for someone who's stuck to landscapes and wildlife so far.<br />

<br />

I think I'd justify myself by saying I'd shoot a pretty landscape if I'd discovered the angle to make it look good, the timing to get the light right, the framing to draw the eye correctly. I'd have put some input into making it look pretty. I'm not saying that the photographer's art is irrelevant in making someone look beautiful in a photograph, just that if the person was already unusually attractive, I'd want to be sure that I found some way to contribute beyond merely reflecting their beauty. I guess it's the difference between photographing a landscape and photographing someone's garden. I never feel right taking more than a snapshot of a building, because I feel any interesting features are the work of the architect, not what my viewpoint makes of them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I don't find it usually shallow or deep to photograph a particular subject or kind of subject. Most often, subjects are photographed shallowly or deeply.</p>

<p>Analogizing less attractive people with town dumps, Doug, was probably not an intentional slight, but it sounds that way and I feel like it needs to be addressed. There is an internal foulness about dumps (they contain garbage) that is not present in the people we are not attracted to. Photographing is about the <em>photographed</em> subject as much as it is about the subject. So even a foul dump can make a compelling photo, as I'm sure you know.</p>

<p>I'm not into photography in order to make "attractive" photos. I want to express myself and show something. There's ugliness in the world and in my head. There are all different kinds of things and people to look at and explore. All that gets mixed into my photographs. I don't necessarily <em>like</em> all the photographs that I appreciate. It goes beyond attraction and liking. Also, I'm even uncomfortable with dividing people up into pretty and not pretty. I see it in terms of my own taste, biases, and prejudices rather than being about the people themselves.</p>

<p>Photographing people who are considered pretty by mainstream and particularly Madison Avenue standards, for me, is a challenge. They are often quite generic and kind of white-bread looking. (Think Abercrombie and Fitch catalogs.) Finding character or something of photographic interest requires something of both the photographer and the subject. Otherwise, you just get a pretty picture, which are a dime a dozen.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I don't find it usually shallow or deep to photograph a particular subject or kind of subject. Most often, subjects are photographed shallowly or deeply.</blockquote>

 

<p>To an extent, I was teasing. Does it show a lack of emotional depth to choose to photograph only attractive people, only because you think they're attractive, beyond other concerns for creating a compelling image? (As distinct from photographing only attractive people with the aim of making a statement about society's obsession with conventional beauty, perhaps...) One can take an image of an attractive person that has deep emotional or psychological components, as with anyone else. One can also use a great deal of skill in taking an image of someone who is considered attractive (by you or others) and make them look more so without a deeper intent.<br />

<br />

Is there anything wrong with satisfying the primal drive to look at, and take, a picture of someone attractive? No. Is there anything wrong with <i>only</i> satisfying this urge, and failing to develop a deeper understanding of your potential subjects and the images that they can contribute to? Probably not (so long as the model doesn't object to this, for want of a better word, dehumanisation) - as I said, I need to be less judgemental.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>There is a reason I didn't want an answer and this crazy digression on shallow or not is pretty much nuts (had to change my preferred word here due to the auto sensor, I guess bull excrement is too strong of language here, which might explain the lack of sexual energy many feel shooting the nude ;) ). We ask people to pose for us because we are attracted to them for some reason--it might be because they are quirky, physically interesting (even odd or distinctive) or whatever--this is different than a "blind date" photo shoot or the fact that we may shoot someone we aren't attracted to, but to deny that we don't ask people we find we have an attraction to/or interest in is ludicrous--what other motivation is there--and that may or may not be physical attraction or interest, but there was some motivation or we wouldn't have asked them--remember, it was a rhetorical question! (you all kind of bit off into one direction and many seemed to box up what "attractive" must mean)</p>

<p>By the way, attractiveness being relative or in the eye of the beholder doesn't contradict my comment, it really is my point.</p>

<p>On a practical note, maybe you who never feel any sexual energy are just different than the 100's or 1000's of photographers I have known as students and acquaintances over 32 years of shooting in both the fine art and commercial world, but most will pick their subjects based on their sense of what they find attractive--including women photographers. That doesn't preclude the fact that we all can shoot and enjoy those we don't find attractive in a physical sense--but when we pick them, there is some interest that makes us willing to do so and it is very often physical attraction (doesn't mean we intend to jump their bones!). </p>

<p>When it comes to nude photography, often one can end up shooting just whoever you can get to agree to it. Not everyone has connections or is willing to ask their friends to pose and you end up with someone that someone else knows--essentially, it isn't someone you pick. One of my early models was acquired this way--my wife, a painter, hired one for me from her life drawing class. I don't know that there was any "attraction" between us (not on my side anyway) but that didn't preclude some sexual tension--as I said, this isn't equivalent to something bad or salacious or evil, it is human psychology.</p>

<p>Anyway, this is certainly one of the more surreal threads or discussions on this matter I have ever experienced...</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>to deny that we don't ask people we find we have an attraction to/or interest in is ludicrous--what other motivation is there</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not necessarily interested in the person. That's what you seem to miss. I'm interested in what they will look like when I photograph them. It's not the least bit ludicrous. While some people photograph what attracts them or appears attractive to them, some people (like me) photograph people who will look good in the result. This is exactly what I said above - it's about how they will photograph, not what I feel about them. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>John - I apologise for my shallowness in interpreting what you meant by "attractive". ;-)<br />

<br />

My use of "shallow" wasn't intended to cause upset, and I probably shouldn't then have spent quite so long trying to defend myself; apologies for the diversion. And I'd not intended to respond to your rhetorical question, only to comment on the statement that it appeared - perhaps erroneously to me - to be making. That my interpretation of it bothered me perhaps says more about me than your statement.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, surreal or not, I'm finding the thread interesting.</p>

[photo5]

<p>When I view certain nude photos I often wonder how the photographer could possibly not be totally aroused while taking the photos. That being said, when I am photographing people, all of my concentration is on working the equipment and posing the people I am shooting. I don't have the ability to think of anything other than the task at hand. So for me, if I were shooting a nude, I would be concentrating on the task, not on getting aroused.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>"I'm interested in what they will look like when I photograph them."</p>

<p>Jeff, this is exactly the sort of thing I was getting at--you have some interest in that person if that is only how they will look when you photograph them......Often hairs are split too finely and the real point is missed.</p>

<p>Andrew, I wasn't offended I just think people are sometimes afraid or maybe better, reluctant to see the obvious.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, what we're discussing here is no more a digression or nuts than, for example, what you and Tom have been going on about in the POTW discussion. There are often threads within threads that don't interest me or speak to me. That seems quite natural, especially on the Internet.</p>

<p>I'm with Jeff. Since I often haven't met or seen many of my subjects in advance, I'm photographing them much more out of interest and curiosity than attraction. I also have a general purpose which is to discover things about gay men, all kinds. If you want to turn that on its head and say, "well, then, you are attracted to what's interesting and curious or to all gay men" then be my guest. But you will have missed the point. Talk about splitting hairs!</p>

<p>Like Jeff, I also photograph with the <em>photograph</em> in mind as much as (sometimes more and sometimes less than) my particular <em>subject</em> in mind. Photographs often transform subjects. They don't always simply show them as they were found. And the same subject can be attractive in one situation or with a particular lighting effect and not attractive in another to begin with.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>you have some interest in that person if that is only how they will look when you photograph them......Often hairs are split too finely and the real point is missed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not the case here at all. If you look at the topic of the thread, it is clear that there is a difference between "interest" that leads to or results from "arousal" versus having a specific look in a resulting photo. These are completely different things. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>"Is it possible to take nude photographs and not get aroused?"</p>

<p>Obviously it is possible. Professional photographers are surely capable of setting aside sexual interest or fascination, not merely because it can adversely affect the quality of the photography, but in order to avoid lawsuits. In this sense they are surely capable of attaining the degree of detachment that one expects of doctors. I doubt that a very high percentage of women, for example, expect to be ogled by either their doctors or by professional photographers. I suspect that most would feel very, very uncomfortable if they thought that they were being ogled in either setting (that is, as either patient or model), or if they thought that a male photographer (much less the doctor) were interested in using the professional arrangement as an entry point into some kind of sexual relationship.</p>

<p>"And if you are aroused, how does it affect the relationship with the model and the photograph?"</p>

<p>Here is where definitions become important. Arousal can vary from the very faintest stirrings of interest (or even fascination) all the way over to overt physical arousal. I imagine that most models do not agree to model with the expectation that they are going to be ogled during the shoot itself, much less that the shoot is going to devolve into some kind of sexual encounter.</p>

<p>I suspect that, if the photographer is a male and the model is a female, the model is likely to be quite attuned to signs of interest that go beyond the original contractual relationship as defined in the original communications setting up the date and circumstances of the shoot. Since persons bring differing motives and expectations to such situations (especially if the situations are private), I can only imagine that what happens during actual shoots varies enormously. Arousal on the part of either party could either provoke ending the session quite quickly or else open the door to other interactions--and the range of possible interactions is surely infinite.</p>

<p>If both parties in a private setting are relaxed, then it seems likely that the creative potential is unlimited, which hardly means in every case that arousal is going to lead to explicit sexual activity, rather that the energy can be used or even channeled back into the shoot itself.</p>

<p>One does not have to be a photographer of nudes (and I am not) to recognize that encounters of all sorts can be driven by a kind of sexual dynamic, perhaps muted and unstated, perhaps not. I imagine that not a few intense and even lasting relationships have grown out of the photographic shoot.</p>

<p>Of more interest to me, however, would be those situations in which the sexual dynamic is present but not acted upon, situations in which the sexual tension might be allowed to feed back into the creative process without taking over. I can only speculate <em>a priori </em>about these artistic possibilities, but I am told that certain long-term artist-model relationships develop based on a sense of mutual trust, and that in some cases the artist/photographer has some sense of almost a "sacred trust" that must not be violated. I imagine, but do not know, that the creative potential is heightened greatly in those cases, that is, that the tension is constructive. If the trust is not there, on the other hand, neither party is likely to be happy with the experience, and my guess is that the photography is quite likely going to suffer as a result.</p>

<p>In any case, "arousal" is not an "either-or" matter, and so it is almost impossible to answer the second part of the question in a simple way. If the degree of sexual interest on the part of the photographer is too great, and is picked up on (as it almost surely would be by the model), then the shoot <em>qua </em>shoot is most likely going to fail-or so it seems to me, from my position of ignorance about such matters. If a relationship develops, on the other hand, then other creative possibilities present themselves, as can be seen in such examples as Edward Weston's long-term relationship with (and even marriage to) Charis Wilson.</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/arts/design/24wilson.html</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I imagine that most models do not agree to model with the expectation that they are going to be ogled during the shoot itself, much less that the shoot is going to devolve into some kind of sexual encounter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When, in the discussion, did sexual arousal become ogling? And why would an encounter, session, or relationship be assumed to <em>devolve</em> into something sexual rather than <em>evolve</em>? </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Ogle away!...</p>

<p><a href="http://dirtdiggler2823.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/strong20ugly20girl.jpg">The beauty of the nude female figure</a></p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, I tried to establish the context of what I was saying with comments such as this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Here is where definitions become important. Arousal can vary from the very faintest stirrings of interest (or even fascination) all the way over to overt physical arousal.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, what's any of that got to do with ogling, which is an overt and intentional action, not a state? The question asked was about arousal and you morphed that into ogling for some reason. And why the negativity toward sex? Why does something <em>devolve</em> into being sexual? </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>And why would an encounter, session, or relationship be assumed to <em>devolve</em> into something sexual rather than <em>evolve</em>?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, at the end of my post I gave the example of Edward Weston and Charis Wilson.</p>

<p>As I tell my students, "Contexto es todo."</p>

<p>You must learn to read and intepret in context, my son. Selah.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Um, Fred, intense interest can sometimes be manifested as a tendency to ogle. </p>

<p>Again, context is everything, my son.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>My son?</p>

<p>You still haven't explained why you think a relationship or photo session moving toward the sexual is a matter of devolution. What does Weston's relationship have to do with devolving toward sexuality?</p>

<p>And what does any of this have to do with context being everything, let alone its being everything in Spanish?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>What does Weston's relationship have to do with devolving toward sexuality?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't! It was beautiful evolution! You must seize control of your emotions, my son, so that you may read and respond more rationally.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, so which part of the original question spurred you to think about devolution to sexuality? What part of sexual arousal is a devolving?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>'Twas not the question, but the comments--some of them. I suppose if the interest were unwanted, then one would consider it to be devolution.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>So was anyone aroused by the nude I linked above? And if not, why?</p>