Do photographs of nudes make sense after Edward Weston, Saul Leiter or Robert Mapplethorpe?

[je ne regrette rien]

For that matter, we may also want to consider:

• Helmut Newton
• Herb Ritts
• Nobuyoshi Araki
• Francesca Woodman
• Lucien Clergue
• Sally Mann
• Ralph Gibson
• Nan Goldin
• Jan Saudek
• Ruth Bernhard
• Willy Ronis
• Imogen Cunningham
• Mona Kuhn
• Sasha Stone
• Rem Hang

and a few others.

Edited January 3 by je ne regrette rien

[samstevens]

Yes. Why do you ask?

[je ne regrette rien]

Which ones?

[inoneeye]

'nudes' make sense ?....  they do. Do they compare well in general? some do some don't. Hard to focus on without some specifics.

[John Seaman]

No nudes is good news.

[SCL]

IMHO most nudes seem uninspired to me, but I do believe there are and will continue to be creative interpretations which will stand out from the rest. And the art world will embrace those truly masterful interpretations.

[samstevens]

Quote

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.
—Marcel Proust

 

[je ne regrette rien]

I first need to apologise to Ren Hang for not checking the automatic corrector.

I also must be more precise: of course nudes make sense.

What I mean is whether the nudes we are shown all the time, the ones that attract so many viewers, need to exist as photographs, adding to the visual description of our world. As the nudes by the photographers I mentioned, and a few others, did and do.

[samstevens]

34 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

What I mean is whether the nudes we are shown all the time, the ones that attract so many viewers, need to exist as photographs, adding to the visual description of our world.

Very few things need to exist as photographs, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't. I'm glad people (myself included) are still doing and interested in nudes. Visual description of our world is one aspect and understanding of photography. Another aspect of photography relates to expressiveness. Nudes are and will continue to be used to express human emotion and, since the nude has roots in ancient and classical art, it will likely be explored by photographers and artists who want to continue a dialogue with tradition while paving new ways to see, understand, and express. There's a personal aspect to nudes that goes well beyond how "original" of a subject matter or genre it is.

That being said, taste and opinion matter. There are plenty of nudes all over the internet that are uninteresting, forced, dishonest, and shallow. Someone felt they should exist. That's enough for me. Doesn't mean I have to pay much attention to them. The smaller subset that are exploitive, abusive, or worse would be a matter for another discussion, I suspect.

[inoneeye]

As a photographer, sculptor, and even as a designer I think nudes add much to my visual language expressions. And they add much to my understanding of the nature of our world. The morality that often rears its head regarding question of ’nakedness’, in photography is for each individual to weigh as creator and viewer. I respect that. I also respect my desire to express myself with only self imposed boundaries.
There are photos by some of the mentioned photographers exploring nakedness I would not publish even though I have explored similar. 
Of the many admirable photographers mentioned it was Weston… and a few others not mentioned… that opened my eyes to the potential of nude photography. I am grateful for how it helped shift my view of human body when I began shooting.
Many of my early nude photos became about that shift and about nude photography. Sometimes playful sometimes taboo. As time went on I began ‘using’ the body to explore and express sensuality and form in other subjects and vice versa. Even architectural design.
It is a deep source for expression. 

There are some amazing contemporary works being produced today. But like any photo genre you need to weed through the massive collection of images.

Edited January 4 by inoneeye

[je ne regrette rien]

Sam,

Your quote from Marcel Proust initially rebuffed me.

But then I thought about it: can we agree that it is the responsibility of the viewer to go beyond an epidermal perception of what they see, but to go deeper?
Let us not forget my beloved quote "the viewer sees what they know" (B. Munari, designer).

And isn’t it the responsibility of the author to look for meaningful ways to portray reality, without proposing worn-out clichés?

[je ne regrette rien]

7 hours ago, samstevens said:

That being said, taste and opinion matter. There are plenty of nudes all over the internet that are uninteresting, forced, dishonest, and shallow. Someone felt they should exist. That's enough for me. Doesn't mean I have to pay much attention to them. The smaller subset that are exploitive, abusive, or worse would be a matter for another discussion, I suspect.

Good input, Sam.

I guess this relates to my somehow idealistic stance that every photographer should honestly assess their own pictures before throwing them into the relentless flow of images produced for whatever reason. But that’s too much of an expectation I would say.

It’s the “normative power of the factual” and not much can be done about this.

But for me there is one precious takeaway from what you say: “the uninteresting, forced, dishonest, and shallow” from which to stay away. And the “exploitive, abusive, or worse”, from which to stay away even more.

I have to face the fact that the world is what it is, little I can do to change it, but to waste as little time and energy as possible.

[samstevens]

17 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

Your quote from Marcel Proust initially rebuffed me.

It was meant as a rebuff, of sorts. Hopefully, a kindly one. 😇
 

18 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

can we agree that it is the responsibility of the viewer to go beyond an epidermal perception of what they see

I don’t think a viewer has much responsibility other than to experience the work in a way that suits them. Many sincere viewers stick to the surface. To that they are entitled. A lot of photographs work well enough on the surface, even if they also go deeper.
 

26 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

isn’t it the responsibility of the author to look for meaningful ways to portray reality, without proposing worn-out clichés?

Is it your assumption that nudes are or invite worn-out clichés? Why nudes and not landscapes or streets or bicycles or birds or flowers or diners or portraits?
 

The responsibility of the author is to his own vision. It’s not to the moral or aesthetic judgments of bystanders. 

[je ne regrette rien]

3 minutes ago, samstevens said:

Is it your assumption that nudes are or invite worn-out clichés? Why nudes and not landscapes or streets or bicycles or birds or flowers or diners or portraits?

Not at all! It happens with all kinds of pictures!

I got hold of a 1977 copy of Weston’s nudes and was looking at some of Leiter’s pictures from “in my room” and this spurred some reflections.

[samstevens]

On 1/3/2024 at 2:04 PM, je ne regrette rien said:

What I mean is whether the nudes we are shown all the time, the ones that attract so many viewers, need to exist as photographs, adding to the visual description of our world. As the nudes by the photographers I mentioned, and a few others, did and do.

Here's a personal answer. Each photographer might answer differently, and in some cases the answer might just be the photos themselves.

The photos below are from one of my first "projects," that didn't start out to be a project. I was doing portraits of mostly gay men I met in one way or another here in San Francisco. In trying to be creative with characterizations, doing my own thing with middle-aged guys willing and sometimes quite happy to take their clothes off, a coherent approach just started taking shape over the months. It turned out to be, for me (and many of them), a way to acknowledge and embrace ourselves as we'd long since aged out of youth. I never expected the work to attract "many viewers," but those who have seen it have appreciated (or not appreciated) it for various reasons and responded to it in sometimes illuminating ways. 

Edited January 5 by samstevens

[je ne regrette rien]

I was aware of your work, and other work of yours in this line: it has reason to exist because it portrays reality. It makes sense because there is an non-contrived, non clichéd self-expression of your subjects and you co-operate in creating their visual message.

I miss that in what is presented by 90% of photographers, or models for that matter. The latter have also a major responsibility for proposing the same clichés again and again.

But maybe I should give up on this.

[samstevens]

IMO, photos of nudes elicit more thoughts than their necessity or the number of clichés involved.

So, I'll ask a few questions that I've considered over the years.

1. Can photos of nudes be reduced to photos of nudes? Weston started this out, so to what extent is his photo of a pepper a photo of a pepper and to what extent does it [also] go well beyond such a subject-oriented understanding? How often is the nude the end in itself and how often is it more of a jumping-off point and how do those two views support each other in some photos?
2. What, if any, "responsibility" is involved with nudes that might be different from the responsibility involved with any type of photo? Does photographing come with any "responsibility"?
3. What is the difference, if any, between naked and nude? How might that apply to some photos?
4. What role, if any, do both sensuality and sexuality play in photos of nudes? How ok is that?
5. Do nudes seem more open to judgment than other types of photos? If so, is that to be expected given society's various challenges with nudity? Is it fair? Does it matter?

 

Edited January 6 by samstevens

[Allen Herbert]

Sam, original and creative.

Not the usual clichés, of a naked young lady, which we see time and time again 

A bucket full of banality becomes very boring.; I suppose some folks have more interest in titillations than creative/perceptions of photography.  

[je ne regrette rien]

Thanks for your interesting, important and challenging questions.

On question #1:

Upfront I would say that we cannot disregard the specific neurophysiological reaction triggered when viewing the picture of a nude. That makes the difference between watching Tina Modotti on the sandy beach and the pepper, which may be equally pleasing from the strictly visual point of view but not from the overall perceptive point of view.

And then comes the narrative around it: William Eggleston’s picture of the red room, which is complemented by the nude portrait of T.C. Boring, the murdered dentist, in the same room, and portraits of the same in other rooms. They show different sides of the same relationship between the photographer and his subject as a representation of life without any hint of erotism.

And there’s more to come on this first question.

 

Edited January 6 by je ne regrette rien

[je ne regrette rien]

On 1/4/2024 at 1:30 AM, inoneeye said:

It is a deep source for expression. 

There are some amazing contemporary works being produced today. But like any photo genre you need to weed through the massive collection of images.

Hi inoneeye.

I think this is the key.

Mine was not a question with the purpose to shutter the genre, or any other genre for that matter, but just to point out that in the majority of pictures they have been done before and so much better.

Exceptions are there, but they just confirm the general statement.

[samstevens]

31 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

Mine was not a question with the purpose to shutter the genre, or any other genre for that matter, 

I didn’t think it was, by any means … BUT …

36 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

in the majority of pictures they have been done before and so much better.

My first responses to you and some of my more recent questions were meant to ask why the genre of nudes both stimulated and provided the sole context for your concern about cliché and responsibility. My intuition and careful read of your words tells me there is something about the genre in particular. I think it would be interesting and beneficial for that to be addressed.

[inoneeye]

4 hours ago, samstevens said:

What is the difference, if any, between naked and nude? How might that apply to some photos?

 

4 hours ago, samstevens said:

Do nudes seem more open to judgment than other types of photos?

👍
Who is it? When i began shooting nudes I soon realized that most viewers were seeing naked pictures of someone. My sanctimonious response for a while was to begin to cut the heads off. It was like an inside joke for me. 

This was an early version of that, when I was shooting 'classic' nudes. As i was shooting this one... a voyeur popped out from behind the large boulder at the Yubba river. I immediately reframed the image. His titillation was on display. It became a naked body photo at that point. In fact as i see it, it is pornographic but about nudity.

                                                                         .

I think many photographs of nudes are an attempt to capture sensuality. Sensuality is something that most of us enjoy greatly. As is intimacy revealed photographically. Be it a nude or a pepper or 'Excusado'. Or in architecture....

the design of this ceiling and walkthrough archway was based on observing the nude body. masculine and feminine.

                                                                         .

Nudity does hold a special place for us. It is very much about who we are and are not. how we see. feel. relate. It is at our unadorned facade. It is also a trigger.... that often fires a strong response in viewers. 

 

4 hours ago, samstevens said:

What role, if any, do both sensuality and sexuality play in photos of nudes? How ok is that?

?

 

Edited January 6 by inoneeye

[inoneeye]

4 hours ago, samstevens said:

What, if any, "responsibility" is involved with nudes that might be different from the responsibility involved with any type of photo? Does photographing come with any "responsibility"?

self imposed censorship. Nudity and sexual photography, (which often includes non nude images) are the only images i will censor myself. for the sake of the viewer and sometimes the subject... not to protect me from judgement but to show respect for others.

[samstevens]

1 hour ago, inoneeye said:

a voyeur popped out from behind the large boulder at the Yuba river. I immediately reframed the image. His titillation was on display. It became a naked body photo at that point. In fact as i see it, it is pornographic but about nudity.

To my eye and sense of categorization, it also became a street photo.

More importantly, it allows the photo to engage in a sort of internal dialogue that seems self referencing. As you said, with your nudes, people often seemed to see a naked photo of someone. The guy behind the rock represents that. So there's a bit of self portrait that emerges here. In the very act of creating a more artistic nude, a stranger from behind a rock makes it something else. That's kind of the story you related of your early nudes. The stranger may not simply make it something else, but something more, because I think the photo is also what it was before he entered the scene. I still can't help but relate the female body to the rocks, as they capture the light, form sensual and contrasting textures and shapes, and suggest soft and hard. The softness and hardness even seem to keep switching places with each other as I look. In any case, there was an instinctual and natural sexuality at play already which, now, the stranger transforms into a more vulgar view, but I don't see his as being the stronger touch than the touch of the photographer who visualized the original scene that the man intruded upon. I see a story about the layers of nudity and the making and adaptations of art here.

It's also somewhat humorous.

 

[samstevens]

1 hour ago, inoneeye said:

Sensuality is something that most of us enjoy greatly. As is intimacy revealed photographically. Be it a nude or a pepper or 'Excusado'. Or in architecture....

In response to @je ne regrette rien's use of "neurophysiological" reactions to nudity, I was going to touch on this, and your architectural photo is a great example. Art often relies on and creatively uses metaphor. Shakespeare did it when he had Romeo drink the poison from a cup and then Juliet, discovering that her young lover was dead, pierce through her own breast with a dagger to join him in death. Sex. That Shakespeare was no prude. That architectural photo is not prudish either. So, I'm not sure we need the nude body to have a neurophysiological reaction to a photo that's sensual or sexual. Visual associations can, in fact, be more powerful than direct visual representations. Writers use metaphor because they often find it more stirring and stimulating than being more literal. There's a level on which many sensually-photographed objects can, in a more abstract way, provide what a nude might and a level in which an actual nude can be abstracted in the viewer's mind (often with the help of the photographer's touch) and accomplish what a landscape or vegetable might.