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

[je ne regrette rien]

3 hours ago, samstevens said:

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

On my part there is nothing about the genre in particular, at all. As a matter of fact

4 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

but just to point out that in the majority of pictures they have been done before and so much better.

is a quote from Martin Parr in a lecture and certainly he was not thinking of photographs of nudes when he spoke.

I was comparing my Mapplethorpe, my Leiter, my Weston, my Marianne Müller, and the other authors with what is currently shown today and concluded that little novelty is presented.

There are a few, but mostly clichés are proposed. Also from very well known names.

So Sam, sorry, it’s not about the genre. It’s about the observation, numbers prove it, that most photographs, of nudes or not, have no reason to exist, because they add nothing to the representation of reality. But in the case of nudes, or better, of naked subjects, mechanisms can be observed that still attract viewers and likes and kudos. More than any other genre.

Maybe because of neurophysiological reasons.

[je ne regrette rien]

Besides this a lot has been added to this post, I need some time to watch and read.

[samstevens]

 

6 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

most photographs, of nudes or not, have no reason to exist, because they add nothing to the representation of reality.

I appreciate that you didn’t intend the original discussion to be about nudes in particular. The framing threw me off, so I wanted to make sure. Thanks for clarifying for me. 
 

I don’t conclude what you do about most photos having no reason to exist. The reason they exist is that the people taking them took them and seem to have wanted to take them. That seems like a perfectly good reason for them to exist. I can like them or not accordingly, but my appreciating or liking them seems not to have any bearing on their legitimacy for existing. 
 

It would drive me crazy to think my photos shouldn’t exist just because I know similar photos already exist that are “better”. I’d never get anywhere if I thought of the reason for my own photography in competitive terms like that. For me, a big part of photography is personal and that’s enough reason for me to do it, regardless of what else exists. 

[je ne regrette rien]

2 minutes ago, samstevens said:

It would drive me crazy to think my photos shouldn’t exist just because I know similar photos already exist that are “better”. I’d never get anywhere if I thought of the reason for my own photography in competitive terms like that. For me, a big part of photography is personal and that’s enough reason for me to do it, regardless of what else exists.

I understand. My point is not about “being better” or any “competition”. I really am not able to come to terms with the fundamental lack of self-criticism and knowledge of history of photography of people who claim to be authors or artists and are fundamentally snapping away. Even with a refined technique.

But maybe I should let go.

And I’m sure you, and inoneeye, with whom we have been debating since nearly fifteen years here and whose work I know - even if it’s not visible anymore as it was - are well aware of the process that begins with pointing the lens at an interesting subject progresses towards trying to express something visually.

[Sandy Vongries]

How does another photo of Anything make sense after a seminal one by a master?  Simply because it is a different time and another eye / skill  - nude, green pepper, landscape, etc. etc.. 

[inoneeye]

Photographs that stand out from the deluge are not an everyday occurrence. uncommon. Photos, expressions that are truly unique and fresh are very, very rare. Chasing that, while in some ways admirable, it is very very unlikely to be rewarded with success imo. Unless you are a visionary. In fact I think we more likely to find the reward in understanding and developing our distinctive strengths and voice and diving deeper. Not being a visionary I find the best I can do is explore ways to be the best me and learn to see before aiming the camera at the real world.
Photos good and not so good exist because we enjoy creating and capturing images. To express ourselves in nonverbal ways. Creativity is a powerful emotional process for me. It is creativity and the visionary, (with few peers at a moment in time) that moves the needle. sometimes to unexplored places. But as you are seeing and experiencing Luca it is very rare. 
 

Edited January 7 by inoneeye

[je ne regrette rien]

At the Yubba river the initial intention might have been the juxtaposition of the form of the model’s body with the curves of the surrounding boulders. It became something else as @samstevens points out. I would love to see the frames before and after! This “external event” makes it “pornographic about nudity” as @inoneeye says, but more important, focusing on something like a decisive moment, makes it visually something completely different: I would guess that the whole portion of the scene on the upper left is added, where there is an undifferentiated mass of rocks but also some boulders resembling a reclining giant raising the head.

Had the purpose been to present the concept of voyeurism, probably a longer lens would have been needed to balance foreground and background.

The sculptures and the multiple exposure are highly symbolic in my eyes, in totally different way. In the first one, with a splendid subject, photography is only one means to express a concept. In the second the metaphor is evident.

While in my opinion these two pictures need to exist to represent reality, the one with the voyeur happened by chance and is less powerful because of the mentioned constraints of composition, even if it definitely presents the different kinds of relationship between humankind and nudes (voyeurism vs. shapes).

[je ne regrette rien]

14 hours ago, samstevens said:

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?

To me, too often the nude - the naked I would say - is the end in itself. It’s trying to stand out in the deluge, @inoneeye’s perfect expression.

Perfectly groomed models in boudoir environments; or in ruined buildings, in front of the same backdrop with the same lighting schemes. Photos, which obviously aim to provoke a sexual response. Photos, which a gynaecologist or andrologist may take.

And then the rare ones: the nude pictures, which are necessary to capture the essence of a human being, in the wider context of their lives. The representation of the context may be wide or just a thin “slice” of life, but it is absolutely recognisable in a body of work.

Unfortunately, since not everybody who would deserve it makes it to a curated book or an exhibition, it is necessary to browse through a lot of debris to find rare gems.

Edited January 7 by je ne regrette rien

[inoneeye]

lol. I had never seen the reclining monster…. apparently female. Thanks! And for sure I went into a street mindset when I saw the voyeur appear in my hasselblad screen. Kerchunk!

Edited January 7 by inoneeye

[samstevens]

8 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

Perfectly groomed models in boudoir environments; or in ruined buildings, in front of the same backdrop with the same lighting schemes. Photos, which obviously aim to provoke a sexual response.

I don’t have a problem with the reason for a photo’s existence being to titillate any more than with it being to advertise and sell products. The cliché part makes them familiar and easy to digest for those who enjoy them, which is part of why they work.

Inauthenticity can be more of a problem for me, though I’m used to it … feigning artistic purpose instead of acknowledging or even embracing the titillation. Of course, there is crossover. Some photos that titillate are art. Probably more often, though, the purpose and most obvious effect is titillation and art is used as the excuse.

Inauthenticity can also occur, for example, with photos of homeless people held up as important documents that, in effect, do little more than exploit their subjects in a vain quest for simplistic pathos. Inauthenticity can be either conscious or clueless.

If reasons for existing are going to bother me, propaganda and exploitation would feature prominently.

Edited January 7 by samstevens

[mikemorrellNL]

On 1/3/2024 at 7:24 AM, je ne regrette rien said:

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.

On 12/31/2023 at 6:47 AM, heath_hays said:

I definitely appreciate all the advice gents.  Looking back at my original post I now realize I got too caught up with this idea of picture rotation and missed the opportunity to ask my question more succinctly.

Basically I'm looking for photo mosaic software that can be used to make an actual physical thing rather than just an image file, meant to be printed out.  Although it might be possible to use regular photo mosaic software to do something like this, since I'll be using hundreds of wood blocks that all look very similar, the software might even need to be able to instruct in what order the pictures should be arranged.

I know this is kind of niche but this software has been around long enough that I would have though someone would have thought about doing something like this before, although I can't recall seeing anything like it before.  If the logistics can be worked o'ut I'm more than sure it'll be worth the effort.

TBH, this is (for me) a boring thread because:

-  I don't really give a f*ck  who old,  famous nude photographer's were

- at the moment, there are least hundreds and probably thousands of locations at which students are  learning to draw, paint an photograph nudes

- my guess is that each nude model - and each artistic representation of him/her - was unique

- lighting techniques have improved

My bottom line: look to the future rather than the past,

[samstevens]

Okay, who invaded the being of @mikemorrellNL and when can we have him back? 😊😊😊

28 minutes ago, mikemorrellNL said:

My bottom line: look to the future rather than the past,

In any case, my response would be, why not some of each, and even live in the present, too?

Edited January 7 by samstevens

[je ne regrette rien]

43 minutes ago, mikemorrellNL said:

My bottom line: look to the future rather than the past,

I could not agree more!

But the past drives the future, if it's good.

(definitely a very well chosen tagline of yours, I quoted it and only after that I became aware that Sam did the same.) 😎😎😎

45 minutes ago, mikemorrellNL said:

- my guess is that each nude model - and each artistic representation of him/her - was unique

Here we may want to agree to disagree. Look at the relevant sections here on Photo.net, at moderate and restricted pictures on Flickr, 1x, etc. There are well-known names who keep repeating themselves since decades.

That said, we are free, therefore I'm fully supporting you if you don't care at all about

52 minutes ago, mikemorrellNL said:

old,  famous nude photographer's

I do. And I do care so much about present and future photographers, of nudes and all other genres, that I am upset to have to search for non-clichéd, non-banal photographs, just like a gold searcher for golden nuggets. Or maybe golden straws. In the deluge of pictures produced nowadays.

[je ne regrette rien]

On 1/6/2024 at 6:25 PM, 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"?

I've given it a thought and, ontologically, photos of nudes are no different than any other picture. There are several levels of responsibility involved:

• aesthetics: the ugly ones, the wrong ones, the ones that show mistakes that definitely are not "intentionally broken rules"
• towards history of photography and the overall body of photographs: does it make sense to add another nude body against a back drop (for example). The same question obviously applies to sunsets, kittens and puppies and people walking on streets, etc. Here there are the shallow ones
• manipulation: the dishonest ones that use gimmicks merely to attract attention
• exploitation or abuse, which is particularly bad in the case one of the actors in a picture is weaker than the other. Subjects of photographs can be exploited by photographers and photographers can be exploited by subjects.

All applicable to all genres.

Does nude photography or photographs of the naked make a particular case?

[samstevens]

3 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

aesthetics: the ugly ones, the wrong ones, the ones that show mistakes that definitely are not "intentionally broken rules"

I don’t understand the concept of being wrong aesthetically.

Why would there be a responsibility to avoid ugliness? War is ugly. We have a responsibility to show that, don’t we?

Mistakes. Many photos show mistakes. I’ve learned from mine and am glad I made them and showed them to learn from. I can live with them. I’ve never considered it a responsibility not to make mistakes, though it may be to admit (and, sometimes, correct) them.

3 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

does it make sense to add another nude body against a back drop (for example).

Yes, for the photographer who wants to create their own such nude.

3 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

dishonest ones that use gimmicks merely to attract attention

What’s dishonest about gimmicks to attract attention? We’d have no Warhol, no John Waters, no Kiss without them.

3 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

Does nude photography or photographs of the naked make a particular case?

It’s not that nude photography makes a special case. It’s that society and individuals sometimes make a particular case over nude photography.

[samstevens]

Thanks for bringing up mistakes, which would be a good photography topic in itself. Some of my own favorite photos were born of mistakes that I made and then dealt with. I have a couple of early photos, that still remain favorites, where I completely mistook the lighting and exposure, and in some cases, the composition. But that led me to post process in a way I wouldn't have otherwise considered and I'm very happy with the results to this day. And, it's an added kind of special layer that it's all because of a mistake.

A bunch of years ago, I saw a photo exhibit at the Met where someone found photos with various "mistake" themes at flea markets and put them together into a great exhibit, transforming the mistakes into something creative and of interest. One section was body parts cut off, one section was things growing out of the top of heads, bad exposures, etc. Now that's a little special because the mistakes in themselves probably would have just made it into the trash, and it was the reworking into context that made them interesting when put together.

But I still think mistakes can be great raw materials, and what one person may think is a mistake, someone else will see as an innovation or a potential breakthrough. 

I don't know about responsibility and mistakes, but I think they can be an opportunity. It may not be so much about avoiding them or not showing them as much as to understand them and remain flexible.

 

[inoneeye]

1 hour ago, samstevens said:

But I still think mistakes can be great raw materials, and what one person may think is a mistake, someone else will see as an innovation or a potential breakthrough

👍
And Intentional mistakes! oxymoronish? I often get myself out of stagnation by setting my eye on making new to me mistakes. I love to surprise myself. And mistakes are very good at that.
 

[Allen Herbert]

Your original preposition is nonsense, je.ne

Lets us not bother to take any photographs, as the old timers have already walked those paths, with a mastery us poor mortals could never emulate. Fairy land thoughts.

Anyway, when is a nude photograph not a nude photograph? Suggestive or not.

 

[inoneeye]

When is it a nude… the Reaction and definition are a cultural construct. Partial or complete… Clothed or not, topless man or woman displaying nipples. 
Generally it is known to the photographer and self determined by the viewer. Too often an obsession becoming an obstacle imo.

A nude image can also be more than an unclothed body.

Edited January 11 by inoneeye

[je ne regrette rien]

@samstevens

It was you who brought up responsibility.

In photography I associate responsibility with ethics and aesthetics. I concede that with both the boundaries are blurred, but I certainly know when certain confines are crossed. For me.

Is the freedom of producing whatever photographs one feels like equal to my freedom to be annoyed?

 

[samstevens]

2 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

It was you who brought up responsibility.

I don’t believe it was me. You brought up responsibility on Jan 3, early in the thread (post #11). It’s recurred as a question since then.

[je ne regrette rien]

On 1/4/2024 at 7:19 AM, je ne regrette rien said:

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?

My references to responsibility.

yours:

On 1/6/2024 at 6:25 PM, samstevens said:

Does photographing come with any "responsibility"?

Do they refer to the same?

[samstevens]

I was trying to understand and question what you meant by responsibility in photography and in photos of nudes. That’s why I asked questions about it. You answered those questioned and, then to continue the dialogue, I responded to your thoughts. After my responses, you said …

7 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

Is the freedom of producing whatever photographs one feels like equal to my freedom to be annoyed?

So, I’ll take it from there. I don’t think these are equal. The difference is that producing a photo is an act(ion). Being annoyed by a type of photo (boring, cliché, redundant), is a reaction or response. A response is stimulated by and dependent on the act or action being responded to. The original action, on the other hand, was less constrained by a direct relationship to a specific stimulus.

We are free to respond personally to a photo in any reasonable way we want. (Probably not reasonable for a viewer to burn it.)

We’re in a critical discussion about photography here. And this is more than a matter of responding to individual photos in personal ways. This is about more general theories of and propositions about photography, such as weather …

On 1/11/2024 at 4:22 AM, je ne regrette rien said:

it make sense to add another nude body against a back drop (for example).

Philosophers and critics freely express annoyance all the time. They are often challenged when they do so. 

“[A]nother nude body against a back drop” is a reductive description. This hypothetical photo was created by a photographer who may have any number of personal reasons for doing so. The description doesn’t leave room for the potential that there’s something personal or unique about this nude for the photographer who made it.

You started by asking the reason for making such a type of photo. Yet you’ve then critiqued the type of photo based on your observations as a viewer rather than based on the many reasons such a photo may have been made. (One answer here is, “Even though it looks like a lot of others that came before it, I wanted one of my own.”)

The theorist or philosopher in this case is not talking about a particular nude but is making a generalization about a category or type of photo. I think commenting and theorizing on types is more complicated (and intellectually perilous) than reacting to individual photos. And questioning the reasons for making something is different from critiquing the results. One may not like the results while still respecting the reasons that went into making it, and vice versa.

I think with philosophizing and theorizing about photos and types of photos often comes some presumption that’s not necessarily equal to or matched by either the original intent of photographers themselves or the photos they produce. 

 

[inoneeye]

👍 luminous. 
I find myself wondering about context, how the experience.s, exposure and biases of the photographer or viewer play out.  And as a photographer if it is even worth considering. Probably not but I often do. in particular with photos that have a triggering subject and or style. 

[samstevens]

4 hours ago, inoneeye said:

Probably not but I often do.

Oxymoron? Humans are balls of contradictions. Keeps us rolling along. 

Instinct tussling with reason. Curiosity getting the better of us.

Edited January 13 by samstevens