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

[Allen Herbert]

"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?" Je Ne.

Why would the viewer have any responsibility when looking at a Photograph? It is the Photographer who needs to communicate to the viewer, not the viewer. 

And of course many Photographers just enjoy their Photography.  If it communicates to them little else matters.

Je Ne you are not a judge on master chef. This is Photo Net.

 

 

 

[je ne regrette rien]

Thank you @samstevens.

I use the concept of responsibility in a broad sense. As I said, I consider responsibility in respect to history of photography, the body of photographic work that exists. Then there is responsibility to subjects and viewers.

Barthes identifies three practices

• the Operator (the photographer)
• the Spectator (those who view)
• the person or thing photographed (the referent, the target).

in my opinion, all three are equally responsible for the picture and what they want to take (the Operator); see (the Spectator); and show (the referent, in case it's a human being).

Of course responsibility has many levels

1. the one in respect to history of photography is very loose and may embed some degrees of subjectivity: it is responding to the question whether the picture we see, which is always rooted in reality, in any way is additional to the documentation of the reality of the world which surrounds us;
2. you yourself refer to "uninteresting, forced, dishonest, and shallow". Beyond subjectivity, these adjectives are applied with reference to some categories: ethical, moral, aesthetic, documental. It's always a comparison. I am not questioning these categories, everyone is free to consider them valid or not. And there is a lot of influence of the current social values (think of the "free" 1920s and the much more rigid 1940s. And the prior Victorian age).
3. and the there is a more significant responsibility when it come to issues which you define "exploitive, abusive or worse" and "propaganda and exploitation": these are ethical to begin with, but then may become legal cases.

As I see it, all three practices mentioned above have the responsibility for the visual results: photographer with how they construct the picture (if they have a choice); the viewer with what they choose to view (and they have a choice); and the subject, or target, with how they choose to present themselves (if they have a choice).

I don't deny that I'm subjective in my criticism, but I claim to be openminded and welcoming, watching the pictures I'm presented looking for "the potential that there’s something personal or unique about this nude for the photographer who made it". In the deluge I'm often disappointed.

My annoyance, if you will, comes from the fact that any self-criticism is evidently absent, in relation to some knowledge of what photography has been so far. Do I want to have my own Lisa Lyon or Tina Modotti, or my own "In my room"? Fine. But if my own version does not add anything, I should be careful in making claims about my ability to communicate visually through photography.

It's not about the photographer, or any of the three practices mentioned, which need to be respected always. It's about the relationship with the work and its visual communication.

[samstevens]

2 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

whether the picture we see, which is always rooted in reality, in any way is additional to the documentation of the reality of the world which surrounds us;

Every photo ever made and that will be made is “additional to the documentation of the world which surrounds us.”

Reality consists of elements that exist in time and space. Every photo is a “document” of something in a particular space at a particular time. So every photo is unique. It may remind us or look like other photos we’ve seen. That doesn’t undercut its uniqueness.

Many photos go beyond documenting things and use things as a springboard to deeper thoughts and emotions. Many don’t.

It’s not unlike people. To many of us, the frat boys going to the prep school look and act alike. But to their parents, each is unique and adds something. Their teachers, for example, have a responsibility not to consider them redundant or clichés, but to see them each as an individual.

For me, if there’s a responsibility at all, it’s less to the photo or to the history of photography and more to each individual photographer. The reason to take a photo may very well have to do with the photographer simply being in this place at this time. There’s a uniqueness to that.

Responsibility may have a “broad” sense, but it’s not unlimited:

Quote

the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.

the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.

the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization.

a thing that one is required to do as part of a job, role, or legal obligation.

a moral obligation to behave correctly toward or in respect of

Responsibility is about duty, control, accountability, blame, authorization, requirement, obligation, morality. When one says that x,y, and z are responsible for the picture, one is saying more than that they are the cause.

I respect and admire much of what you’ve said about photography as it applies to your work. I’m less inclined to be sympathetic to annoyance at not seeing it in others’ work and much less inclined to see it as any photographer’s responsibility to apply it to themselves.

If I feel a responsibility, it’s to let each photographer shoot what they want how they want in the place they want at the time they’re there, recognizing it’s much more about their relationship to the moment than their relationship to history. I feel free to like or care about their photo as much or as little as I want. I’m not comfortable claiming they have a responsibility to do something else.

2 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

My annoyance, if you will, comes from the fact that any self-criticism is evidently absent

Self-criticism is at the discretion of each of us for ourselves. It can deepen our experience. It can also get in the way, especially when demanded from another or from without. [“Think before you speak is criticism’s motto; speak before you think, creation’s.” (E. M. Forster)] I have no way of knowing whether someone has created another Weston intentionally and for what possible self-fulfilling (rather than historically-fulfilling) purpose. Being simply an observer of their work, it’s perilous for me to draw conclusions about their motivations and whether they’re wanting to “communicate” to a viewer or to simply express or illustrate something.

Another picture of Half Dome that looks like thousands of other pictures of Half Dome may not be trying or wanting to communicate more than I was there. That’s plenty. Existential photography!

[Nick D.]

On 1/7/2024 at 2:53 AM, je ne regrette rien said:

To me, too often the nude - the naked I would say - is the end in itself

People has to make living, nude body generate clicks check Pnet stats.

As for art itself, five centuries after Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, artist still do portraits.

[je ne regrette rien]

12 minutes ago, Nick D. said:

As for art itself, five centuries after Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, artist still do portraits.

Sure.

And after Leonardo da Vinci some quite interesting portrait work was done by a few other painters, Pablo Picasso for example.

[samstevens]

2 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

some quite interesting portrait work was done by a few other painters

Actually, my cousin Laurie lovingly painted a portrait of my now-dead Uncle several years before he died. Honestly, though I like some of her work, not many in the family think it's a very good portrait. Laurie loves painting, she loves the portrait, and so did her mom, my aunt, before she died. I love that it meant something to them and that they loved it. I still like seeing it for that reason.

Probably most photographers feel that way about portraits or pics of people they made, and maybe only members of the families would agree. That's fine. It's perfectly responsible. And it's one of the ways photography works. I wouldn't hold them to any standard other than loving the person pictured and the fact that the photo preserves a memory for them, even if the photo adds nothing to my own sense of photographic history or aesthetics.

[samstevens]

Some of the beauty of art is its richness in both texture and potential. 

My nephew loves certain kinds of movies, especially the rousing sports movies of Kevin Costner. When I go to a movie with him that I likely otherwise wouldn't enjoy or recommend, I find myself viewing it differently, almost through a kind of empathy with his own enjoyment of it. Movies, photos, paintings are just that adaptable. It's why the portrait of my Uncle, which I don't think is very good and don't think adds much to the history of painting or portraits, can be still so meaningful to me. 

The beauty of art also exists in how personal it can be. Artworks can easily transform themselves into totems of sorts. All levels of art and both good art and bad art can and often do become vehicles. It's really not just about what the painting or photo communicates or even expresses. It can simply be about what it carries for a viewer, which may be a lot more than its aesthetic or historical features. Art has the potential for the kind of intimacy that transcends criticism, accepted morality, responsibility, and expectation. I suspect that's how art works for a lot of people.

[je ne regrette rien]

49 minutes ago, samstevens said:

Probably most photographers feel that way about portraits or pics of people they made, and maybe only members of the families would agree. That's fine.

I love this.

So be it. While I still think that there are many, if not most photos, which the universe does not need at all, I am certain that those who take them have reasons to do so. And as a liberal I cannot even think that something may be done to hinder the free expression of anyone. Therefore I owe complete respect to anyone who feels the urge to photograph, or create in any of the arts or crafts.

You mention it

On 1/3/2024 at 11:48 PM, 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.

It's all very diverse in photography, and very nuanced.

I cannot limit myself to looking for those photographers who publish, exhibit, win prizes or are part of renown organisations, because there's more and that's very interesting and I don't want to miss it. The past is important because it sets the basis for the future and the future needs to be looked at. Therefore the contemporary channels and the internet are unavoidable, it's important to keep an open mind because in @inoneeye's "deluge" there are rare pearls. Not because there are no talented photographers, but because the scene is swamped.

Those who want and need to take the n-th picture of Half Dome, of the sunset, of their dog or evening meal should be free to do so. But I still need to speak up for awareness, humility, knowledge and honesty.

[je ne regrette rien]

12 hours ago, samstevens said:

I find myself viewing it differently, almost through a kind of empathy with his own enjoyment of it. Movies, photos, paintings are just that adaptable. It's why the portrait of my Uncle, which I don't think is very good and don't think adds much to the history of painting or portraits, can be still so meaningful to me.

As I said that is perfectly fine.

That is the “idea of the family album” or the “projection of uncle Mario’s transparencies or film” of the recent family holiday in the mountains. There is no dispute about it being meaningful to people that are close or recognise any emotional bond with what is shown.

But the claim of art is the issue. Mine is: conceded that art is definitely a realm with blurred borders, any “creator” should be careful before claiming it is art and they are an artist.

That I observe: that the exposure to so much work has driven uncle Mario outside the circle of the family album or projection and made him mimic the mechanisms of the famous documentary, sports, boudoir photographers.

The family album or projection are genuine and candid and are valuable.

The constructed and artificial work presented may be less valuable.

Even if everybody can do what they are drawn to and pursue their freedom of expression.

[samstevens]

11 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

But the claim of art is the issue. Mine is: conceded that art is definitely a realm with blurred borders, any “creator” should be careful before claiming it is art and they are an artist.

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/duch/hd_duch.htm

The article about Duchamp concludes: "... his greatest contribution to the history of art lies in his ability to question, admonish, critique, and playfully ridicule existing norms in order to transcend the status quo."

By what standard and existing norm are we supposed to judge whether or not someone else should claim they are an artist or are making art? The minute we establish a standard that the work should be original or shouldn't be a cliché or shouldn't be "constructed and artificial", do we fall into the trap Duchamp rejected?

One of the lessons of Duchamp is that art is in the conception as well as being "retinal".

Does it add something to the world or take away something from the world that Person X thinks of themselves as an artist and as making art? I think that drive toward art, that desire, even if others might see it as unfulfilled, has merit in itself. The inspiration of wanting to make art, wanting to be part of the conversation, wanting to be taken seriously, wanting to assert oneself through painting or photography or music, even if one's talent is limited to mimicking what they already think is good art, is still something of value to the individual involved, whether it is to anyone else or not. 

Ironically ... or oxymoronically ... it might seem as though this would go against what Duchamp stood for, as he rejected continued mimicking of the standards already set and the visions already created. I don't know what Duchamp would think about any of this. But I'm drawn to the idea of accepting someone's self-conception as an artist being at least as significant as the clichés that might be produced as a result. There might be something to say about art's ability to motivate and inspire being as much (if not more) a factor in this discussion as the material works it produces.

Why would I not be inspired by someone's desire to be an artist, even if that's manifested in mimicking what they already believe is good art, instead of admonishing them to reconsider their self view?

 

Edited January 15 by samstevens

[je ne regrette rien]

While there are fundamental principles in various art forms, like composition or color theory, I believe art is inherently subjective, and there are no strict universal rules. And exposure to art counts: the more art one is aware of, the more refined the subjectivity is. Just like History of Art. As you say of Duchamp, artists often break conventions to express creativity.

It's too easy to define art by the example of somebody renown as Duchamp. Let's try ourselves on the young creators entering the contemporary art scene.

And mimicking, no, too easy. It's just cutting corners.

[samstevens]

2 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

It's too easy to define art by the example of somebody renown as Duchamp.

I didn't bring up Duchamp to define art. I think art is more of a conversation than a matter of definition. Duchamp is part of the conversation.

For me, this thread is not about definitions of art. It's about what's included in and excluded from art and who may refer to themselves as an artist. 

For all that, I think answering the why question more than the what or who question might better get to the heart of the matter. 

If I had to summarize my view on why I'm both willing to accept and also encourage those who think of themselves as artists (even if I don't get much out of what they produce), I'd quote one of my recent posts:

Quote

"Does it add something to the world or take away something from the world that Person X thinks of themselves as an artist and as making art? I think that drive toward art, that desire, even if others might see it as unfulfilled, has merit in itself. The inspiration of wanting to make art, wanting to be part of the conversation, wanting to be taken seriously, wanting to assert oneself through painting or photography or music, even if one's talent is limited to mimicking what they already think is good art, is still something of value to the individual involved, whether it is to anyone else or not."
—Sam 

I'd love for you to address this directly. That will help me understand why you think otherwise. 

I'm worried that I'm not fully understanding your own why. One of the things that stands out to me in your framing is that you find it cumbersome to wade through so many unfulfilling photos in search of those few that will provide feeling and meaning to you. Though I understand that frustration, I frankly don't see that as a compelling reason to tell the millions posting photography to the web, or painting at home and mimicking the classics, or writing songs that may be fun but are far from original, that they're not artists. What will be gained? What will it change?

In favor of your argument, I might think in terms not of my own convenience or annoyance at browsing the web but of the integrity of art itself (as a practice, institution, etc.). But I'm also skeptical of some of the institutional aspects of art, which goes back to what I think some or much of Duchamp was about. Were we to talk about the integrity of art, how do we do that without restricting it as an exclusive or even elite sort of club, a club which over the years has tried in vain to keep a lot of rabble-rousers and iconoclasts out?

Edited January 16 by samstevens

[Allen Herbert]

" Just like History of Art. As you say of Duchamp, artists often break conventions to express creativity"!Je Ne.

Indeed he does, but he does not work for everybody. For me, he does not. A sensational photographer who merely photographs objects of little interest. Sensational, to shock his viewers. Corny.

He's other works would invoke little interest on PN. A Photographer whos work would be passed by, if the arty commercial world would have taken him onboard. But then they take anything on board regardless of any art.

Je,Ne, you are lost in a cult of your own making. Those were the days which have never ended.

For you.

Best Modern Photographers - Search (bing.com)

 

 

 

Edited January 16 by Allen Herbert

[je ne regrette rien]

19 hours ago, samstevens said:

I'd love for you to address this directly. That will help me understand why you think otherwise. 

 

I think I already mentioned it: nothing should be done to limit freedom of expression or of creativity in any form, obviously if it's not exploitation or abuse. Ethics and propaganda or manipulation are more difficult ti handle.

Nor can we make creativity and thus art an exclusive elitist realm.

My motivation for my position, which, as you correctly indicate, is related to the so many unfulfilling photos, is not creative exclusiveness. That would be a disaster, because excluding is never a fruitful approach: we should not miss any creators with an artistic intent. I welcome creative and artistic acts, they are needed and nobody shall be excluded for any reason, even though I may not be capable of understanding creative propositions because of my limited nature.

My motivation is creating and seeing awareness, starting with declaring the artistic intent, which is totally legitimate and welcome. And not with beginning with the author's declaration "I am an artist", most of all when this is obviously not the case, in respect to what else can be seen and the steps of the author's creative path.

I call for awareness, knowledge, information and exchange. We mentioned mistakes. A precious experience. But how can we understand and take advantage of mistakes to progress along our creative path if we upfront label ourselves as artists. Somebody who is already complete and fulfilled.

Declaring our artistic intent is just enough, perfectly fair, not annoying and no obstacle to making art at some stage.

[je ne regrette rien]

20 hours ago, samstevens said:

But I'm also skeptical of some of the institutional aspects of art, which goes back to what I think some or much of Duchamp was about. Were we to talk about the integrity of art, how do we do that without restricting it as an exclusive or even elite sort of club, a club which over the years has tried in vain to keep a lot of rabble-rousers and iconoclasts out?

Here I'm fully on the same page. Everybody should be free to declare an artistic intent. We then see what they make out of it.

[samstevens]

32 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

My motivation is creating and seeing awareness, starting with declaring the artistic intent, which is totally legitimate and welcome. And not with beginning with the author's declaration "I am an artist",

I know plenty of artists who would recoil at declaring their intent. Their work itself speaks much louder. They are making pictures precisely because some things can't be put into words and, in many cases, they're simply not good with words but are good at expressing themselves from behind the lens of a camera or with a paintbrush in hand.

Many artists don't know their artistic intent. And, even when they do, what many artists say about artistic intent or purpose can be rich but is also rather universal and vague. Look at all of these quotes of artistic intent. We know many of the artists. Couldn't any one of these statements apply to any one of these artists?

https://www.azquotes.com/quotes/topics/purpose-of-art.html

I enjoy and am able to put much into words, but whenever I try to say what I'm doing photographically, I immediately think of alternatives, negations, and counterpoints to the things I'm saying. Even if I'm interested in what artists have to say about their work, I don't think a declaration of intent makes someone any more of an artist than a declaration such as "I am an artist." And I don't think the artist is always the best person to discuss or analyze their own work. They're off downright wrong!

On a certain level, leaving it at "I am an artist" feels rather straightforward, simple, and artistic. That's why so many artists respond humorously, facetiously, or ironically to such questions about their art ...

Quote

Art? That's a man's name.
—Andy Warhol

Quote

"... the beginning of the beginning of the end of the beginning ..."
—Robbie Robertson (when asked by Scorcese about The Last Waltz)

 

Edited January 17 by samstevens

[samstevens]

34 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

But how can we understand and take advantage of mistakes to progress along our creative path if we upfront label ourselves as artists. Somebody who is already complete and fulfilled.

I never thought of "artist" to mean someone who is already complete and fulfilled. Declaring oneself or another an artist means no such thing, IMO. As a matter of fact, often the opposite is true. Most artists are on a journey, by no means complete, and history is filled with unfulfilled and struggling artists.

[je ne regrette rien]

4 hours ago, samstevens said:

I know plenty of artists who would recoil at declaring their intent.

Fine, but I’m talking about those who don’t recoil and define themselves straight away. There are many.

4 hours ago, samstevens said:

Many artists don't know their artistic intent. And, even when they do, what many artists say about artistic intent or purpose can be rich but is also rather universal and vague

Agreed. I was thinking of something universal and vague such as “I work to make art”. Definitely not a refined artist statement.

There are photographers who don’t even think of producing art.

Edited January 17 by je ne regrette rien

[samstevens]

Bottom line:

In my now 70 years on the planet, I've learned it's often futile to make demands of others. I especially don't want to do that in the realm of art. I'd rather expose myself to what others put out and—like it or not, cliché or not—get what I can from it, which is often a different perspective from my own and sometimes nothing in which case I move on.

A reason for me to focus on what people do on the Internet is that pop culture, even when trite, can be ironically inspiring, something to play off of and use for ideas and even try to visually comment on. 

More important than what others are doing or saying are the questions I might ask myself! Am I forging a photographic identity or voice and what's it saying?

Throughout this thread, I've been sensing that last question lurking in the background. How does Luca (and each of us) identify in terms of making photos? As someone who makes photos, as a photographer, as an artist? What is Luca's (and each of our's) intent and how important, if at all, is it to verbalize that to ourselves and how important is it to verbalize it to others?

If our photos are a reflection of ourselves so, I believe, are the questions we ask and our expectations of others.

Edited January 17 by samstevens

[je ne regrette rien]

Thank you for your bottom line @samstevens.

In respect to making demands on others, I rationally agree with you. But I live this kind of idealistic contradiction.

On 1/18/2024 at 12:03 AM, samstevens said:

I'd rather expose myself to what others put out and—like it or not, cliché or not—get what I can from it

And, again, here we agree. Your reflections make me rethink about my annoyance and leads me to a more patient and welcoming approach to what comes my way, refraining from too quickly judging and moving on.

On 1/18/2024 at 12:03 AM, samstevens said:

How does Luca (and each of us) identify in terms of making photos? As someone who makes photos, as a photographer, as an artist? What is Luca's (and each of our's) intent and how important, if at all, is it to verbalize that to ourselves and how important is it to verbalize it to others?

And this is the question of questions, at least for me.

I am one tho wishes that his photographs portray his relationships with his fellow human beings, their objects and scenarios. I have no idea if I identify as a photographer or what else. I think I am more interested in documenting rather than making art, even if aesthetics has its importance. This documentation can be of such intimate nature that I seriously consider if I want to make it public. And so often I decide against it.

It is very important for me to verbalise it to others so that I can become aware myself, as the long discussion threads in this section since 2010 show. Hearing from others, being open to their views and opinions is what really makes me develop.

[inoneeye]

8 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

This documentation can be of such intimate nature that I seriously consider if I want to make it public. And so often I decide against it.

?. I’m intrigued. Intimate photos have So much potential for standing out.

[samstevens]

8 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

intimate

There’s risk involved.

Intimacy between photographer and subject can be risky, trying to express it can be risky, and making it public can be risky. 

I sometimes sense intimacy simply in the way a photographer handles a camera and approaches photography. That intimacy, though it may include intimacy between photographer and subject, is with what one is doing, with photography itself.

Photo situations where I’ve felt myself approaching that have been rich and memorable.

[Allen Herbert]

"n respect to making demands on others, I rationally agree with you. But I live this kind of idealistic contradiction. Je Ne.

In fairy land.

Maybe, you should think photography,  instead of arse grazing. Arse grazing has can be very boring.

Edited January 20 by Allen Herbert

[Allen Herbert]

Anyway ,,lets go somewhere else other than arse grazing..

Yes, a photograph, ,without a thousand words of crap.

 

[Allen Herbert]