Carla Bruni by Jean-Baptiste Mondino

[John Peri]

During the time when her husband was President of the French Republic, I saw a full length, frontal nude, life-size photo of his wife, super-model Carla Bruni exposed at the Grand Palais that was taken by the photographer Jean-Baptiste Mondino. No one raised an eyebrow, least of all him.

Why is there such hysteria in some societies around the subject of nudity, though thankfully less so in France. By all means protect children against obscenity, vulgarity, violence, but adult nudity per se?

[samstevens]

By the way, this thread is posted to the Photo.net Site Help Forum.

I think the reactions to nudes range from understandable and justified to hysterical.

Obviously, society has an issue with nudity that's often unhealthy and often guided by religious zealotry or downright false belief and manipulation. That goes for both actual nudity and portrayals of nudity on screen and in art.

Regarding portrayals, there are over-the-top reactions to nudity in movies and photography, just because of the nudity itself.

But there's also a more understandable and justifiable negative reaction to some portrayals which is more about the portrayal and less about the nudity per se. So, I think many women and some men see degrees of exploitation in certain nudes. And some can be (rightfully) critical of nudes that don't offer much more than titillation masquerading as art or fine art.

There was a recent thread here on PN that attempted to explore nudity in photography. I considered the opening proposition unfortunate, but some interesting discussion ensued.

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/550996-do-photographs-of-nudes-make-sense-after-edward-weston-saul-leiter-or-robert-mapplethorpe/page/4/#comment-5814743

In short, there may be various reasons for negative reactions. Not all negative reactions are hysterical. And specific cases probably bring more light to the subject than generalizations. Context is significant.

[John Peri]

What may be perceived as titillation by some, I have even seen Vogue Magazine accused of that, can be seen as art to others;  it very much depends on an individual's taste and orientation. There is also a cultural distinction, which is largely what I was referring to above.

That said, adult nude photography is not confined to women alone. I have seen explicit nude images of men on our pages, which can equally be perceived as catering to some people's source of interest or arousal, if that is what titillation was meant to imply. How much we relate to any of these as artistic expression or not depends on the viewer, and so it should be.

[John Peri]

3 hours ago, John Peri said:

How much we relate to any of these as artistic expression or not depends on the viewer, and so it should be.

.. All it requires is an equal tolerance and respect for another’s point of view.

[samstevens]

6 hours ago, John Peri said:

it very much depends on an individual's taste and orientation

Yes. And then some. There are also societal and cultural factors. You asked about so-called hysteria around nudity. I responded with two distinctions: 1) There are many negative reactions that aren’t hysterical, 2) There’s a difference between reacting to nudity and reacting to particular portrayals of nudity.

Taste does play a role. Negative and positive reactions, willingness and unwillingness to exploit, predispositions to mask titillation as art, will all have to do with a variety of factors, including taste. Taste doesn’t just drive viewers. It drives photographers as well. It can also thwart creativity, as Picasso noted.

Taste is rather subjective, but when large swaths of people are offended by something, it can translate objectively into the refusal to display certain images or even censorship, often unfortunate outcomes. 

But changes in taste and, more importantly, changes in culture, sensibility and sensitivity over time, can also result in positive changes. Generally, due to women’s movements and movements bringing to light the objectifying effects portrayals of women historically have had, the artistic conversation and the approach to portrayals is beginning to change, at least in some quarters.

Along with taste, I would include discernment. Many can’t or won’t discern the difference in portrayals, and will simply categorize it as a nude or a boudoir photo and not get past the simple category. A more discerning viewer can usually tell when the artist or photographer is expressing something of significance vs. when the artist or photographer is playing the same historical game. Discerning viewers can also tell the difference between one-note portrayals/aesthetics and more creative and exploratory approaches.

6 hours ago, John Peri said:

adult nude photography is not confined to women alone. I have seen explicit nude images of men on our pages, which can equally be perceived as catering to some people's source of interest or arousal, if that is what titillation was meant to imply

Trying to “both sides” this by comparing portrayals of men to portrayals of women, ironically, proves the point. That kind of comparison, considering the historical disadvantages women have been at in this arena and the amount of exploitation they’ve withstood, only shows why there is still so much work to be done.

Edited February 3 by samstevens

[John Peri]

What may be perceived as titillation by some can be seen as art to others, it depends on an individual's taste and orientation. There is also a cultural distinction involved which I referred to above. 

That said, adult nude photography is not confined to women alone. I have seen explicit nude images of men on our pages, others in drag etc.,  which can equally be perceived as catering to some people's source of arousal, if that is what titillation is meant to imply. How much we relate any of these to artistic expression or not depends on the viewer.

[samstevens]

12 hours ago, John Peri said:

depends on the viewer

A lot depends on the photographer.

One challenge of art is to embrace subjectivity while not being fooled into thinking it’s more powerful than it is. Art is a world … of tastemakers, of patrons, of critics, of curators, of museum boards, of likers on PN. It’s also somewhat determined by culture, as you noted. Subjectivity is vital but shouldn’t be “used” to render art meaningless, valueless, amoral, or void of any responsibility whatsoever.

Subjectivity is both the right of every artist and viewer and one of the greatest excuses on Earth.

I think somewhere in the dialogue of all the voices I just mentioned as well as in the history of art through the ages is a kind of truth that goes beyond subjectivity even if it never reaches the kind of objective certainty truth is often saddled with. 

Many artists are guided by an emotional truth, or at least a willingness to be emotionally authentic.

That can be a start toward filtering through the sometimes intentionally opaque web of subjectivity.

[John Peri]

Double standards:

It’s a cliché, but as it is customary to say, I maintain that it is all in the eye of the beholder. By attempting to say otherwise, you are just trying to denigrate the author, me on this occasion! No problem, I can take it, but it merits a response.

 Actually, in my view, your description may well fit better some of the somewhat sad, nude or in drag images of effeminate men posted on PN that I referred to further up. But that’s just a viewpoint and it has no standing, who am I to judge or dictate to others how they should perceive them. Are they titillation, certainly not for me, but for others possibly, who knows?!  Is that a reflection on the author or his purpose, frankly I don’t think so, it’s just his (read your) viewpoint, his preference and his style. 

Come to that, I doubt whether you are really titillated by my pictures!

Ultimately, one should learn to live and let live, and express the same tolerance and understanding of others that one aspires to oneself.  I try to do this, possibly not always with success, however I have never criticized these works before either directly or through attempted sly, somewhat offensive comments like the ones you slip into our pages, albeit in a more moderate style than under the previous management.

As I and others have told you more than once before over the years Fred, find a life, there’s room for you, there’s room for everyone else here too, the more the merrier and vive la difference.

[John Peri]

My thanks to William for moving this topic to an appropriate section ... I plead ignorance despite my century spent on PN

[samstevens]

3 hours ago, John Peri said:

effeminate men

Back in the 60s, my mom sat me down and suggested that some of my ways of speaking and gesturing were effeminate. I didn't have the tools at the time to deal with this description in any other way but to take it to heart and become conscious (self conscious) of my behavior, trying to adjust it. This was not an unusual experience for many gay men of my age, who heard this kind of thing from parents, clergy, kids on the schoolyard, civic leaders, and others. I knew and still know my mom loved me and cared, and was a product of her era and culture. That was then.

The only coherent response I can come up with to such usage today is, well ...

[John Peri]

Well, let's say I am from that era too.

Fred, be yourself .. we like you just as you are .. simply learn to accept others also.

[samstevens]

My acceptance of others doesn’t extend to looking at photos uncritically. I don’t consider art criticism to be non-acceptance of others in the way you’re using it. 

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Helmut Newton made sexuality and tittilation in itself a strong component in his photography depicting women as strong and often suggesting female sexual predation.  Reactions to his fashion advertising photos were very different depending  on the world view of the viewer, but generally were well received in Europe and particularly France and Germany but not so much by Mid-America.  Both Japanese photographers Daido Moriyama and especially Arakis have stated sexuality and the erotic were essential elements of photography.  Leads me to believe that attitudes toward nudity are culturally conditioned and not intrinsically true or false.  Eye of the beholder? Intent of the photographer? Understanding the viewpoints of both is useful, but I think understanding where the photographer is coming from is really important when deciding about these issues. Please don't construe this to mean it's OK to share Arakis' photos of his nude and tied-up wife with your grandkids. People should be of an age when they can decide these issues for themselves.  

Deciding whether a photo is exploitive or not can be a very complex proposition indeed.  See the photography of Robert Maplethorpe, Diane Arbus or any documentarian. In a way, every photographer is exploiting their subject in some way, but that isn't the sole criteria for deciding its value.

[samstevens]

@httpwww.photo.netbarry, Thanks. Some interesting points and great examples to consider.

Your post leads me back to discernment. Sure, Arbus, Araki, Moriyama, Newton, and Mapplethorpe were controversial (and had their detractors for it). But, if we're talking about nudity or presentations of sexuality, I think we're talking not just about exploitation and/or titillation. With all these photographers, there's an inherent (sometimes rather natural-seeming and often very authentic) sense of provocation. I think provocation can be a strong artistic marker. In most of the work of those mentioned above, there's also a raw emotional approach that's palpable. 

Now, to me it's obvious, to others it not might be, what the difference is between what those photographers are producing and what some folks on internet sites are giving us in the category of nudes or related genres. It's like comparing a Sam Shepard play to a Hallmark afterschool special on teen romance. If folks are attracted to the Hallmark stuff and take messages from it and are content to call that art, more power to them. Thankfully, I don't have to go along with that. And I'm comfortable being critical of Hallmark stuff within the context of a discussion on art.

While there are various sensitivities to the exploitation of women in photography and I can respect those who might be more or less sensitive than I am, some degree of discernment tells me that there's a difference between softcore porn, hardcore porn, and art. That doesn't mean that those lines won't be blurred by some of the more provocative artists among us, which is why art can generate such strong debate and emotional responses. But that those lines can be blurred doesn't suggest to me that many/most instances of softcore porn, hardcore porn, and art can be distinguished.

As you said, and as mentioned above in this thread, a lot of this is cultural. A lot is also influenced by what curators bring to public view, what patrons will pay for, and what will keep museum doors opened. So, in that sense, the eye of each beholder has already had their vision directed by various thumbs on the scales. Yes, we can still decide for ourselves, or at least feel like we're deciding for ourselves. But those decisions we each make don't happen in a vacuum. They happen with all kinds of outside forces already at play on us. 

Interestingly, the Internet may be changing that. Because it allows us to be exposed to more unfiltered and un-"approved" work, which keeps the intermediaries more out of the picture. Unfortunately, the Internet is run by multi-billion dollar corporations with execs who will manipulate anything to make another buck, and influencers and google search algorithms are playing a larger and larger role. So, behold you may. But you may just be beholden to a skewed mathematical formula for the privilege.

Edited February 23 by samstevens

[samstevens]

39 minutes ago, samstevens said:

But that those lines can be blurred doesn't suggest to me that many/most instances of softcore porn, hardcore porn, and art can be distinguished.

Should read “doesn’t suggest to me that many/most instances of softcore porn, hardcore porn, and art can’t be distinguished. [In other words, for the most part, this stuff is distinguishable.]

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Thanks Sam. I'm glad my post helped stimulate such a great response! I love the 

2 hours ago, samstevens said:

It's like comparing a Sam Shepard play to a Hallmark afterschool special on teen romance.

That's brilliant and rings true to me.  But there's also that middle ground of someone who thinks they are writing fabulous fiction but to the rest of us seem to think is actually teen romances.   This is actually where many of we photographers are here on Photo.net and I suppose other sites, somewhere in between.  

Some times the substance of the photo is more than the surface of the photo. Like the guy who does what I would consider soft-porn serial photos here on p.net, sort of a semi-soft porn collages that I find interesting. Have you seen those (royal you, any of you). I would like to see your comments on those.  Is there something in a way he or she presents them that makes them more than just cutie nudies?

 

[samstevens]

8 hours ago, httpwww.photo.netbarry said:

But there's also that middle ground of someone who thinks they are writing fabulous fiction but to the rest of us seem to think is actually teen romances.   This is actually where many of we photographers are here on Photo.net and I suppose other sites, somewhere in between.

Yes, that middle ground is likely where the majority of photographers are. Many are just doing their thing, not trying to be one of the greats, even when inspired by them. 

Looking around the Internet and reading some of what people say about their photography, some do seem to have visions of grandeur, and some seem contentedly self aware. Hopefully, all are getting something out of doing photography, regardless of their own self judgments.

In this middle ground, discernment again comes in. I find it pretty easy to spot authenticity. Some authentic work is better than others and some I like more than others, but it’s nice to see people trying to develop a personal vision. It’s most often easy to spot the gimmicky vs. the substantive, work that’s simple vs. work that has ease, work that challenges vs. work that relies on tried and true tropes, work that exploits with a greater purpose and work that stays right in it. None of these are binary. It’s all a matter of degree and sometimes blurry edges.

I’m not sure which specific photographer you’re referring to but, yes, there are cases that can initially fool me and that I have missed until I saw more there. That’s even happened with my own work, which is why I often look back at my archives, discovering photos I originally dismissed too quickly.

Finally, another thought on subjectivity. One reason I like the critique forum is for the sharing and learning that can be at play. Others’ eyes and opinions can be a gift, even while maintaining one’s own core and objectives. For me, it’s not so much about giving or getting answers as much as it is about creating dialogue. Dialogue with others, with others’ work, with history, with culture, and with other mediums (such as painting, music, theater, sculpture) has a bit more objective character than strict monologue or soliloquy.. Of course, our inner dialogues are also crucial.

[inoneeye]

On 2/22/2024 at 11:46 PM, httpwww.photo.netbarry said:

Like the guy who does what I would consider soft-porn serial photos here on p.net, sort of a semi-soft porn collages that I find interesting. Have you seen those (royal you, any of you). I would like to see your comments on those.

I also have found it interesting. It makes me think. Reminds me casually of Elmer Batters.
The best explanation I can conjure is what Sam has offered, that sometimes the work falls in the blurry edges. I don’t know how much of that is about the photographer or about me the viewer-or at best, both. 

Edited February 26 by inoneeye

[samstevens]

Not saying this is the case here, but more generally I'm wondering about the possibility that a photo could suggest a good sense of handling the camera, a good eye for composition, a good instinct for the moment, all guided by a juvenile/shallow/prurient/exploitive [any or all of these] purpose and sensibility.

[samstevens]

Quote

the guy who does what I would consider soft-porn serial photos here on p.net, sort of a semi-soft porn collages that I find interesting

An open enough description that seems to recognize that many people would see this work as soft-core serial photos and no more, even while some may authentically see more. I look at Mapplethorpe's work and see significance, but completely understand others seeing smut. Actually, that's part of my enjoyment of Mapplethorpe's work, to be honest. I'm drawn to much of Arbus's work but part of me is forced to deal with some of the challenges it poses and some of the very genuine disgusted reactions it receives. Rather than rejecting such reactions, I think they can be embraced as part of the life of the work. The photos are rich enough that they really don't need defending against those who are genuinely turned off by them. They only need to be recognized as doing so.

[mikemorrellNL]

I live in NL and my (standard) TV offerings include the show 'Naked Attractions'.  A show in which fully naked male or female candidates decide who to go on a date with.no 'blurring' of breasts or genitals.  Within 5km  of where I live there are 'nudist beaches' at a local lake. I have friends who choose to go a nudist resort for vacations. Saunas are very popular where everyone is naked.

In contrast, the US seems to have a more 'conservative' approach to nudity in general and certainly on TV  (based on the US shows I occasionally watch).

So my personal impression is - whether it be in art, photography or just daily life - many European countries (including NL) have a much more relaxed attitude to 'nakedness' than in the US. In Europe public 'nakedness' is never associated with sex or shame.

 

Mike

 

 

[Robin Smith]

In the US you can carry a gun and violence is absolutely no problem on TV, but show a touch of genitals or erogenous zones and outrage ensures. Then there is a moralistic attitude to drink too. What a weird upside-down society.

[samstevens]

I recommend a bit of American TV watching before coming to such ridiculous conclusions. I won’t defend, however, the gun sickness we continue to indulge in.
 

I’m not sure PN is the best place, in any case, to indulge in societal or cultural stereotypes, as every culture represented here probably has many things going for it and a few glass houses on its landscape susceptible to stones being thrown. 

[eddy_d]

The US is uptight about nudity. Other countries not so much. Yet we will show violence in newspapers and on the news as well as dead bodies but a nude person. Get out the torches and battering ram because Frankensteins Monster is in our life. Art classes have nude models and no one bats an eye yet there are artists who are uptight about nudity especially in art shows. "Oh we are family oriented." or "children may see it." Parents bring their kids to nude beaches. They probably grow up with no body shame. I am on some photo groups on Facebook and someone will post a censored nude. You should see the testosterone putting down the model. " How can she disrespect herself like that?" She ought to be ashamed of herself." So I said. Please go to an art class and tell the model she is disrespecting herself in front of all the artists. And let me know how it went afterwards.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

On 2/25/2024 at 4:34 PM, inoneeye said:

I also have found it interesting. It makes me think. Reminds me casually of Elmer Batters.
The best explanation I can conjure is what Sam has offered, that sometimes the work falls in the blurry edges. I don’t know how much of that is about the photographer or about me the viewer-or at best, both. 

I was just thinking it reminds me a little of Warhohl and who was painting frames inspired from the funny papers and/or  comics from roughly the same era.