Manifest of Feminism

It is not porn. I'm not sure its art. It is however, erotic!

 

I like the background, I like the model and I like this picture. Thanks.

This image makes me ask questions:

 

(1) If it is a celebration of women, why is her face not visible, and only her very sexually-oriented bodyparts?

 

(2) If it is a celebration of women, why does she have a very typically mainstream "desirable" or "perfect" body, rather than demonstration of a woman with mainstream "imperfections?" It strikes me that feminism looks to fight the mainstream projections of the female image.

 

(3) Is the name of the image supposed to be sarcasm or irony, because she is completely naked, proportionally "desirable," and looks as if she is presenting herself as a sex object?

 

The lighting is beautiful. The background serves as a VERY lovely contrast to the lines of the human form. The human form itself is very nice also. I do find it disconcerting that her legs are open so wide though...you kind of can't help but look, and I really don't want to look...

Did Konrad perhaps mean femininity instead of feminism? Just a thought.

We have a category for "fine art", journalism, PETS, nature, street and even architecture on photo.net. But we do not have one for nudes and erotic. I see the point behind it, the pn-crew wants to avoid a situation where porn-freaks are harvesting the site searching for you-know-what. On the other side we could avoid the same old boring discussion that bursts out every time someone does not hide vaginas or penises with an adaequate amount of shadow. This pic is clearly not porn or sexual harrassment or whatever, it may be art, even if I can see a part of her clitoris. Ask photo.net to create a restricted area for erotic content and maybe we could solve that problem.

 

BTW, very nice pic, but everything´s said already!

Greetings,

In my personal opinion, the shot is very well composed regardless of what you can/can't or want/don't want to see. It's not my taste for nude art, but I am glad it is on this site because I can learn from what I see. I thought that was the whole purpose of this website. I thought the point was to provide a tool for photographers to perfect their craft through constructive criticism and example of their peers. If you "don't want to see" a photo, then don't click on it. It's as simple as that! But it's not right to try to have images, that other people do want to see and possibly even learn from, removed from the site. I have seen countless images on photo.net that I didn't care for at all (some that even "disturbed" me) but I would never criticize the photographer for their taste. If I don't like what I see in a particular portfolio, I simply move to the next, leaving the artist's dignity and my own peace of mind fully intact. In the mean time, the work is still there for someone who does appreciate it to do so. Art and beauty are completely subjective and only the viewer has the right to decide if it fills either category. If, by chance, it's your children that you don't want to view these pictures, then there is NetNanny, NetWatch and countless other software products available that give you the ability to shield them from anything you don't want them viewing on the web. Most of the programs you can download for free at www.downloads.com .(BTW that is not an advertisement for downloads.com it's just a suggestion to prevent people from trying to censor this wonderful website!)

 

The brick wall background is a bit of a drag.

Age old debate, some people have very low tolerance levels and others think anything is acceptable. Like most people, I think, I fit somewhere in the middle. That's not a cop out, I agree with the comment earlier, if I find a photograph unpleasant or disturbing I move on. In this case, I think it is a beautiful photograph of a beautiful body.

Love the pose and lighting, the background however... perhapse if you cast a shadow on it? It seems far too obviously rendered as is. Other than that kudos on a great shot and a wonderful model.

Earlier commentators seem to see genitalia above all else in the picture. At least one is bothered by the spread legs. I offer two images as an experiment; one without the legs, and one without the genitalia, or, rather, the pubic hair mostly covering the genitalia. After looking at the edited images, I'm willing to conclude that the picture is in fact about the woman's body as a whole, and that the lower part of the picture is necessary to make the rather bold, X-shaped composition work. I don't think the genitalia, as a compositional element (as opposed to what we know and think about what they actually are), make that much difference in the photo: they don't change the lines, and really just add a bit of shadow. So that said, notice all the lines in the image; the curve starting at her nose and running down her hair, and the longer curve from her nose, running down her left arm and continuing down her right leg; the bold line starting with her right leg and broken by the curve in her left arm; the overall diagonal thrust of the image with the leg running out the lower right side and the head and neck pointing up out the left hand side of the image. It really is about the lines and the curves, even if we also recognize the image as that of an actual woman in a fairly explicit pose.

I couldn't figure out how to get two images loaded with one comment, so here's the second image.

air-brushed or Hair-brushed ? nice contrast of hard linear bricks to soft organic shapes.....but really, a model like this in this pose, she would look good in front of a dog house. Question: is she scratching or What ? ha, looks like she getting some relief anyways !!!!!!!

Funny how most if not all of the comments are from male onlookers. Most comments probably influenced by the amount of male hormones in there head where this photo sends it. The only thing I could think about when I first looked at this " art picture " was a frontal entry. In My opinion (NOT ART). PUT THIS IN PENTHOUSE WHERE IT BELONGS AND KEEP IT OUT OF PHOTO.NET WILL YOU. Although I must say I do envy the use of light and desire to master this technique, but don't give me this (art) nonsense.

Let me start of by saying that this is art...the fine art of erotica. And, I might add, it's done right for a change. I'll never figure out why some people feel compelled to equate it to pornography. I've seen pornography wrongly called erotica, and yes, that certainly isn't art nor is it something I would find desireable; perhaps that's where the confusion comes from.

 

I have to feel some sympathy for people who find the human body in its natural state offensive. What's worse is people who would censor such an image by cropping or air brushing.

 

I honestly think it's time for our so-called modern society to get in touch with human sexuality and admit once and for all that it's healthy and natural. Perhaps then we wouldn't have the health problems our modern society has with so many people being overweight.

 

I am a bit confused as to why nobody is catching the point of this magnificent photo along with the obvious name. This is obviously the work of a seasoned professional in my opinion, as can be seen in other photos of this author. In the name "Manifest of Feminism" is in relation to his lighting and the female form which on the left blends in with the wall and is strikenly bold on the right side as if the female form is stepping from the wall which also is indication with the legs open as they are. This is what i see in the picture, my opinion only unless the author of the picture cares to give his insight. I think this is fantastic photo, VERY creative and not at all deserving of some of the rude comments already made above.

incredible super

A rather bold pose - - - - captured very well

It's a shame to read all the comments on "this being borderline pornographic!" Some people are just too embarassed of the nude body regardless if it is male or female. Let me ask you this, (for those who are conservative and married) do you ridicule your spouse for being nude? How is your spouse's body different (phyically not spiritually) from this one? In essence we are all the same, looking at this picture is like any other woman looking at herself, she has what this model has. It would be like me looking at a male model, we both share the basics of human anatomy, sure he may have a better physique, but we are the same (if you get what I am trying to say). We are all human, for God's sake animals see each other naked. Humans were naked.

 

 

Good photo! But that little bit of hair between her arm and back looks like a bad case of armpit hair. ;-p

 

_JG

 

 

p.s re: Daniel's comment...isn't this website called "PHOTO.net"!!?? Isn't this a picture? Whatever kind of photograph it belongs here, it is the expression of the photographer and his or her skill, regardless if it is floral, landscape, or erotica. PHOTO! AKA PHOTOGRAPH! tehehehehe. :-)

 

p.p.s This is not bad at all (I give it a 2 on extreme erotica...out of 10), I have seen worse on this very website. So what are we complaining about?

What a great controvercy you have created with such a real image, a women in full display of her body is just great. However, in levels of consciousness every one has the right to have their own opinion, and that is what you have send out with this image. People exploring their fears and inner relationships with their bodies and sexual issues. I just love it. Great work. Take good care. Warm regards from Miami.