Overexposed: Curled Nude

Amy, congratulations on being selected for POW! I think it's very elegant and has a nice sensuality as well. As far as being "overexposed", I guess you can say it acheives this on several levels:)

I don't think there might be a more vexing remark about a nude than to say to his or her author: "what a beautiful body"! Say it to the model, if you want to flatter her or him, but do never say it to the artist, unless you want to insult her or him! Now, Amy's position here is a little bit difficult as model and artist at the same time.

 

Why do I say these things? Because people have to distinguish between the three ways of representing a human body:

 

the NUDE - an artistic representation,

 

the SEXY to PORNO picture, draw, etc - all sensual representations,

 

the ANATOMIC PLATE - a scientific representation.

 

If you say "what a beautiful body" you place yourself in a sensual approach, which may be vexing to the artist but flattered to the model. And these three ways of representing the human body cannot be mixed, unless you want to get: bad art, or boring sexy-porno, or wrong science.

 

So, guys (and some girls) who admired Amy's body, keep your hands on the desk! Both hands please!

 

PS: In my opinion, this photo has nothing with a sexy or porno representation, so I don't understand all these people. I consider it an artistic one, not the best of Amy's nudes (as I mentioned it before), but anyway a pure artistic work.

I am very impressed with what you can do with a digital camera and using self-portrait!

I always liked the pictures in your portfolio. This is really artistic nudes. Congratulation for this POW. I like the almost vertical point of view of the camera and the pose you took. It's very sensual and the aesthetic is beautiful. Contrary to a comment I read before, I think it takes more than just a woman naked to get good comments on a picture! Actually, I think it's even harder because you have to take the viewer beyond the fact that he is looking at a nude, and you do it very well. Thanks for your work!

Very nice use of light especially the way the light brings out the musculature of your back. There is a nice smooth flow clockwise up to your face which evokes the feeling that you know you are being watched...draws in the viewer.

Both erotic and elusive. The only thing I find distracting is the left foot. Unlike the rest of the photo, it contrasts by being rigid and angular. My two cents worth.

After four days looking to this photo I didn't get tired of it. Sometimes I even take a couple of seconds or so to look at it again. An opaque fabric might render the overall scene better, but it still holds its mood as it is due to the well done lightning and composition.

Just wish the lighting was a bit less on the arm. Other than that, the photo and pose are terrific

I think the lighting is too harsh.

I think the lighting is harsh, not dramatic. I think this illustrates a problem with digital- you may forget to bracket the exposure to get the best rendition.

I think there are better pictures in the group.

 

Some of the ones illuminated by the narrow slits of light are much more interesting.

 

I am also interested in the psychology of all the shots showing yourself behind bars.

 

What is imprisoning you?

 

Instead of the over-exposure approach, you may want to look at what constitutes high-key, as opposed to your frequent film-noir preferences.

Does the fact that Amy reveals herself not only through her photos, but also *in* her photos have anything to do with the generally positive feedback she seems to be receiving for her work?

 

MAKE NO MISTAKE, I very much like her work also, and have commented upon this a couple of times here at photo.net, but also in an email to her. But I also wonder if she, or any other photographer, who pursues the medium of self-portraiture as extensively as she does might not be influencing the responses of critics here and elsewhere. The point I am trying to make has nothing to do with the fact that Amy is an attractive (and often nude) female in her uploaded images, but rather with the fact that she is a much more identifiable photographer than some other excellent photographers at this site (i.e. who knows what Tony Dummett or Daniel Bayer looks like?). In other words, she is much more of a *person* than an *abstraction*, and I think people in general are less likely to criticize (read "hurt the feelings") of people they feel they know.

 

Again Amy, I like this and many other of your wonderful photographs, and I think I have been reasonably objective in my praise. But I just thought I would throw out this question for debate (or outright dismissal if people think I'm off my rocker!).

congrates on pow Amy! I always said I liked this photo as well as the rest of your work. Looks like you finally get your week in the spot light form photo net. The recagnition you deserve. Hope to see somemore of your work!

I was going to duck and cover, because those are fightin' words, but I guess I'm in the mood for a rumble.

 

Who gets to decide what's moral and what's not?

 

Is the Delacroix painting 'Liberty Leading the People' pornographic? How about Michelangelo's technical drawing-like figure study of a man in a circle? What about Steiglitz' images of Georgia O'Keefe? How about O'Keefe's flower paintings? Rolston's (I think) image of a nude Cindy Crawford, knees up in front of her, posed and lit from above so that her 'privates' are not visible? Botticelli's 'The Birth of Venus'? What about Nick Ut's photograph of a naked girl running down the road after having been burned by napalm? Side view of Giselle naked on a horse (bikini bottom digitally removed)?

 

There is one image in the group that is certainly more disturbing than the rest, and it has very little to do with exposed breasts and/or genetalia.

 

Who gets to decide what's moral and what's not?

 

Stephen F - you definitely are bashing this picture by rating it one/one - if you think its "porn" why are you looking at it and rating it? I bet you looked at the whole folder, too. Keep your hypocritical morality to yourself.

Your nude self portraits display a powerful artistic expression. Superbly executed and tremendously inspiring. Keep going with it Amy.

Regards, Marc Schultz - Bangkok Thailand - www.thaidigitalphoto.com

 

Great Picture. I do think it is the best one in the folder.

 

I was surprised by the tolerance of this forum up untill a second ago and was about to comment that this picture is successful in being art: out of more then hundred of thousands viewers no-one mentioned it being porn. I guess the ratio of 1:100461 is not bad also :-)

 

However, no photo.net from work till next Monday for me.

I think Sholte hit on something. I was getting a little nauseated skimming the comments, assuming everybody was fawning because Amy is a visual treat. But Nick made me think and yes, she not only has a face, she provides comments and openly engages in discussions of her work with an intelligent sense of humor instead of the arrogant defensiveness we often see from others.

So Amy is not only more real than virtual, but likeably so. That has to influence the feedback she receives about her work.

I now attribute the overwhelmingly favorable comments to a higher motivation than originally assumed. And to the very nice and deserving work on Amy's part.

 

Steve

First of all I want to say I love all of Amy's self nudes. I was a bit surprise why this one became POW because there are plenty of pictures of hers that are better! Without being too critical I would say this from a neutral persepective without any preconcieved ideas, I felt the picture exposure is too bright, despite being nude much of the body is subdued but her head seem to be a focal points of attention. Is it because the image is of a beautiful woman that caught the public's imagination and photo.net to promote it as POW? If it was a male nude or a picture of someone less attractive would we start to critique its technical flaws?

Perhaps a 3rd category rating for "model appeal" would set the score straight?

 

I have read with interest some of the comments about this photo. I am not really qualified to comment about the technical aspects of this image nor does it really grab me in an aesthetic sense...however I think all of Amy's nude photos are reasonably good...not particularly sexual, always tasteful, yet they also convey her obvious attractiveness. How is that sexual or pornographic? I believe that it is up to the individual to decide what offends them...but if you find this image to be "porn" or primarily sexual then I think it says more about your mind than that of the photographer's. Photographers such as (the late) Mapplethorpe are perhaps closer to being borderline than any of the images Amy has posted here. Congratulations to Amy on P.O.W.

Amy, as far as I'm concerned, Esthetics: 10; Whatever else, 11, Overall Emotional content... at least an 11 .. I really can't relate anything in art (and most certainly that is what this is) to numbers. Great work, as usual. Usual, but not "commonplace".

Excellent Michael Schweiger, I'm resonating with your comment and I'm happy to have my opinions confirmed by somebody else, even more directly: while I employed the smooth term "this people", you pointed the issue by using the more directly "you".

 

Now, what I want to add here, in view of clarifying my previous presented position, is that this forum concerns pictures as art and people as artists. Not bodies or any other subjects used in (or for) the pictures, may be a worm or a fly. Subjects' images viewed by the artist - YES, this is for commenting here, but the subjects themselves - NO, unless Photo.net members do not want to transform this forum concerned with the artistic photography in a "scandal forum".

 

Take this as a personal opinion and a proposition for this forum, not as a rule imposed by Vi O'Rel's will - OK?

 

I took a quick look at the whole portfolio. Decent work. In reading the photographer's description of doing the POW shot, I know she is trying to come up with something real. I hope she continues this self portrait series and self-journey as long as she lives. There is beauty and reality at every age and rarely is it recorded thoroughly

This is my first exposure to a nude woman. Thank you Amy. In response to Stephen F, I find it more sensual than erotic. Does that make it pornographic?

 

In any case, if I ever have a son I'll make sure to expose him to some nude portraitures before he turns 30. WHAT HAVE I BEEN MISSING...

 

Digital is the wave of the future- commercial garbage. My standpoint for still photography is always viewed through the lens of cinematography. That is my occupation as well what one of my three degrees is in. When Sony CineAlta digital motion picture cameras were used by Lucas everyone in my field got nervous. I've been to the Panavision seminars for this new digital motion picture camera. It's all hype. It's the same with still cameras as well. It lacks the resolution, contrast ratio, color saturation- the list goes on. Since the Lumiere Brothers and the coldian wet plate process picture taking has changed very little. That's a few hundred years give or take. Digital photography might be "clear" and it might represent RGB in 20,000 pixels. Film is a chemical process, like how your brain interprets, and can represent just like the eye can see. Film sees the scene in hundreds of thousands of "pixels". It's as natural as it can be. Go to Kodak.com for more information on the reason to use film.

OK, I don't have 3 degrees in cinematography so, could you explain why film is "as natural as can be"?