Overexposed: Curled Nude

The works that Amy has put up on this site are unique, eye-catching, and provocative, as this discussion has again proven. She adds a needed shot of life to a site that can sometimes be dry and overly technical (in fact, the dullness made my visits less frequent--until I saw her POW and subsequent discussion). I will not take issue on the artistic or technical merits of this POW for that and other reasons.

 

I will, however, take issue with the folks who "applaud" Amy for her "bravery" at showing these pictures of herself on this site. Um, anyone ever think that she actually *likes* showing these pictures to the public and getting comments? I've seen some of her other websites and have noticed that she's not exactly a shy person. Why would she use herself as a subject so many times and post the pictures if she didn't have a little bit of the exhibitionist in her?

 

"Not that there's anything wrong with that," as Seinfeld and Co. would say, but I'm just trying to inject a little bit of reality into the proceedings.

 

Well...an interesting collection of comments. Thanks very much to the people who congratulated me and offered meaningful input. I am pleased to hear that (at least some) people feel that I "openly engage in discussions...with an intelligent sense of humor". I have always felt that taking oneself too seriously is the surest way to look foolish.

I do see that the "porn" issue, and just now, the "exhibitionist" issue have reared their heads. Its quite simple - if you think my pictures are porn, don't look at them. As for exhibitionism:

ex·hi·bi·tion·ism n.
The act or practice of deliberately behaving so as to attract attention.
Psychiatry. A psychosexual disorder marked by the compulsive exposure of the genitals in public.

By the first definition, everyone who posts photos for critique is an exhibitionist. I mean, the root word is "exhibit". Artists generally do exhibit their work.
I trust that no one is seriously suggesting I have a psychiatric disorder because I do self portraits. (If so, at least I will be in good company with many other artists!)
And in fact, I do have trepidations about posting sometimes. There is a feeling of vulnerability. People do have a tendency to comment about me as a model rather than as a photographer. It doesn't offend me but its not what I am looking for - I think the fact that I am the model is incidental. Some days I wish I had not disclosed the fact that these are self-portraits, it seems that some people just can't get past that and focus one whether its a decent shot or not. I wonder what the feedback would have been if I had posted them under a male name, perhaps?

But I have gotten some really excellent advice and made some good connections with people through this site, and so thats why I do this. I can't say I understand why someone would wish to label that as something somehow suspect or even pathological.
Again, thanks very much to the people who commented thoughtfully, I appreciate it...

Nice composition.

i bring certain expectations to self-portraits, among them the idea that the artist is trying to speak to the viewer. the problem with these generally lovely images is that the photog seems to have no rapport with her audience, nor is she trying to cultivate one. i suggest -- and i am no expert -- that in future images, the photog will attempt to make herself more accessible to the viewer. this sounds very strange, of course, since the photog, in fact, has left little to the imagination. what i am talking about is some kind of psychological connection. in truth, many of the images seem a little objectifying. fine, but just not what i would expect from self portraits. on the technical side, i suggest trying to incorporate a few reflectors into your lighting schemes. you might like the subtle results. i hope i haven't sounded to negative. the truth is that many of the images are very, very beautiful. good luck with your work.

"Some days I wish I had not disclosed the fact that these are self-portraits, it seems that some people just can't get past that and focus one whether its a decent shot or not. I wonder what the feedback would have been if I had posted them under a male name, perhaps?"

 

I think that's what makes your pictures so appealing (and controversial) to the masses. Taditional nude photography involves how the artist behind the camera interprets the scene in front of him, which just happens to be a nude human form. He or she manipulates the form in front of his or her lens to get the deired effect. One can look at the picture from less of a personal aspect and more of an aesthetic perspective.

 

You've put yourself out there by admitting that you are the model and photographer. By doing so, you are saying that not only are you the artist, but your form and body is the art, which is quite high self-praise in anyone's book. How that can be construed in any kind of modest context is beyond me.

 

I have a family friend who is a photographer; she has been doing nudes for years. When I used to look at her work, I looked at it with the same sense of detachment and appreciation for the art that I knew she must have when she posed and took the picture. In your portfolio, Amy, I see an undercurrent to that objectivity that is decidedly non-aesthetic, and yes, sexual in nature (especially some of the dominatrix-type shots which were either on another site or here at one time and removed).

 

I'm really not trying to be critical of you (but not succeeding, I guess). I'm really trying to skewer some of the naievete I have been seeing in the comments to your portfolio over the last year.

 

By the way, the reason why I don't post any "useful" comments is because I don't feel I am in a place where I can critique the technical merits of any photo here, since I don't have any pictures up here myself. POW isn't as much for technical critiques as the normal sets of photo comments, since it's already been shown to be a quality photogrpah just by it's appearance on the POW page.

 

 

 

 

wow - she has a striking similarity to Scully...no?

 

=)

Roger- You mention one element of my photos that has been pointed out to me before - that the model (me) doesn't look at the camera, and thus is felt to be less connected with the viewer. Its not only my self portraits in which this is true. If you look at my pictures of other models, you'll see that I rarely compose this way for what I call "art photos."

That may seem a redundant term - let me explain. To me, some shots are portraits and some are art photos. (I don't mean that portraits can't be art, its just a figure of speech.) They differ in the sense that portraits are about the individual in the shot. They are intended to portray "Here is X-person, unique individual. They have thoughts and feelings. Perhaps you'd like them. Perhaps not. But they are human, like you. See them..."Sometimes one is more successful with this than others. But allowing for variations according to the subject, thats what I am trying to do with portraits.
I think the trouble with the term "self-portrait" is that it implies I am trying to do the same thing with myself as a model. Thats not the case. What I am trying to do is make art, as pretentious as that may sound, and I am using myself as material for that. The pictures that I model for are not intended to give people a sense of who I am in any purposeful way. (I am sure one can infer certain things from them...) I feel it would detract from my objective to have people relate to the model as individual - so you could say she (me) is objectified in the sense that she is an icon rather than a person.
So they are not intended to convey any sense of me as an individual, rather, I think of them as a physical expression of concepts or feelings.

What concepts? What feelings?- you may ask. Well, thats the question, isn't it? I can tell you what my thoughts were, but I think the reward for the insightful viewer is that they can come to their own conclusions. I've some very interesting conversations at places where my art was hung with people who were looking at it. Its valuable for me to hear what a photo suggests to someone who isn't privy to my process.
Maybe I should rename the folder. I think knowing that I am the model as well as the photographer in these shots is important, as certain issues of composition make no sense without that information, and to give helpful advice people need to know the circumstances of the shot. But aside from practical considerations, the word "self-portrait" may only serve to be misleading people, like Roger, about my intentions.


Addendum to Joel: You say "You've put yourself out there by admitting that you are the model and photographer. By doing so, you are saying that not only are you the artist, but your form and body is the art, which is quite high self-praise in anyone's book. How that can be construed in any kind of modest context is beyond me. "

I am perplexed by your issue with this. Are dancers and singers also immodest too? Is it ok only if they sing songs other people have written, or perform steps others have choreographed? Would I be immodest if someone else had taken these photos?
Yes, I am the artist. And yes, my body is the part of the art. If that seems like hubris to you, then your artistic vison is too restrictive for me. I don't say that all my work is perfect- far from it! I've only just begun. But I do know that good art doesn't get that way by being "modest".

Yes, Amy does some wonderful work. I've admired her portfolio for a while now. I cannot help wondering how we would all approach our praise, critique or discussion of this photo and Amy's work in general if, as she mentioned, we did not know they were self-portraits. Or even if somehow Amy were presenting the same photos but herself, the photographer, with a male pseudonym, again as if they were not self-portraits. What would we all think then? Would the photographer just be another nude photog? Would this take away from our admiration of her work, or in discussing it with her? Would it change anyone's point of view or feeling about the work? Are we clouded or influenced to the substance of her work knowing they are self-portraits and that we are discussing them with her, the actual nude model? Does this make a difference? Would there be so much uniqueness to the concept and admiration we all have of "Amy Powers"? This is not meant as criticism but just some thoughts that have come to me as I read everyone's comments. Keep up the wonderful and obviously rewarding work Amy.

Have you ever realized, every time you change into your pyjamas you are looking at PORNOGRAPHY, by your account?- But then, I do not know of what age the viewer may be! My advice: Don't ever take a shower unless properly covered up!! (Adelaide S.A.)

The first suggestion I have for you sir is to read- not browse. I stated that one of my degrees was in cinematography. Kind of foolish to get three degrees in the same field. As for elaborating on how I described film- I am not allotted the same courtesy of language and allowed to use 'figures of speech' for reasons of simplicity and length of my post? In essence sir film is a chemical process of the silver halides reacting to the light when the film is exposed. When you 'see' something with your eyes chemical reactions in your brain cause you to 'see' as well. That is precisely why film is as 'natural as can be'. That phrase was illustrating that although film is a man made instrument it represents an image far more naturally than one's and zero's in a digital camera. Again, if you had read my post and put it some effort, instead of bothering me, you'd have seen I directed "you" to Kodak's website. That is where you can research for yourself about film. Ok class you may go to recess and take your potty break.

I dont normally comment on POW but felt the need to share my thoughts. It is always interesting to see the debates and I am pleasantly surprised that they can be so energized but remain civil.

 

Amy I think your work is beautiful. I stumbled across your photot.net home page after seeing one of your posts up for crtique. Im a wildlife photographer but have thought about doing some nude or semi-nude self portraits. I have to tell you that your work really inspired me to try it. I did and they turned out very nice. Im going to try more things and get creative. So, thanks for the inspiration!

 

As to the critique, its beautiful. I can see how some like the fact that it is overexposed but to me, it really doesnt do much. The skin on your arm appears flat and I dont see the signficance of that in the photo. The very essence of the photo is about curves, but some parts look flat because of the light (or overexposure). The composition and everything else is wonderful.

"What I am trying to do is make art, as pretentious as that may sound, and I am using myself as material for that."

 

Making art is clearly what you are doing. In a fundamental way I think I would describe your efforts as "artless" (an ironic word), therefore not pretentious at all. A painter would never be criticized for doing "nudes" or "self-portraits". As for the overexposure, digital images seem to lend themselves to this, why not use it. Again, I doubt that a painter would be faulted for leaving whole areas as white and thus letting the eye of the beholder fill in the missing information. Why should a photographer not be allowed the same freedom?

OH MY GOSH !!! This place has turned into a forth grade tomato slinging war! I cant believe that some people are actually implying that this image is two pixel short of a 1-900 ad! These must be the same people who feel uncomfortable in an art gallery that doesnt have fig leaves where you might expect to see them. It is sad to see some people bash clean art just because they have an insecurity complex.

 

I know how critical women can be about their appearance and their work and so I think it is awesome that Amy would post her pictures for us to admire. I have seen nude models ever since I took art lessons when I was 12 and there is nothing vulgar about displaying or savouring the sight of a beautiful body (and shes got photography talent too!).

Kyle, you took art lessons with nude models when you were 12? Good on you! They wouldnt allow me to attend life drawing in school even when I was 16, how did you manage that?

 

Amy-

 

Like many others I was first struck by the overexposue of the shoulder and arm of the model. Even so, I couldn't break away from the photo. It finally occurred to me that its success in fact hangs specifically on that very aspect.

 

Our eyes are naturally drawn to light spots in photos, and in this case my view starts at the shoulder, sweeps right along the arm, past the elbow and back to the face. It turns out to be an inovative way to draw attention to the model's face and peaceful, almost contemplative expression.

 

Another human trait is our need to look where other people have focused their gaze. In this case, even though the model's eyes are closed, we follow that angle of view down to the leg, then follow the curve back up to the torso, and ultimately return to the shoulder to follow the visual pathway again.

 

This all results in a lot of eye movement and a compulsion to keep looking. It is an especially compelling photo for that reason.

 

I am rating it as a 9 for aesthetics for only one reason- I can't help wondering how much more compelling the aspects I point out would be if the model were photographed upon a completely black background. I don't have time to do it, but you might try testing this by dropping the background to black using Photoshop.

 

This is one of the better figure studies I have ever seen, and I encourage you to experiment more with light and dark, and with leading lines. You have struck upon an aspect that I don't see well-explored among the classic masters of the discipline.

 

This is very, very good work. You have illustrated insites into some potentially exciting new techniques.

 

Thanks for the treat!

 

Hank

As I clicked through from the cover page to the comments on this POW, I thought to myself (based on my quick look from the small version) this looks like a nude study done by a guy that is interested in having nude female models around his studio. Not that the image suggests any sexual or pornographic notes in its style, but that the beauty that was being represented looked like it was shot by a man.

 

Now I will admit that I am particularly sensitive to nude photos of women (very particular about imagery of women in general), generally believing that the subject is overdone (by men in particular for obvious reasons) and rarely original or thought-provoking. Strangely, I've found very few women that have been able to break the mold with regard to the typical "beauty" that it seems men tend to present in nudes of women. So you know my bias right out.

 

Then after reading the comments and realizing that this was a photo using yourself as a model (I appreciate your distinction that it not be referred to as a self-portrait, although that's a slippery slope) the discussion became interesting to me. I agree with others who noted that the critique was soft and generally complimentary, not only because this is a photo of a nude woman, but also because the critique was being given to the woman that was exposing herself, and mostly to an audience of men. Now this is an interesting social study. (I will leave out, for the sake of simplicity, that several of the critiquers are people you've had discussions with on these boards and who feel they "know" you personally -- which I believe would add to their tendency to flatter and only encourage you.) Men might be willing to be objectively critical to a photo of a nude woman taken by an anonymous photographer, but make the woman that's exposing herself to them the actual subject of that critique and how many men would tend to say anything negative then? In my experience, only men who really thought it was really poor would veer towards a negative comment. (Although, this has not been the case, which again, made this an interesting discussion to follow.)

 

If you really want the most objective critique of these photos, I don't think you should tell people that you're the photographer as well as the model. But I have to assume that it does matter that it's you in the photo and that the viewer knows that. I know that there's an ease of time restraints and freedom from inhibitions that you have when you use yourself as a model, but I think if you were interested in creating the best compositions and lighting effects to express your ideas that you could best do that with a model. It's not as if a model could not convey the emotions that you do in your photos. It's not as if these poses couldn't be made by models as well as you did them. Having you behind the camera could only improve all the technical aspects of your photos. I find most of your compositions unmeaningful (but not bad). Take, for instance Multiple Max II (nude) compared to your Nude with Mirrors. When you're behind the camera, you can create a better, more effective photo -- except in the case of a self-portrait. So I assume you either have a specific intent of meaning by putting yourself in the photo, or you are doing it to beautify your own body (in which case, you're failing to convey any beauty of interest to me -- see below).

 

When I know these photos are taken by the subject, I see a woman trying firstly, in most cases, to flatter her body to "standard beauty" norms. Particularly in Water Nude: Self Portrait, until I read your comment about "...half of her is in one world, half another..." I thought, strong shot, but interesting only sexually. I like your theme, but the way you've composed the photo focuses only on the half that's in the air and gives little visual space and no tension to the other half being in the water. The Backbend shot is an exception to this, and is of more interest to me; but again suffers from things that could be improved if you were behind the camera using a model.

 

This "standard beauty" (for lack of a better term coming to me) is what stands out to me - not the emotions of the body language that, to me, tend to be heavy-handed. My favorite of your photos that I've seen is the Kneeling Nude. It has a meaning that is strongly presented and well executed. Nude Crucifix is also very strong, although besides the visual light play, I'm not getting any particular message of what you're saying about crucifixion -- beyond that you're feeling crucified.

 

In Draped Nude (Polagraph), you explore the nude subject in a more natural setting, and I think this is more successful. There is a story insinuated in this photo that is absent in so many of your "studio" photos.

 

All in all, thank you for the interesting POW discussion and best of luck in the future.

 

-Wendy Skratt

 

Wendy,
Some interesting comments...and given your stated bias, understandable. My position on the matter is different, but...Thanks for your input.
Addendum, later: I glanced over your site, Wendy, and I am a bit surprised. You do a lot of fashion photography, apparently, and very nicely, but given your remarks about being "very particular about imagery of women in general" and "...typical "beauty" I would not have thought that would be your field. I myself am frequently annoyed by fashion photos, finding the messages they send condescending at best...Do you not find yourself frustrated by doing the kind of shots that fashion work (unfortunately) requires?


A note about self-modeling vs. having other people model. I am bemused by how many people assume that I prefer to model for myself, to satisfy some need for attention/ego stroking. Let me instead offer the following...I began with self portraits because I was the person available and I worked for free! And since I have been a model, I know how to do it reasonably well. I think it also helped me to be freed from having to communicate to a model what exactly my idea for the photo was - I could focus more on metering, exposure, etc...

In the past few months I have succeded in finding a few models who will do nudes, who are reasonably available vis-a-vis my schedule, and who are reliable (show up on time, et cetera) and who are good models - this is no small feat. Of course, I have to pay them, which I don't begrudge, but, frankly, it is sometimes beyond my budget.

I have tried shooting some non-professional models, who don't need to be paid, and thats been a disaster - don't get me started, but I won't do it again.

So that leaves me. There is no good reason why I should not use myself as a model if the alternative is that I don't get to shoot at all!

If I wanted ego strokes I could go over to AmIHotOrAmINot.com - thats easy. This is a pretty tough room, and I don't think that people have taken it easy on me because I shoot nudes, some of which are of me. If anyones senses a difference in the tone of my critiques, I would reference the comments above by Steve Wilkensen... 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.

I thought images were carried to the brain (and stored) via electrical signals (OK, electro-chemical...). Sorry I bothered you, I won't do it again. (This is not the place to start a debate and you seem very categoric anyway). Cheers to Amy ;-)

Amy, I really think I reacted the way I reacted because of some of your earlier photos. My basic reaction to those initial photos was, "oh, here's this woman who just likes to take pictures of herself naked." I think the tone of your earlier photos brought that out. However, your thoughtful comments to my and others' criticisms shows you're being sincere about what you're doing, and the more recent works show that you are trying to acheive something that comes close to art. I just tend to think that if you started using models other than yourself people will be better able to judge the photographs on their artistic merits, free of the speculation on why you used yourself as the model in the first place. When the people who buy your photographs realize it's you in the photo, does their behavior towards you change? As an earlier respondent said, it would make for an interesting social study.

Hello Amy. Like Steve, I wondered whether much of the interest was due simply to the fact that your photos are nudes. You have a lovely figure, and your photos are very tasteful. Then again, the only subject I find more beautiful than nature is a woman, so in that sense it's only natural to be drawn to your work. I'm glad that you have received the feedback you have.

 

I'm a bit like Wendy Skratt, however, in that I appreciate the beauty of the images (form-wise) and the emotion that they seem to convey, but I miss the deeper meaning that you're trying to get across. I'm probably just more left-brained than others. But seeing that a couple people have felt the same makes me wonder if we're (or you're) missing something? I don't know.

 

Overall, I enjoyed your portfolio very much. I found the fact that you are both photographer and model very intimate, much more so than if you were only the latter. As for your comment above about why some think you prefer to model for yourself, I would think that's only NATURAL to do so if one has the photographic talent that you do. There is an inherent exhibitionistic nature to posing, and it is satisfied regardless of who the photographer is. The fact that YOU are the photographer is both practical ($, time) and artistic since you can, as you said, be free from the need to communicate to another model what your vision is. It's like the difference between an authorized biography and an autobiography.

 

A couple technical questions. First, what was your typical success/failure ratio with the Coolpix vs. film (ie. how many photos did you typically throw out with one format or the other)? I ask because I shoot Canon and am thinking of getting the G1 for the same purpose especially since it uses EOS flashes. Second, out of curiosity, why invest in both the Maxxum and the F100?

 

Again, wonderful photos.

Sincerely, Tony

 

 

Addendum, later: I glanced over your site, Wendy, and I am a bit surprised. You do a lot of fashion photography, apparently, and very nicely, but given your remarks about being "very particular about imagery of women in general" and "...typical "beauty" I would not have thought that would be your field. I myself am frequently annoyed by fashion photos, finding the messages they send condescending at best...Do you not find yourself frustrated by doing the kind of shots that fashion work (unfortunately) requires?

Do you find my fashion photos to be sending condescending messages? I don't believe I've been forced into that by choosing to take fashion photographs. I try to explore themes that I find interesting within the realm of fashion photography (as well as other genres). I believe it's a place where work with substantive value can actually be given an extensive audience. I don't believe that the huge majority of fashion photography has any positive value, but that doesn't mean I can't use the genre to create images that I'd like seen in the media. So, yes, I am very critical about popular imagery of women and I try to create my own which has some value and an audience.

-Wendy

Congratulation Amy. By now this picture has already received the highest number of comments of all the POWs!!

Super work, Congrats on POW, it's much deserved. I look forward to seeing more great work from you!

Wendy,

I didn't look over your site photo by photo, so I cannot comment on your work per se. My point isn't about you personally. It is that fashion photography is a male-dominated industry that is all about traditional beauty (and youth!) and its about getting people to buy things. To that end, it plays on people's insecurities and tells them that they'll feel good, or be loved and accepted - or both - if they buy this product. I strongly resent being manipulated in this way, although (or because!) I am aware that I am not always able to resist it.

This being the case, your remarks were surprising. Perhaps its that since you do work in such an industry, having to deal with that kind of thing has made you more "sensitive", as you put it, to images of women in non-commercial art.
Like you, I think my work has value. Both nudes and fashion photos have the potential to be positive or negative. Like you, its my feeling that I am creating something positive within a genre.

When you speak of a male bias for "standard beauty" I think I know what you are saying. It is probably more accurate to see it as a contemporary bias, and not necessarily just a male preference. On one of my photos I got this "critique":

>>The flab detracts from the image's appeal.

-- Tian Xian <<

With Amy's work, I don't see any effort to display the figure with a current ideal. A lot of her work seems to be based on an "idea" she has. Often she is successful on this level and I think that is why many people like her work (male and female) and not because they think they know her. Any misperception on the part of the viewer due to cultural ideals or stereotypes should not be considered the fault of the photographer.