Shoot me!

This is a beautiful picture that caught my eyes immediately. The original was outstanding, the contrast of machine and human, heavy mechnic and soft smooth body, and because of a old heavy camera make it muchmore reasonable and connective to the woman body rather than some machine.

A collectale worth good work!

Its an artful deep designing detail with penetrating perspective of a foxy image keeping striking distance with close grips on subject "shoot me".

Its an artful deep designing detail with penetrating perspective of a foxy image keeping striking distance with close grips on subject "shoot me".

Its an artful deep designing detail with penetrating perspective of a foxy image keeping striking distance with close grips on subject "shoot me".

Fred,

Ok, I think it is a lexical issue. Of course I can't tell whether Amelkovich's models are actually strong or not. As I can't tell whether Lisa Lyon was strong or not, even if she appeared strong.
But the pose is strong, as you say.
We perhaps could compromise on "posed strong" and therefore "objectified as strong".

Could be. My feeling about Igor's pictures is that they somehow reflect the stylised Soviet culture and its artistic expression. In the end the pictures tend to look all the same - clichéd, as you say.

It's a funny image. Here, to me, the fact that the model is nude doesn't add to the image. Imagine the model
in lingerie of the 30th and I expect a much stronger image.

I see women without a face in a an animalistic pose.

Does she have a brain? will she put the finger into the lens and learn optics?

Yes the king is naked.

In response to Doug's suggestion that only the blind would fail see the strength of these women, I would suggest that only the blind would be duped into believing that any of these images are intended to communicate the strength of womanhood.  A nude women rubbed down with baby oil, with a hunting knife in her hand and shaving cream on her genitals is not,  in my view, a depiction of strength, rather it is  a women posed in a photo constructed to perpetrate a tired sado-masochistic erotic cliche.   The bulk of Igor's work leans heavily on the same overused  sexual cliches , bondage scenarios,  suggestions of self mutilation , women tied to beds, the fact that Igor avoids including most models faces in his set ups speaks to his view of women,  at least as regards their portrayal in his photographs.


If what Doug meant by " strong "  in his comment was that many of the models in Igor's photos are young, in good health,  probably work out at the gym and would most likely be able to take him in a mud wrestling contest, then I  would have to agree, although some of the models do look a bit underfed.


 I  do not have an issue with the  photographer's choice to objectify women, although I can understand  the sentiments  of those who may be offended. As an artist it is Igor's prerogative to chose the manner and style with which he wishes to express himself creatively.  Igor's photography is not about depicting  the women he photographs as individuals. I see no interest in getting at the heart and soul of these women , the models are props in a sexual fantasy. Their purpose  in the photos  is primarily to  titillate heterosexual male viewers of a specific ilk  within the confines of some well worn and  predictable sexual fantasies.  I am not a prude, I enjoy nude and/or erotic photography.  When I look at this body of work I am not offended, I  am bored.


I believe that Luca cuts to the heart of matters with his comment   " My feeling about Igor's pictures is that they somehow reflect the stylised Soviet culture and its artistic expression."    I do see some significant amount of this type of portrayal coming out of the soviet bloc.


Setting aside the fact that I cannot find a single example of a concept or idea in Igor's photos that has not already been done to death by others, I will say that his exceptional technical skills, his mastery of light and his strong design and compositional talent shine through in his work, making many of his images absolutely top notch eye-candy for those predisposed to his particular style of nude photography.

...something about a camera...or artistic merit...or cliché....or...

Sorry, what was the middle one again?

Wow! I am on vacation and you guys have really gone to town on this one! I am surprised in some ways and maybe not in others.

I read much of the first part of this and find it interesting--but ran out of time and it got sort of redundant. This image didn't come across any more objectifying or demeaning than what anyone might attribute to any nude photograph, based on their own sensitivities. I mean, there are people that get upset or are sensitive to very minor things in certain areas.

Cliche? Sure, maybe in about every way. The choice of the model body type for nude photography is certainly cliche--and then the fact that it is a woman is pretty much the norm around here--and in photography in general. The scenario is also a bit cliche and I think the comment referring to the dog thing is maybe relevant in this respect. Jim is also right, I suppose, just a variation, but it is so predictable is what I feel about it--as is the reverse angle, which is a little more aggressive sexually I suppose!

As to the photo, it is just a sort of comical bit to me. Other than having a full tonal range, I really don't think it is all that great an image. There are imbalances throughout where the light was maybe not as controlled as it might have been. But those are nits and it works for what it is. Personally, I do find the image a take it or leave it sort of thing, and I feel it is more like an advertising illustration than an artistic piece (which is not to say that an advertising illustration couldn't be art!). I just feel this image is very superficial in every way-so, take it or leave it?

John-- Can you point specifically to some of the imbalances of light you're talking about?

The image has its flows, however it attracts because of its originality and exotic presentation. The comments are entertaining and they make lots of sense. I do not take anything personal, I feel that those who get offended have to look at what they are projecting in their own pain and suffering! Congrats, it has attracted lots of comments.

Some people will do anything in the name of art but i dont think you could call it that.

Some people will do anything to get a woman's clothes off, even in the name of art.

My original comment of six years ago still stands. I originally found the image "lighthearted", juxtaposing the idea of nudity for the sake of nudity and the base curiosity of the woman in the camera. I would simply like to expand on that idea. The naivete, wonderment, and curiosity of the woman explored in the image harkens back to the ape's encounter with the monolith in "2001: A Space Odyssey" and to the day in paradise when Eve took a bite of the apple.

Perhaps I am not well enough read, but I have never seen an image like this, so I find it very difficult to find it cliche.

John's comment is a great illustration of what many mean by cliche and what many find offensive in this portion of Igor's photography: "The naivete, wonderment, and curiosity of the woman...." It's the depiction of women as naive creatures who are really worthwhile for only one duty, that of fulfilling the sexual desires and fantasies of males. This view of women as less intelligent and secondary in status to men is what launched the feminist movement decades ago. This type of photography only perpetuates the demeaning stereotype. Substitute a nude male in this pose -- now how do you see the photograph? Substitute a nude male and you may understand what this genre of nude photography is all about.

I had a great grandfather who, in his 90s, had the deep creases in his face that epitomizes a long life of hardship, toil, wisdom gained through experience, and even death that was not far away. His was the type of face that make a great character study and that many portrait photographers use to illustrate old age and the many aspects associated with individuals who have lived very long lives. I would have photographed my great grandfather for that purpose, and I would have felt proud to have his portrait for others to see.

I had a great grandmother who, in her final years, became a shell of her former self, with vacant and uncomprehending eyes, confined to a chair or bed, doing little more than waiting to die. Hers was a sad but natural condition, an inherent part of life that many go through as death approaches. A photograph of her at that point would have illustrated a significant aspect of the human condition, and the photo could have had great depth of meaning and poignancy if done by a capable photographer. Again, I would have liked to have seen her portrait done in this manner.

My own father had an exceptionally serious problem with alcohol in the mid years of his life. Drinking nearly killed him, and it showed in his expressionless eyes, jaundiced skin, disheveled appearance, and apparent lack of care about anything in the world. He literally lived in the gutter and could barely communicate with anyone or express anything about life other than alcohol. While it would have been painful, a portrait of him in that condition would have been a powerful expression of yet another aspect of the human condition, and I think he would have been a great subject for a portrait photographer who would want to communicate the pathos of alcoholism in his/her photography. Again, I would have seen some glimmer of purpose in his life in such a portrait, and I would have welcomed it. [Postscript: he found sobriety entirely on his own, became director of substance abuse programs for an entire state, reconnected with his family, lived a very productive life in his last decades, and I couldn't be more proud of his accomplishments.]

Now take Igor's depiction of women as he has photographed many of them (with this particular photo being one of the more mild expressions): naked in a decrepit basement of an abandoned building, naked with a large hook near her genitals, naked and in a frontal pose with spread legs and arched back that accentuates her genitals, naked and in a pose that shows nothing other than her genitals, naked and with props that hide her face and thereby remove her individuality and leave nothing but a sexual being (the most egregious example being a woman with a burlap bag over her head), and ask yourself: if the model had been your wife, your girlfriend, or your daughter, would you have been proud of the photograph? Would you still have the same admiration for this type of erotic photography? Would that photograph be on your favorites page? The answer to these questions may illustrate what many find offensive and degrading in this type of nude photography. It's a stereotypical depiction of women in bondage, in sado-masochistic poses, as nothing more than a physical fantasy for viewers who may find pleasure in such images on their computer screens.

IMHO, of course.

To be fair to Igor, many of my comments and my views regarding his photographs of nude women are based on his portfolio and not on this single image. If you don't think that's legit, then this can be yet another reason to dismiss my comments. In the past, a POW has led viewers to the photographer's portfolio, and comments have addressed the body of work (no pun intended) as much as the POW. So I don't think I'm off base in this regard.

Sorry, but I just can't lavish the praise for this photograph and this type of photography that others are able to provide. There is just too much going on with people and in the world for me to find this type of erotic photography interesting or inspirational.

a masterpiece from every point of view, technically and artistically too.
great concept and imagination, i mean this to the whole portfolio not just this image. a high quality artistic work, very high above the other similar works, in my opinion. a huge 7/7.

Jorge - Those of us who are offended by this man's type of photography do indeed take a look at our own pain and suffering...we have no choice but being reminded when we are bombarded with images such as these that serve no purpose but to degrade women and perpetuate violence toward them via his idea of "eroticism". Just look at the other images in his portfolio if you cannot make the connection as to why people are offended...it is his whole body of work and mind set that is so disturbing. As Stephen above said so eloquently, if this were your wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter of grand-daughter in these photos would you still be impressed? I'll take it one step further...if it were your wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter or grand-daughter that was the victim of sexual assault by a man who subscribed to Igor's view of eroticism...would you still think these images to be exotic and entertaining? Heaven help you if you do!

luca.... i am glad to hear that you werent implying that the woman in these photos are strong but that the images of these woman are strong. i agree. because i dont see strength in selling your body. you cant put a price on selfworth. i dont find this particular photo degrading but i do find that what it may be implying to somewhat degrading and in that sense i understand why some may have taken offence.

Where is all this talk of degrading women coming from? The picture we are discussing (or just cussing) seems to depict the relationship of women (at least some women, certainly not your sister, mother, etc.), with the camera.

From the very beginnings of photography, unclad ladies have been happy to be photographed. The model in this case is eye to eye with the unblinking eye of the camera and in every way seems its equal. In fact she seems more at ease than the frozen, dumb struck camera.

In the image were she is turned around, no longer an equal, her value is not in her sweet and engaging person hood but her utility.

Jon, the model may not be your sister, but she could be someone's sister. She is certainly her mother's and father's daughter. For generations, some women have been exchanging sex (sometimes happily, sometimes not so happily) for money; not sure if that really makes it "good." Finally, I guess this is the one all about "utility:" http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2599153. What a concept: a young woman described and photographed in terms of "utility." Don't you see anything degrading in that concept?

Photography does not exist in a vacuum. It represents images of things familiar to us from real life. And the same sensitivities that apply in real life apply to photography. If something is vulgar and indecent in real life, it is also vulgar and indecent in photography. You can’t hide behind “art”. The bottom line does not change.

I'm cynical about most nudes but when they go the extra mile of this kind of pose up on a stand like she's about to be frisked by a judge at a dog show, I can't even pretend that I'm taking the artist's "vision" seriously. The image as a whole is too weak for me, anyway. I think marrying the ambiguous nature of his message/image with the strong response her pose elicits is a mistake; I have no idea what the artist wants me to see and the image offends me.

Samme, Rebecca, Trisha, Stephen,

it's a tough debate on female nudes.

I realise that many women, and some men, have a negative feeling about these types of work, and this should be respected. I would like to have their point of view on shots - other than this - which would rather belong into an anatomy book than in a portfolio.

On the other hand it seems that the general trend is to push the limit farther and farther.
There seems to be a huge "market" for female nude pictures, however they are. Just look at the number of views, at the high ratings and at the enthusiastic praises nudes receive here. The first two "most interesting photographers" here on photo.net are shooting mainly nude women. It must be said that most "praisers" are men.
It also must be said that apparently, female models (in this case) are willing to be part of the play. I would frankly hesitate to say that they are all victims.

On the other hand, any time anybody would refer to things like "taste", "morality", "ethics", "objectification", a whole lot of reactions would arise, claiming "artistic freedom" and speaking against any critic remark.

Me personally, I think that only a very, very small fraction of nude photos deserve real attention because of their visual message.
Most of them are simple and plain repetitions of photos done before, or simply a provocation.

As to this particular photo, I have a very simple "acid test": imagine it enlarged, 1m x 1m (or 3ft x 3ft). Presented on a white wall with nothing around.
How many glances would you "waste" in for it?
My own answer is "very, very few".
And the second question would be: how much of the visual message of the photo is due to the photographer and how much to the subject portrayed?

That said, photography, and nude photography reflects the cultures and societies we are in.

I believe that it is a free world. Censorship is very dangerous. But, on the other hand, it is necessary to speak up in favour of taste and against the presentation of photographic subjects as mere "objects for use".

the dusty camera and sexy girl takes you to an unknown place without time