Shoot me!

shoot me...creative and nice idea..i enjoy this..cong. bw

Gordon, what I meant by "strong" was more like self-confidence.

This is an approved quoting of a discussion with a painter and printmaker. Me first '...it's not outrageous'.
'However technically and formalistically clever, I think it is outrageous. It's UGLY. It's offensive! She's placed there like an animal on heat and it's deliberate demeaning.'
'Anybody who has had any professional training in photography or media studies knows what that's about.'

I don't know how to express my disappointment with this conversation.

guys most women who pose for nude photos are anything but confident..... strong referring to self- confidence. it is quite the opposite. these woman are seeking praise and validation.....

I refute thusly the commentator who stated that this image makes the woman look like an animal in heat.

Most animals are in heat seasonally. We are unique among the animals in that we are in heat all the time. Therefore it is an accurate depiction of the human condition.

To those that say this is degrading, I say balderdash. The nude feminine form in a receptive posture can never be degrading.

Now if she was covered by a burqua, that would be degrading.

The nude feminine form in a receptive posture can never be degrading.

It can never be degrading to you because you're a man. But for anyone who recognizes in this image the continued dominance of the heterosexual male's gaze preferred, i.e. "nude feminine form in a receptive posture," representation of the (thin, white, blonde) female, this pose only strengthens the belief that a woman's value lies in her sexuality and that is DEGRADING.

Depictions of nudity has been around for centuries through various forms. The question is, must art nudes be socially acceptable in it time? Or is it simply an artist's vision working with the nude human form without regard to political correctness?

I like Doug's comment of Jun 24, 2010; 06:41 a.m.

rebecca.... i dont understand what the white skinny blonde description has to do with anything? so you are saying if the model was overweight, with a darker complexion and dark hair, then in your eyes you would be ok with this picture ? then it would cease to be offensive to you? shouldnt men be the dominant of the sexes? personally i like men to be stronger than myself. whether we like it or not men and woman are different. we are not the same and we are not equal in a lot of ways.... thats just the way it is. men like to look at naked woman... they are visual and its normal....... get over it

I just bring up her physical appearance because it's often considered the beauty norm in the context of the Western and arguably world media. That fact that it is again represented here as such reinforces my opinion that this image is for the sexual gratification of the heterosexual male and little else. If her appearance had deviated from this norm I don't think it would be any less offensive, no. If she had been black, up on a table and in this position I believe the demeaning nature of this pose wouldn't have been as easily ignored because she would no longer be considered a sexual object. But then, if she looked like Precious I very much doubt this picture would have been taken at all.

As far as men being the dominant sex...I don't even know where to begin.

"...If she had been black, *overweight, up on a table..."
I can't edit it anymore!

"The nude feminine form in a receptive posture can never be degrading."
If she's turned around and the camera is looking up her butt, is that degrading? -- she's still in a "receptive" posture. If she's holding a hoist hook as if to sink it into her genitals, is that degrading? -- she's still in a "receptive" posture. If she's tied up in a derelict basement, naked, with a burlap bag tied over her head, it that degrading? -- she's still in a "receptive" posture. If she is seen as nothing but genitalia, is that degrading? -- what little is shown of her is still in a "receptive" posture.

The next logical argument is that the nude masculine form, in an aggressive posture, is an equally valid art form, yet it so very seldom shows up on the photo forums. Are we just being sexist? Why is it o.k. to show a nude female in every contorted pose imaginable, yet similar treatment of males never graces the pages? Is it because males would find that degrading? Or would "we" say that's just our culture's preference, that's the way it's always been, that's what "we" find acceptable and unacceptable..... with "we" being males who have dominated this culture since the beginning?

The nude feminine form in a receptive posture can never be degrading. "We" have so very far to go.

I say this is smut, and I wish people would stop trying to censor me and accuse me of being a prude, or a puritan or of projecting my own insecurities or pain, or whatever else. I am making a valued judgment just as valid as anyone else on this thread. You don’t agree with it? Get over it. Not everyone is going to congratulate the “artist” for his “vision” on this one. I call it as I see it. To me this is smut. Technically well done smut.

"Receptive" implies "consent".

Those posters that wax effluent with pontifications on the negative meaning of "receptive" do not understand the meaning of the word. Anyone (male or female) forced to do anything, is not receptive, and therefore not consenting.

I submit that nothing between consenting adults is offensive. Some persons fantasies simply may not be your cup of tea. I also submit that it's a very short journey between the censor's pen and the burqua.

Paul:
What happens between consenting adults is outside the realm of this discussion. Here we are discussing an image presented in a public forum. Not everything that takes place privately between consenting adults is suitable for a public forum.

I don't think she's not consenting. That has nothing to do with whether or not the treatment of the subject is degrading. You can consent to be degraded. And no one is suggesting women need to or should turn to burqas (I don't know why that's even been brought up). In fact, I really don't see much of a difference between taking degrading photos of naked women for the benefit of men's sexual "fantasies" and popping a burqa on them. Just two sides of the same male hegemony coin, really.

Neither of which I'm interested in seeing depicted in a photo with no clear meaning.

Rebecca:

You say degradation, I say celebration. It's likely we'll never agree on this.

For what it's worth, there are nude pictures of me in existence (relaxing in hot springs out in the wilds of Idaho) and I don't consider myself degraded or objectified by them. I just like being naked in nature, and I don't mind being depicted that way. If there was a forum on photo.net for "50ish Nature Freaks in the Buff", I would happily post there.

So if models like posing for these types of pictures, it's just them being them. There's really no difference, except perhaps they make more money at it, and their pictures are much more flattering.

As for whether this image is suitable for a public forum, for me, that's a resounding yes. The very fact that there has been a spirited discussion about it's merits (or lack thereof) makes it valuable.

What is the sexual fantasy in this picture? It escapes me.
The reason this woman is in the photograph, as opposed to an older, fatter and flabbier woman, is that she looks better. She photographs better. A human female in her physical prime would look very much like this. An unhealthy human female of the same age might be flabby, or have scraggled, dull hair. These are physical cues to health and fitness, and that's why attractive people (models) are generally preferred for photography: because they look better, and that signals physical health and well being, and that signals a positive and prosperous future.
For those who wish to pursue the sexual fantasy aspect they see in this photograph, consider that the woman is not a sexual choice in the sense of the act of sexual intercourse, but instead a sexual choice in the sense of procreation. Forgive me, and every other human being whose ever had a sexual fantasy involving someone young and beautiful, but I'm pretty sure homo sapiens would be extinct if we men went around horny for older women.
Turning to Igor's other work, who are we to judge the WHY of his art? For all we know, he's working through some inner conflict that finds its therapeutic expression in these visualizations. The models too, who, according to some studies I've heard of, may have experienced earlier psychological trauma, are perhaps finding their expression and comfort by participating in these works, where they have a degree of control. Maybe willful participation in these works gives them a sense of worth? Who are we to judge them? The human psyche is unfathomably complex. If making those images, and this one, brings a better sense of self-understanding to either Igor, or his models, what's wrong with that.
I don't know who I'm (mis)quoting here, but when asked why he (or she) photographs [any subject], the reply was, "Because therapy is too expensive"
And finally, while not gospel, Shakespeare's "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" is a phrase worthy of continued reflection.

Paul, I'm happy to agree to disagree and I also agree that this photo is very suitable for discussion! It does bring up a lot of interesting topics (I guess I'll give it points there) that, if you can't tell, I do like debating!

I hope you'll indulge one last question: You don't mind being photographed nude but would you feel as comfortable posing like the naked woman in this photo, to be posted for public consumption on this site? If not, I hope you'll consider why this particular presentation of you and your body is unacceptable in your mind but acceptable in this young girl's mind. If you would...then do your thing. :)

Rebecca:

As an amateur, I am comfortable being photographed in settings and poses that are natural for me. Male receptive is not natural for me, but it's natural for a lot of men, and for a far greater number of women.

As a professional model, I might entertain the possibility of posing in a more contrived manner that is a little outside my comfort zone. How much money are we talking about, anyway?

"...because they look better...and that signals a positive and prosperous future..."

The better women look, the happier and more successful they'll be in life. Thank god that's not true for men and they get to rely on their brains and ambition, or Bill Gates sure would have been in one hell of a pickle.

"...but I'm pretty sure homo sapiens would be extinct if we men went around horny for older women..."

Aren't barren and unnattractive women useless? God, I just wish they would stop existing, all those shrews do is hamper the menfolk's noble work of propagating our species!

"Maybe willful participation in these works gives them a sense of worth?"

Is there any more rewarding feeling for a woman than being sexually objectified in this day and age? And is there any better way to deal with possible trauma then taking off all your clothes and being made in a faceless, selfless object with which to procreate? Not that I can think of!

You're part of the problem and your opinions are offensive. Good day.

Paul, I promise you'll make the same wages as the ladies (or at least 77% of what they get paid)! But if all you get paid in is saucy compliments, I can't help ya.

While it's true that most men (including me) are visually hardwired to prefer nubile young women, it's also true that mature and sophisticated men love and appreciate their life partners, and Love Trumps Lust. At least in my case it does.

Well, that's enough philosophy for one evening. Let's get back to criticizing the picture on it's merits, shall we?

And Rebecca, if you don't like what you read or see, you're welcome to go elsewhere.

Ditto Paul.

very good shoot and idea