Published: Friday 18th of October 2002 03:09:32 PM
WOW This is not only a good shot and a great print. It makes me justa little bit excited too... Nico
Primary? I think not. "...material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal." The dictionary also defines primary. You might want to look it up.
still too much clutter the model seems to be lost in her chair and the pose jars with the natural surroundings. I think that the exposed ribs are unattractive and draw the attention more, so not a very flattering photograph. As for the pornography debate? the shot does come across as a bit "reader's wives" but it's not especially gratuitous. A better pose would have made better use of the surroundings, which don't seem to have been used at all. The model's pose seems very unnatural and not at ease in her surroundings.
porn as art I think a question here is if porn can be art. I don't see porn here. To me it is sexual and erotic but I suppose that no one here can argue one way or another. It is to the beholder to decide. And so be it. That is art. It is not republican or democratic, it is not ethical, moral, religous, it is what it is to the one viewing. If this is what you wanted to create, why should you care what some think of as right or wrong for the sake of art and beauty. I suggest you shoot from your heart and head rather than from anyones opinions here. I appreciate your work.
erotic, perhaps, but not pornographic... Welcome to the internet, John! :^) This (Nicole's) kind of response just goes with the territory. "Fan" is just short for "Fanatic".
Even if you covered this woman with a sheet, she would still inspire an erotic response from Mr. Fried,and many others as well... t
Porn? John, Please explain why you consider this image to be pornographic. Is it because it has an erotic motif? If so, do you think that an image cannot be both erotic and artistic? Finally, would you make the same judgement of most of the other nudes posted on photo.net, which are not appreciably more artistic?
This is nothing more than porn. Where is the art?
Thank you for the English lesson Roger, though I remain convinced that my terminology is correct, even if it the nuance is too sophisticated for some. What I think is more pertinent here however are the ideas that are exchanged on our respective photos. That being said, I am certain that you are able to appreciate yourself the surrealistic levels that these debates reach sometimes on this site. This is but yet another example.
Thank you Robert. I think that you have truly understood what it is all about. It does indeed take time and effort to build up that relation and to obtain the model's trust. What grows out of that relationship may turn out sometimes to be insignificant. On other, more rare occasions, it can approach the spirititual. Yet, what am I do when people write comments where the level of the echange oscillates around ribs and background props?! Thank you very much once again.
I don't know which "John" Andrew Greeley refers to, but his file was opened on Photo net today October 21 .... possibly just in order to make this remark!! Come on now, this is so petty. Do please put a stop to it.
Thank you. You have told us who you are not, so you can now tell us who you are by posting some of your work so that we can appreciate where your "expertise" comes from! In the meantime, a lot of artists, sculptors, photographers etc will remain a little perplexed by your remark. The issue raised here was not whether a "glamour" photo had any interest per se, but whether this photo represents pornography. I don't think that any educated person can deduct from your explanation that this is so. To suggest that the photo of this graceful young lady is pornographic, when we are surrounded by so much obscenity and vulgarity in our daily lives is either stupid or malicious. Personally, I suspect the latter. I shall post this on the Photo critic page and see what others have to say.
David Wilson (Vortex Imaging)
In my opinion, This is not porn. However, from experience I can tell you that some people feel that the mere fact you can see breasts here is pornographic. My mother-in-law is a very religious woman and she saw a shot I did of a girl sitting on a car wearing a white tank top and white bikini bottoms. Nothing was exposed except a lot of leg. She said the shot was sick. I think if she saw some fo the other stuff I've been doing she would probably disown me. I've attached the photo here so you can see what I mean. I personally like this shot. I hope to one day have models of this calibre working with me.
I really like the image, choice of B&W, great body and composition .. only her arched back and feet on toe not relaxed ..
John, I've been admiring your work since I joined photo.net about a month ago. Not because you have photographed lots of nude women, but because you have photographed a lot of real women well. They are fully aware of what they're doing - that is obtaining a visual record of themselves at a stage in their lives when they feel beautiful, powerful and free to do what they wish in, and with, their own skins. Your talent lies in your personal interaction with them and your understanding of them as people - I don't know how else your work could be interpreted. I view this picture knowing that this woman has seen your work and thinks you're a good photographer, and obviously trustworthy enough to pose for. I don't see you using her for your own 'perverted pornographic ends' (a ridiculous concept as far as I'm concerned)-- I see her using you as a tool to make a recording of herself for posterity. She has obviously worked her ass off to look his way and I don't blame her for wanting to have a talented photographer record the results of her hard work. To me, this photo is all about her - not you or anyone who sees it. And she's no doubt happy with the result. Keep pleasing the women you photograph - all else is just noise....RF
Paul Norman Dicaire
John Fried... Did this image arouse you? From your definition of "pornographic" and you're goings on about it, one might think... Have you ever seen any of Helmut Newtons' work? Do you consider that pornography? We've all agreed that nude photography is an art form. This photo of this young womans' toned, unclothed body, in my humble opinion, is therefore a contribution to that art form. If she was dressed, it would not be nude photography, it would be candid portraiture. So, would I look if she were dressed? If the picture was well done, yes I would. This photo is not sexually explicit, is it? Not porn.
I am not Nicole Baron but I will further explain my criticism. You have to ask yourself if anyone would look at this picture if she was fully clothed. This may be a "technically" correct photo, but in my opinion true art is when the photo sells the subject. Here the subject sells the photo. In other words, when you can shoot a blade of grass and make it interesting...that's talent.
Agree with John...
Pornography? John, I have been reading the discussion with interest. IMHO this photo is intrinsically voyeuristic. You have posed the sobject as as if she were resting in a private residence. We assume it is her home. The fact that she is nude is irrelevant unless it serves to capture our attention. Strictly speaking this photo is not pornographic. It does not depict illicit, explicit, or perverted behaviour. On the other hand it does have prurient appeal because of the voyeuristic (we are viewing a naked woman in a private moment where we have no right to be)component. I would have to say that the balance comes down on the side of this photo being pornographic because of it's voyeurism, not because of it's specific content.
Not to worry. It's one of these people that take an anonymous name on photo net in order to make malicious remarks. It could be anyone like Nicole B. (sounds awfully like her!) or another person that has made silly remarks to me and others about pornography in the past. To say that this picture is vulgar is just comical, who is going to take that seriously! As for the ensuing ratings ... who cares!!
Response All viable viewpoints. However, perhaps people inquiring further into a nude photo will tend to be a little bias, naturally. As to your comment concerning glamour...you do not consider this to be a glamorous shot? I noticed that many of your photos feature beautiful, primed models, all quite "made-up". Your pictures say a lot for their good genes but not much for the imagination of the photographer. I challenge you to post a picture of a less attractive woman donning rollers, or even someone with a physical deformity and see how your ratings stand. I normally, fyi, don't click on photos marked "nude", but this one happened to pop up on the front page. Pornography is defined in the dictionary this way: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. Now, you cannot truthfully say that sexual arousal plays no role in this photo. I ask you again this question, if she were fully clothed would anyone be interested in this photo?
Not porn. I like it, John.
Nice John! Very nice pose and light. Also a very nice accessory, the belt, around her stomach. I like the relaxed air of the model. Well done!
I don't think so I'm not a pro, I'm not so interested in nudity in photography (I don't know if it is the same for you, but I live in Italy and it's unbearable to me to see each year the italian showgirl on duty making her nude calendar, I'm very bored, but I don't want to talk about this) and I took a look at your portfolios "Nude as decorative": well, I'm a fan of Tri-X and street photography, I'm not interested in irrealistic Photoshop works (that's only my opinion....search for david malcolmson folder.....that's what I mean!!), but I've not seen anything pornographic there and if you are are interested in this genre you're not doing any of pornographic.....cheers
Certainly not pornography. At least not here in the Netherlands. Whether or not you think this picture is obscene is greatly influenced by your cultural background. For a lot of people this photo might be offensive, for many others it is just a very nice shot of a nude woman. I do agree with one of the previous comments that these kind of pictures attract a lot more attention than the ones without nudity. But that shouldn't be a reason to ban them. I do not agree with the comment that the subject sells the photo. Good portraiture photography (nude or not) is as difficult as any other type of photography.
Weird. The introduction that I wrote to this photo, which accompanied my posting it on the "critique page", and which described the harassement I received on Photo net and in my private mail by someone named Nicole (B.....) regarding the pornographic nature of my photos, has disappeared?! Anyway, I think we can draw this to a close now. It's true that I was getting a little fed up, but I now feel totally invigorated and encouraged once again by the support that I have received on this matter. I think that any sensible adult is able to dsistinguish what is vulgar or not, and to select his or her choice of viewing in accordance with their taste. Thank you all once again.
Christopher G. Dunn (I don't use PS)
John Peri. This is a quality piece of work and certainly could not be considered pornography! I think it has good composition, just right lighting is well thought out, and, I believe, works well. Unfortunately good work always seems to bring out the tossers with nothing better to do than feed their pumped up belief of self-importance. Chris
oscillator It's the first time I've been accused of being a swinger!, though I don't think you'd oscillate around things so much as between them. Maybe you meant 'revolves'.
social attitudes Social attitude is all that is going on with some of the members. what we see from history is that attitudes change and that social acceptance will be changed too. On which side of the line a photograph falls ultimately depends on the reason the photographer took the photograph in the first place and what the viewer brings in attitude and social influences.
Clutter Nice image. You managed to catch the moment very well in this picture. You say you already removed noise from this image; however, there is still too much of it and it is distracting. The wires on the left, the shelves on the left, the two black strings coming out of the models hands, etc. I'd also blur the background, or, fine-tune the depth of field when taking the picure. Remove the rug... The model looks so peaceful ... she is in la-la land. The surroundings clash with that mood and bring her down to the mundane. I found this picture to stand out from you otherwise excellently composed studies which I admire a lot!
Boo 2 the wowsers Yep! That bloody porn everywhere!
Thank you all for your comments. I am encouraged by the common sense which appears to prevail. Of course it is important to respect other people's views, but it does remain difficult to treat rationally what is irrational at the outset, and all extremist views, whatever the subject, should be viewed with scepticism and caution. As for Michelle's remark above, well I certainly plead guilty to that. Of course this and other photos of mine are voyeuristic. But that does not by any definition make them pornographic! Must we only take pictures when the models are made-up and taking glamourous poses? Are these ladies no longer of interest when they have rollers in their hair or they are taking a nap? And why is a girl that is only partially "dressed" in a studio considered acceptable (Fine Art), but that the same girl that is partially "undressed" in a natural surrounding is considered unacceptable and the nuditiy then said to be "gratuitous" (a consistent remark under my pictures)? As some of you know, I have photographed several professional working women. The fact that they are undressed in these photos may be considered voyeuristic because we are not used to seeing them in presented in this light. But is that not an intriguing way to portray in a photogrpahic essay? Must everything be predictable to be acceptable? Since these women by definiton are high up in the success scale, they understand the artistic challenge of portraying themselves in this unusual light. To me also, it is a challenging and fascinating subject. Those that agree with me can share in the pleasure of seeing these photos. I would respectfully suggest however that those that do not, cease to spend their time opening files which are clearly marked "nudes" or "glamour", often with the sole intent of being demaning and imposing their view and 1/1 ratings with vehemence, all on behalf of a subject which is supposedly of no interest to them.