|
Forums >
General Industry >
Nudes: artistic vs glamour vs erotic
I was hoping to get some insight from both models and photographers about this. What is the distinction between artistic nudes, glamour nudes and erotic nudes? In my mind, an artistic nude shows off the form of the body, a glamour nude shows off the beauty of the body, and an erotic nude shows the body in such way as to provide sexual stimulation to the viewer. However, when it comes to actually shooting or or labelling photos, the lines between these categories seem very blurry and they seem to overlap. For example, if a model wanted "Playboy-Style" nudes, would that be considered glamour or erotic? I have listed in other online portfolios that I do artistic and (glamour) nudes. I recently had a model contact me about doing a shoot which includes glamour nudes. However, from what she has sent me, they seem closer (in my mind) to that of a glamour/erotic nature, which I am not comfortable doing. I will politely turn her down, but it just got me thinking where does one end and the other begin and how do others decide what they will and won't do. Thanks. Erich Jan 23 06 11:15 am Link ErichDrazen Photography wrote: I agreed with your definitions except this one. Erotic nude does not have to be done with the intent of sexual stimulation in mind. I have seen some beautifully done erotic explicit nudes and not seen them as sexually stimulating. Look at Maplthorpes stuff of men and of women. Explicit erotic shots but to me not sexually stimulating.Heck, erotic doesn`t even have to mean nude or explicit. I see a definite different between erotic nudes and pornographic nudes. Jan 23 06 11:19 am Link In my mind, typically, a glamour image (nude or otherwise) is about the subject's beauty and grace, etc. In fact, the subject of the photograph would be that beauty, attraction, etc. It may be 'sexy' but isn't necessarily 'sexual'. The subject of an erotic image is sexuality. This does not neccessarily mean that any actual sex acts are being engaged in, simply that the thematic focus of the image is on the model as a sexual being, in some form or another. Whereas in artistic nude, it seems, the figure is almost incidental to the subject. Or perhaps references a subject more obliquely than the obvious in glamour or erotic nudes. Glamour Boulevard wrote: Can I go off on a bit of a tangent, here? RE: erotic/pornographic, I tend to think in terms of icon/idol, if anybody's into religion or art history... An idol is something created which is assumed to be imbued with power. The idol itself is the object. An icon, on the other hand, is an image of something powerful. The image in itself is not to be confused with the actual object (that is, an icon is not an idol), but it can be useful in focusing or referencing the actual object. If you take that into erotica/porn, erotica would be the icon: an image of sexuality that attempts to reference the larger subject that is 'sex', rather than presenting you with a sexual object in itself, while porn would be the idol, which is an end in itself rather than a reference of something 'other'. None of this is to talk at all about the morality, or even quality, or erotica or pornography, but it seems to me a useful distinction to make. Jan 23 06 11:46 am Link I always find it quite amusing when we try to make differences of this nature. Now, I DO think there is a difference between nude and hardcore pornography. That is about all I see.  For example, you do not see the same type images in Playboy as one would find in Hustler. But trying to differentiate between erotic, glamour, etc., is too picky and mostly semantics. I don't know why we do it except we don't want to say that "I do nude photography." We want to make it sound better and more classy so we call it something else, like "I do artistic nudes." Nude is nude is nude. It is almost funny when we say "implied nude." Implied? Most of the time the model IS nude, she is just using an arm, hand, something used to cover up some part. I know, it means understood without it being open, direct or actually exposed. But she or he is nude, nonetheless. Sometimes we just try to split hairs to make ourselves feel better. Nude is nude, whether it is erotic, artistic, glamour, boudoir, whatever. Stimulation is an individual thing, has nothing really to do with what we call the images. I am sure many are stimulated by Mapplethorpe's images, though others aren't. Playboy may be erotic and stimulationg to some while others may turn elsewhere for the same. Oh, well. Just musing today. Jan 23 06 12:10 pm Link the whole thing is funny... but boy it divides so many of us.. nude, naked , erotic, sensual, sexual, its all about semantics.... Jan 23 06 12:15 pm Link These terms always seem very subjective to me and are very dependent on the viewer's social point of reference. I have not yet seen a clear standard in explicitly defining the any of these terms. I think that these terms will always remain as suggestive concepts to for establishing intent. - But will always need to be accompanied by additional examplary information to convey the true meaning. In otherwords, don't rely on these terms alone to establish a unilateral understanding between two or more parties. Jan 23 06 12:17 pm Link Art nudes, to my mind, are those where the nude body, male or female, is a part of a greater story or theme. One in which the nude body is a necessary part but not even necessarily the prime subject. I have one such in my port called Moon Maiden. Please be gentle, it is a work in progress and is intended to demonstrate the type of nude I lke to do. It will be reshot as soon as I work out the lighting changes and have a good image of a full moon. To me, this sort of image is what "Art Nude" means. Jan 23 06 12:23 pm Link Thank you for broaching the subject Jan 23 06 12:30 pm Link Anyway you look at it Nude Is Good!! (:-------- Hj Jan 23 06 12:30 pm Link ErichDrazen Photography wrote: Bad versions of artistic, glamour and erotic nudes go like this.... boring, cheesy, sleezy. Jan 23 06 12:30 pm Link Artistic Nude - the bare body is an element (sometimes the only element)in the overall piece Glamour Nude - The body is made up to heighten certain or all elements of the body Erotic Nudes - The body is composed in a form of sexual stimulation. My work tends to ride the line between artistic and glamour. Darque Jan 23 06 12:32 pm Link bubbaclicks wrote: Nude is not necessarily sexual. That's one of the problems with some people viewing an artistic nude photo; they immediately assume it's sexual and classify it as porn. A great deal of my nude work is anything but sexual... Jan 23 06 01:26 pm Link Artistic Nude : Something photographers call a naked model in hopes of making the work sound cerebral and classy and akin to classic works of art. Glamour Nude: Something photographers call a naked model in hopes of making the work sound, well, glamorous. Erotic: Something photographers call a naked model in hopes of making it sound sexy yet dramatic, cerebral and sensitive. It should be noted that in the south, naked is actually nekkid, which is somewhat different. Here in Canada, naked is often "unclothed", due to our fear of sounding unpretentious. Actual results may vary from photographer to photographer..."Ode To a Grecian Urine" is not what Keats had in mind. Jan 23 06 02:07 pm Link *I can't take credit for this one, but [imo] it's true* All nude images are inherently erotic, with the possible exception of Grey's Anatomy. If an image has a nude body in a situation where the viewer couldn't legitimately expect to see one [by a waterfall, on a rooftop, in a canyon, etc] or in a space where the viewer could not legitimately enter [the living space of a complete stranger, etc], then the image is obviously a contrivance specifically engineered by the artist [and model]. There's plenty of light, shadow, contrast and contour in any scene without having to include a pretty naked body, so what other purpose does the nude serve? I'm sure most people won't agree with this assessment, but I think a generation of kids who grew up looking for cheap thrills in the dentist's copy of National Geographic would disagree with me. *btw I include myself in the above catagory. nobody operates with more prurience than i do. everytime i pick up a camera, it's about sex, pure and simple. the differenece between me and a fine art nude photographer is that i admit to that prurience. Jan 23 06 03:33 pm Link Pat Thielen wrote: Yes, thank you Jan 23 06 03:39 pm Link Melvin Moten Jr wrote: (giggle) Jan 23 06 03:42 pm Link Mockingbird Girl wrote: Just goes to show you: It takes a repressed Catholic boy with a schoolgirl fetish [redundant?] to figure this whole nudity issue out so efficiently. Jan 23 06 03:49 pm Link And what's the difference and why does it matter? This is just another variation of the Name Game that has no purpose in photography and just leads to problems. Besides... who likes the whole "nude" concept? What about pictures of naked people? Isn't that so much more fun, natural, honest, real, inviting, believable? Wayyyyyy too much artifice in the concept of "nude" for it to have any believability. Jan 23 06 04:14 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: Ding ding ding ding ding! The lady wins a prize. Jan 23 06 04:16 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: Bad versions of artistic, glamour and erotic nudes go like this.... boring, cheesy, sleezy. Well said! Bravo!! Jan 23 06 04:47 pm Link You can make lines to divide the three forms of nude photography (if they stop at three at all). Yet like all forms of art, you will overlap at some point. It could come down to the pose and what angle it's shot from. Lighting could make the difference. But remember your limits, if any, and that you control what's displayed in that area. Whatever the definition, if it's uncomfortable, simply don't do it. Jan 23 06 06:15 pm Link Jarek James wrote: If I observed "limits" or "comfort," I wouldn't get anything done. Jan 23 06 07:08 pm Link At the end of the day it's not the label that you or anyone else chooses to apply to the image, but the image itself that matters. Sure, show the same shot to 9 different people and you'll get at least 10 different opinons on what 'style' of image it is... but you'll also get at least 10 different opinions on the technical and artistic merits of the image as well. Stop worrying about what type or style the image is and start worrying about what the image says to those who made it. Worry about matching the final image to your vision and how to get from what you see in front of you to that final effect. Jan 23 06 08:59 pm Link Melvin Moten Jr wrote: LOL...I knew...I knew it! Takes one to know one! I went to Catholic school to was a choir, and altar boy. I still love those school girl skirts too! Jan 24 06 04:06 pm Link bubbaclicks wrote: Too true. Jan 24 06 04:19 pm Link ErichDrazen Photography wrote: Nude is pretty easy to define objectively. Artistic, glamour or erotic is subjective for each viewer to answer. Each person has their own level of experience and boundries, and that perception changes with time. It varies widely. Jan 26 06 01:48 am Link ErichDrazen Photography wrote: Point of View..... this is one of those classics, where "POINT OF VIEW" has a lot to do with the end result... Jan 26 06 03:38 pm Link |
