cypocryphy wrote:
Puritanism is deeply entrenched in the USA, unfortunately. You can see its influence even on MM...  Does Europe even have a version of the religious right?

Yes Europe has religious right but its seperate from church state and commercial.
Puritanism is deeply entrenched in USA and its politics - well said Mr. Bush.

E L

E L Fanucchi wrote:
When will USA catch up ?

Catch up? Sounds like a value judgement to me. (and while I may agree, in part, I don't think it pays to load your arguments with value judgements.)

Strong "cultural" underpinnings become more entrenched not less so. There are ample opportunities to publish nudes in the USA, even in the odd advertisement. It's usually just a question of context.

European markets have their own issues. What is the complaint here, really?

Cheers!
the oldguy

kumi wrote:
in the UK depends on the age of the model
nudity for the under 18 set is now considered indecent
;-)

no more images a la david hamilton
nor cute lil babies with naked bums pushing diapers

Not true. Nudity alone AT ANY AGE does not automatically = indecency. Indecency is not defined in law, however, there are some subjective and some objective tests applied by the UK courts that, in total, provide guidance on what is and is not indecent... when; where; and in what context.

Studio36

E L Fanucchi wrote:
In Europe we even use it for commercial advertising {like below}.

I've seen this comparison quite often lately on these forums and I personally don't think it has much weight.  It is far more effective in advertising to be audience targeted and driven on point with the message than simply showcasing nudity.  Nothing in your example shows anything to those effects, it is a terrible ad (if in fact it is an ad(?)) that shows nudity just for the sake of doing so.

The placement of nudity is very prevelant in US based adverts, but it is used much differently, almost subliminal in effect.  Additionally, the advertising industry in the US relies much more on effectiveness through research that brings clients the strongest ROI. 

The focus on nudity as the benchmark of comparison shows little understanding of presentation as a whole for reaching the targeted audience with the highest degree of effectiveness.  More nudity in Europe?  Perhaps.  Greater effect if presented here in the US?  If it was there would be a lot more of it.  When nudity is showcased, it is done with very distinct reasoning and not just for the sake of doing so.

Nudity merely for the sake of it is not the sole purpose of the effectiveness equation.  It has nothing to do with a conservative nature of America, it has everything to do with creating the most powerful statement.

In America, clients expect more than just a nude statement.  They understand clientele absorbing the message requires more savvy and informed information beyond the lowest common denominator attraction to the message which nudity surely brings.  It is great eye candy, but hardly great nutrition for a strong campaign in many (most) cases.

Justin N Lane wrote:
Move to NYC, we're so out of touch with the rest of the bullshit going on in the US that we might as well be part of Europe...and we're more culturally diverse!

LOL!  Yeah, unless it's a picture of nonnude kids in a Calvin Klein billboard.  They New Yorkers go into complete meltdown.

area291 wrote:
The focus on nudity as the benchmark of comparison shows little understanding of presentation as a whole for reaching the targeted audience with the highest degree of effectiveness.  More nudity in Europe?  Perhaps.  Greater effect if presented here in the US?  If it was there would be a lot more of it.  When nudity is showcased, it is done with very distinct reasoning and not just for the sake of doing so.

Hmmm...  This has great potential for a chicken and egg argument.  Perhaps if people in the US were more open to nudity, the effect would be greater and we'd see more of it.

-Dave

studio36uk wrote:
Not true. Nudity alone AT ANY AGE does not automatically = indecency. Indecency is not defined in law, however, there are some subjective and some objective tests applied by the UK courts that, in total, provide guidance on what is and is not indecent... when; where; and in what context.

Studio36

i was thinking of antone pavlov that shot his girl molly
(aged 17 at the time)
heh
we just shot
tho she's now 18
:-D
www.molly-web.com
(nws)

cypocryphy wrote:
Puritanism is deeply entrenched in the USA, unfortunately. You can see its influence even on MM...  Does Europe even have a version of the religious right?

Religious, yes. People with conservative views/values yes. But no political/cultural equivalent of the American "religious right."

Dave Krueger wrote:

Hmmm...  This has great potential for a chicken and egg argument.  Perhaps if people in the US were more open to nudity, the effect would be greater and we'd see more of it.

-Dave

I agree. If not for a very powerful religious right and generally more conservative views toward nudity in this country, I'm pretty sure you'd see more nudity in advertising. And in media in general. Nudity can be just as effective of an element as any other element in a marketing image. But if it were used in a public way, a lot of people in this country would freak out, start boycotts, etc. It is the freak outs and boycotts that stop advertisers from using nudity, not any concern about effectively reaching an audience. Whenever I've been in Europe, you see lots of mild nudity in fashion advertising, and even in storefront displays. The whole bible belt would be in a riot if you did that in the US.

This is also true in movies. There is a lot more nudity in European movies than in Hollywood movies. Not necessarily sex scenes, but just casual everyday nudity. This applies to both male and female actors.

Religious extremists should rightfully take much of the blame for this, but there is a more subtle element of this that is ingrained in the broader American culture.

Scott Aitken wrote:

I agree. If not for a very powerful religious right and generally more conservative views toward nudity in this country, I'm pretty sure you'd see more nudity in advertising. And in media in general. Nudity can be just as effective of an element as any other element in a marketing image. But if it were used in a public way, a lot of people in this country would freak out, start boycotts, etc. It is the freak outs and boycotts that stop advertisers from using nudity, not any concern about effectively reaching an audience. Whenever I've been in Europe, you see lots of mild nudity in fashion advertising, and even in storefront displays. The whole bible belt would be in a riot if you did that in the US.

This is also true in movies. There is a lot more nudity in European movies than in Hollywood movies. Not necessarily sex scenes, but just casual everyday nudity. This applies to both male and female actors.

Religious extremists should rightfully take much of the blame for this, but there is a more subtle element of this that is ingrained in the broader American culture.

Scott - YEA !
Going back and forth from Italy and Bible Belt Texas its like I got to shoot with a dual personality !

E L

E L Fanucchi wrote:
There is a cultural difference between US and Europe Nude.
Europe has centuries of nude in Art and Culture.
When will USA catch up ?

Catch up?  Not sure that's the right phrase.  Don' forget, our centuries of culture are the same as your centuries of culture.  The popultion of North America derives from Europe.

I don't think you'll see the US "catch up" for a long time.  While the religious right is the standard (and well deserved) whipping boy on this topic, the liberal left crusades just as hard to fight the "objectification of women" and have now equated pornography to physical assault.

In the United States, even those in favor of relaxing laws regarding sex and nudity are only marginally more tolerant than those who want it restricted.  They want to move the line slightly, but that's about it.  Tolerance is the key word.  When people discuss it here, it's always in terms of tolerance.   You will never hear sex celebrated as a positive force.  Hell, most people think the human race has succeeded in spite of sex rather than because of it.  It's like living amongst an idiot population that still believes the world is flat.

And almost everyone here subscribes to the necessity of protecting poor innocent children from the mental trauma and permanent psychological anguish that comes from finding out what people look like naked.  How could anyone wish that on the most defenseless among us?   We must teach them to recognize the shame before they are exposed to such a thing.   We use that same save-the-children crap to defend all kinds of shit here.

-Dave

Dave Krueger wrote:
And almost everyone here subscribes to the necessity of protecting poor innocent children from the mental trauma and permanent psychological anguish that comes from finding out what people look like naked.  How could anyone wish that on the most defenseless among us?   We must teach them to recognize the shame before they are exposed to such a thing.   We use that same save-the-children strategy to defend all kinds of shit here.

-Dave

I had to become a parent to realize just how prevalent the "protect the children" thing is as an overriding cultural force in our country. Not simply nudity but almost every aspect of life.

E L Fanucchi wrote:
When will USA catch up ?
I prefer to just shoot with out thinking where I am.

E L

My guess is never...  Also the US probably doesn't want to...  If nudes become common place they lose value - they just become everyday...  The tease is far more powerful - it builds up the tension and the nude releases it.  It's more of a business thing - Americans are capitalists - there's no value in something unless it's been built up...  Of course in the art world (illustration and painting) nudes are common place - almost to a point to where they loose their humanity, and that's worldwide - you don't have to be in Europe for that...

area291 wrote:
In America, clients expect more than just a nude statement.  They understand clientele absorbing the message requires more savvy and informed information beyond the lowest common denominator attraction to the message which nudity surely brings.  It is great eye candy, but hardly great nutrition for a strong campaign in many (most) cases.

Hows this? Shot of a nude model, a full frontal shot, holding a pre-packaged lunch just below waist level. The name of the product? "Munch Box"

I LOVE that one for it's subliminal message.

ROTFLMAO

Studio36

E L Fanucchi wrote:
There is a cultural difference between US and Europe Nude.

Yes.  But there is also a cultural difference between California and Iowa.  At least in parts of coastal California, nudity is relatively acceptable, and in some jurisdictions even legal.

The Art of CIP wrote:
My guess is never...  Also the US probably doesn't want to...  If nudes become common place they lose value - they just become everyday...  The tease is far more powerful - it builds up the tension and the nude releases it.  It's more of a business thing - Americans are capitalists - there's no value in something unless it's been built up...

You're suggesting that people are in favor of laws restricting sex and nudity in order to keep the profitability high?   That would make the porn industry the biggest beneficiaries.  We need to check to see what companies Jerry Fallwell owns stock in.  This could be a bigger scandal than Enron!

kumi wrote:
i was thinking of antone pavlov that shot his girl molly
(aged 17 at the time)
heh
we just shot
tho she's now 18
:-D
www.molly-web.com
(nws)

Yup, I told an under-18 British model recently that in the UK I would have less problems shooting her fully nude [in an appropriate context] than in lingerie.

Nude = nearly no problem if in context
Lingerie = Who knows???
Nude U-18 on a beach = nearly no problem if in context
Nude U-18 on a bed = go straight to the police station and turn yourself in!

The players who have been around for years KNOW the limits beyond which they must not go.

Studio36

Dave Krueger wrote:

You're suggesting that people are in favor of laws restricting sex and nudity in order to keep the profitability high?   That would make the porn industry the biggest beneficiaries.  We need to check to see what companies Jerry Fallwell owns stock in.  This could be a bigger scandal than Enron!

No.  I made no mention anywhere in my post suggesting that people are in favor of laws restricting sex and nudity in order to keep the profitability high.  But I am speaking about those that realize the value of a nude and are willing to increase the value of it in the marketplace...

Ken Mierzwa wrote:
Yes.  But there is also a cultural difference between California and Iowa.  At least in parts of coastal California, nudity is relatively acceptable, and in some jurisdictions even legal.

Great point...  I go to Europe from time to time and I have a blast.  Whenever I speak to artists there they usually bring up questions about art here.  And it's usually a pretty short conversation because alot of the information they've received has come from what they've been shown about America from the European or American press...  Every little once in awhile I'll run into a well studied and well traveled artist.  The United States is a HUGE country with fifty states.  Each state has its own distinct subculture and within the states there are even more subcultures.  So to the OP which part of America are you referring to specifically?  Which market and which subculture?  To say the US (or even Europe) is one autonomous unit with a common artistic philosophy is IMPOSSIBLE...  Please clarify your words...

Dave Krueger wrote:
Hmmm...  This has great potential for a chicken and egg argument.  Perhaps if people in the US were more open to nudity, the effect would be greater and we'd see more of it.

-Dave

Nope. Remember the eighties, when Vogue and Cosmo had nudity in all the ads and editorials. I myself did a 1 yr term paper for my undergraduate degree on the use of nudity in advertising complete with surveys and 4 way Analysis of Variance (math) on the results. Nudity doesn't have any positive effects on product sales, especially when targeting women. Which most products in bilboards, tv and magazines target. It also doesn't get men to buy a certain product, it just gets them to look. Most times, people don't remember the product or the company selling it. Just the boobs. Most of the same respondants had no issues with nudity in movies for love scenes or shower scenes, they just didn't have any positive response to product recognition in advertising where nudity was used.

Dave Krueger wrote:

LOL!  Yeah, unless it's a picture of nonnude kids in a Calvin Klein billboard.  They New Yorkers go into complete meltdown.

touche'... but I think sexualizing kids falls into a different debate.

The Art of CIP wrote:

Ken Mierzwa wrote:
Yes.  But there is also a cultural difference between California and Iowa.  At least in parts of coastal California, nudity is relatively acceptable, and in some jurisdictions even legal.

Yep - Nude is even legal in Austin Texas but not in other parts of Texas.
We have Hippie Hollow {Nude Beach} 5 miles from my house.
In Austin its "only" illegal to create a scene or uprising with Nude.

But I am not sure its what the people want that matters ...
Is the culture controlled by Big Brother Puritan Powers that are ?

E L

kumi wrote:
www.molly-web.com

Age issue aside, those pictures are just another example that clearly shows that art isn't determined by what he subject is, but by how it's presented.  I hate it when simplistic people say that it's porn if it shows this or if it shows that.  Even worse are those who say it can't be art if it shows a socially offensive message.

-Dave

The Art of CIP wrote:
I made no mention anywhere in my post suggesting that people are in favor of laws restricting sex and nudity in order to keep the profitability high.  But I am speaking about those that realize the value of a nude and are willing to increase the value of it in the marketplace...

By doing what, if not supporting laws that restrict its availability?

Dave Krueger wrote:

By doing what, if not supporting laws that restrict its availability?

Remember when LaChappelle shot Naomi Campbell for playboy?  Pretty strong market value wouldn't you agree?  Naomi had managed to become highly marketable through modeling.  LaChappelle was discovered by Andy Warhol and the rest was history.  When these two did the shoot it only raised both of their values.  I'm not exactly sure what it is you're driving at Dave..  It would seem you're attempting to force an ideology on me - as the law seems to be your common premise...  Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the spirit of your words...

David Moyle wrote:
Nudity doesn't have any positive effects on product sales, especially when targeting women.

Does it have any negative effects?  If not, then we're left with the reason we don't see more of it in the US is due to culture which is precisely what he OP stated.  If it does have negative effects, then we should see Europeans use less nudity once they become as smart as we are, right?

David Moyle wrote:
It also doesn't get men to buy a certain product, it just gets them to look.

An ad won't get anyone to buy a product unless it first gets their attention.  When I was doing commercial work, I remember the ad folks saying that the first step was to get the magazine reader to stop flipping pages just long enough to get them to read the headline which was then suppose to lead them to read more.

I'm not really pushing a different argument than you.  I'm just questioning your logic.  I don't know whether nudity works or not.  We went through a phase about 15 years ago where just showing a slightly sexy woman in an industrial ad might elicit a negative response because of the feminist movement.  But, times are different now.  I think Europeans are just as interested in making money as we are, and they apparently seem to think nudity works (or at least doesn't hurt) for some markets.

-Dave

Dave Krueger wrote:

Does it have any negative effects?

In USA some of my clients require a no nude model background search.
In Europe I never heard of such a thing.

E L

Dave Krueger wrote:

Does it have any negative effects?  If not, then we're left with the reason we don't see more of it in the US is due to culture which is precisely what he OP stated.  If it does have negative effects, then we should see Europeans use less nudity once they become as smart as we are, right?


An ad won't get anyone to buy a product unless it first gets their attention.  When I was doing commercial work, I remember the ad folks saying that the first step was to get the magazine reader to stop flipping pages just long enough to get them to read the headline which was then suppose to lead them to read more.

I'm not really pushing a different argument than you.  I'm just questioning your logic.  I don't know whether nudity works or not.  We went through a phase about 15 years ago where just showing a slightly sexy woman in an industrial ad might elicit a negative response because of the feminist movement.  But, times are different now.  I think Europeans are just as interested in making money as we are, and they apparently seem to think nudity works (or at least doesn't hurt) for some markets.

-Dave

In the specific study I did, there were some negative effects when women saw nudity where it didn't coincide with the product being sold. I.E. a nude woman selling make-up. But where it did seem to fit the product (a woman in a shower selling soap or shampoo, a nude woman selling body spray or lotion) the effects were acceptable, but not likely to cause product recognition as apposed to say just showing the bottle itself being most likely to show recognition (some ads in the early nineties would show a nude woman and the product was no where to be found).

We also discovered that an ad with nudity did get people to stop flipping pages, but it helped to show the product as well (topless woman with Calvin Kleins as apposed to nude couple on a swing with no jeans)

Interestingly, this study was done when I was working to get my Marketing Degree in the early nineties, so, right where you acurately pinpoint a change in culture.

The Art of CIP wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what it is you're driving at Dave..  It would seem you're attempting to force an ideology on me - as the law seems to be your common premise...  Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the spirit of your words...

I tend to focus on the nudity argument from the legal perspective, but the US doesn't ban nudity in advertising except in some of the more publicly accessible mediums (TV for example), so I was making a mistake there.  My apologies.

Let me get back to your original comment, though.  You certainly imply that there is an incentive in the US for keeping nudity from being commonplace.  How is that carried out?  How is the US able to keep nudity from being commonplace?  Is it like a subconscious attitude on the part of the population? 

Sorry, but I remain skeptical.  I think businesses resist using nudity for fear of offending.  I just don't see any evidence to suggest that there is an attitude on the part of the population or business to restrict the use of nudity to keep it's value high.  I think avoiding the common use of nudity is almost entirely due to the stigma attached to nudity by our culture.

-Dave

Dave Krueger wrote:
Let me get back to your original comment, though.  You certainly imply that there is an incentive in the US for keeping nudity from being commonplace.  How is that carried out?  How is the US able to keep nudity from being commonplace?  Is it like a subconscious attitude on the part of the population? 

Sorry, but I remain skeptical.  I think businesses resist using nudity for fear of offending.  I just don't see any evidence to suggest that there is an attitude on the part of the population or business to restrict the use of nudity to keep it's value high.  I think avoiding the common use of nudity is almost entirely due to the stigma attached to nudity by our culture.

-Dave

Thanx for clarifying Dave...  I will agree that in some cases fear is a determing factor on the part of advertising.  Nudes have usually fell into the realm of fine art photography.  I've always been a proponent that fine art photography is a seperate discipline from advertising.  I've always seen nudes alive and well in the fine art realm.  I'm not exactly sure that it would be good for the medium if fine art nudes became commonplace in advertising....

E L Fanucchi wrote:
In USA some of my clients require a no nude model background search.

The company I work at is so conservative that they don't hire anyone who has ever been naked for any reason. 

studio36uk wrote:
Hows this? Shot of a nude model, a full frontal shot, holding a pre-packaged lunch just below waist level. The name of the product? "Munch Box"

ROTFLMAO.  Good one!

Something to keep in mind that has been missed in the other arguments on this thread; Advertising directed primarily to women is designed to create the emulation factor.  The "I want to be like her...I want my man to be like him" themes are central to the most powerful messages.  It is mental nudity in a different form.

"Advertising is an environmental striptease for a world of abundance."
-- Marshall McLuhan

E L Fanucchi wrote:
In USA some of my clients require a no nude model background search.
In Europe I never heard of such a thing.

Sorry, that's hard to understand based on the work you present.  I would believe that if I saw a client base on your site that might give that confirmation, but with a primary focus on models and weddings, that doesn't give much confirmation to that statement.