|
Forums >
General Industry >
"I will only do Artistic Nudes, like PlayBoy..."
OK, I am confused. More and more I am seeing these new models popping up.... you know, the ones where their cover picture is them wearing old panties, sitting on thier bed wearing nothing but a baseball cap and shot with a web-cam... who state that they will not do any "adult nudes" or "erotica nudes". Only "artistic nudes" and their aspiration is to appear in Playboy. OK, nothing against Playboy....the articles and cartoons are great....but when did they this magazine leave the realm of adult and erotica nudity and become "artistic nudes" and become classified as the same as the works of Edward Weston, Man Ray, and Arnold Newman? Maybe I am getting too old, but saying Playboy is "artistic nude" is the same as saying oral sex is the same as kissing. Feb 24 06 06:36 am Link I think they mean they won't do SWANK or Hustler...  Feb 24 06 06:41 am Link In my mind that is the "erotic" or "porno" nudes. Which oddly enough look very much like their first portfolio shots on their profile. :-) Feb 24 06 06:43 am Link Basically they are saying that they are interested in sexy, high quality photos-not "smut". Feb 24 06 06:46 am Link They can put any and all restrictions they want in their profiles. Its their ass, if they wish to preserve it only for a coming out party in Playboy... that's their right. Will it ever happen? Very unlikely. Very, very unlikely EVEN IF she has the look and body. But that's their dream and life will or will not step on that dream - however, way too many photographers on this site believe its their duty to do that stepping upon. PS - Of course Playboy does not compare to the best of the figure artists - PB is simply popular culture and popular culture is rarely artistic in nature. Feb 24 06 07:12 am Link Apfel Photography wrote: 1.) These models are likely not familiar with the works of those artists. Feb 24 06 07:14 am Link Apfel Photography wrote: Hmmmmm, this is really something to contemplate. I guess we live in a different world. This internet is changing everything -- FAST Feb 24 06 07:19 am Link The real funny thing is that if they do too many of those "artistic nudes" they will never get into Playboy. Feb 24 06 07:21 am Link Apfel Photography wrote: REALLY ??? I'm not finding them ! Send 'em my way, I only SHOOT artistic nudes, but gets difficult finding models ! Feb 24 06 07:29 am Link UCPhotog wrote: I have to agree. Very few of the models I've shot for artistic nude work had a clue who any of the classic shooters were (or are). Additionally, many new models don't seem to have an understanding of the differences between "artistic" and "erotic" when those terms are applied to styles of nude modeling by various 'togs, particularly the GWC's. Feb 24 06 07:38 am Link Bob4friends wrote: Apfel Photography wrote: Now be careful about bashing dead artists. Especially ones that woke up Americans to the issue with AIDS. I agree that some of his work was vulgar, but just go out and get his book, "Women". It contains some of the most beautiful female portraits you will ever see. Even Annie Liebowitz pays that book homage. His images of flowers is mind-blowing. Technically wise, he was the best photographer since Ansel Adams. Near the end of his he was getting angry because the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations were ignoring AIDS. So, he took some very hard-core images to get a point across. The result was people paid attention. 90% of his images are beyond amazing. Feb 24 06 07:54 am Link And by the way Bill, may I say that I have enjoyed looking at your work for years now. I studied photography at SCAD from 1990 to 1994 and have been looking at your work for at least the past 6 or 7 years. You have taken some incredible images. I liked the nudes you took in Bonaventure Cementary and the Old Savannah Cemetary years ago. Feb 24 06 07:58 am Link Playboy is not artistic nude!?!?! Man! I need to cancel my subscription! wait, I do not have a subscription.... Oh yeah! I need a subscription! Seriously - I think the issue lies in the fact that the definitions are changing. The problem is the word "artistic" Everyone wants to claim that AN's fit a certain category. I have heard that they have to be black and white, they have to be shaded they have to be this and that..... The fact of the matter is, most people now look at the category of artistic nude as "Anything involving nudity that is not pornographic" When someone can show me a true definition of Artistic Nude, versus Galmour Nude, Versus Nude, Versus Implied Nude, Versus Erotic Nude, Versus Adult Nude versus Pornography - That EVERYONE agrees upon, then I will give that person a new Mazerati (built to 1:120th scale) Feb 24 06 08:08 am Link Apfel Photography wrote: My experiences online [both here and other places] have shown me that when a model says "artistic nudes" or "Playboy Style" she means a nude shoot that pays her a lot of money. "adult/erotica/porn" nudes are tfp. Feb 24 06 08:12 am Link Apfel Photography wrote: i've been campaigning to make this idea more socially acceptable Feb 24 06 08:18 am Link Christopher Bush wrote: Chris, you beat me to the punch. Well, I'll say my line, anyway. Oral sex is the same as kissing, if your aim is bad. Feb 24 06 08:31 am Link Apfel Photography wrote: I've said it before - it's the classic "bait & switch". Such "models" lure you in with a provocative pic of themselves, then hit you with the "no erotica" %@%^ line. They assume that [male] photographers are such dogs, that we'll still be willing to shell out the clams anyway. Feb 25 06 06:12 am Link Apfel Photography wrote: I love it when girls kiss me. Feb 25 06 06:22 am Link Three years ago as I was ending my first foray into artistic nudes I met a would-be model who is NOW a pretty famous web model. Up to that point she had been shooting a lot of bikini stuff and implied or straight out nudes. She liked my work, and I had some really good implied/full nude concepts to try on her, but said she wanted to do something different. So, we did this fun portrait (fully-clothed) shoot in the NYC subway at a great location I found. She seemed to like the pics after she got them, but less than a month later she went into modeling full and less-than-implied nudes. Now she's fully known for 'provacative' pics. My point? To piggyback on what some have said here, if she's got nudes (or wannabe nudes) on her page, it may be better for you to work in the vain in which she does work best. She'll be more comfortable and you'll get greater shots. I'm not saying that a model who shoots in the nude cannot shoot with clothes on, that's dumb, but as always make sure you carefully pre-screen your clients before you waste your time. Dang, I could've gotten some REALLY good nudes of her  Feb 25 06 06:32 am Link Chu wrote: Ty Simone wrote: Playboy is certainly not artistic nudity. Speaking as one who has a lot of experience working with them, I can tell you that open leg with them is now, not just the norm, it is expected. Feb 25 06 07:25 am Link I think some girls are afraid that their photos will be used in at porn websites without their knowledge so they think that saying playboy style or artistic will make them appear to have higher standards and not be an internet porn queen. I personally saw it happen from a photographer here. (photos ending up on the internet at "babe galleries" without her permission- let me rephrase that, she obviously signed a waiver but she never intended on being at internet porn sites when she posed naked.) One photographer can ruin it for everyone. For me, playboy is just a "more classy" style of nudity unlike Hustler or Penthouse. I would say that the models who want the playboy style nudity are saying "please make me beautiful, not slutty". Feb 25 06 07:28 am Link WhiteBears Visions wrote: This is a difficult one for me because I don't think playboy is porn. I consider it glamour nude. SWANK, Penthouse, and Hustler on the other hand. I do very much see as porn. I see "none" of them as artistic nudes. Feb 26 06 04:00 pm Link It really takes more than a lack of exposed labia to make an image artistic. To my mind, an "artistic nude" is one where the aim of the image is obviously not simply to titillate, but to express something beyond the obvious visual components of the image, something subtle and fleeting. In my work (and I'm not saying all my pictures are ART but the intent is there) the relationship between the model's body and the natural world, and the contrast of colors and textures, is intended to make one feel something else, approaching a spiritual sense of wonder. Without sounding too Romantic, I can honestly say that certain moments of beauty make me feel a kind of pain, an awareness of the fragility of our aesthetic experience. My favorite pictures evoke something- an undefined longing- and hold me for a while. I have a quote that might be clearer than my own words: "By means of art we are sometimes sent- dim, briefly- revelations unattainable by reason. Like that little mirror in the fairy tales- look into it, and you will see not yourself, but, for a moment, that which passeth understanding, a realm to which no man can ride or fly, and for which the soul begins to ache..." -Alexander Solzhenitzyn- So that's my viewpoint. I find almost everything called "artistic nudes" nowadays, especially by American photographers, isn't. It's glamour, intended to titillate, just as Playboy quite openly is meant to do. I don't mean to offend, as there are several U.S. photographers that are among my favourites, but the general trend there is so much more towards plastic, Maxim-style work, that it seems they often mistake craftmanship for artistry. If your concerns are that the model be as perfect-looking as possible, that she have a "come-hither" look, that she look sexy or provocative, that she have makeup, high heels, or even implants, that you be able to see certain areas- or not see them- in order to arouse the viewer, that the setting or props support an illusion of sex, money, or luxury, that she look fashionable or reflect a decadent lifestyle... then your pictures are probably not to my taste. Not that anyone should care about that. I'm a cheerful minority here, and I know it. I saw a recent thread about "sexually charged non-nude images" and I looked through them. It underlined how far off the map my aesthetic is. I found virtually none of the images seemed sexually charged to me, and, thinking about it, I don't know if I would describe any of my own images that way (although surely any viewer would find an arousing image somewhere in my work- it is in the eye of the beholder, after all). Obviously sexuality is a valid mandate for nude photography, I just don't enjoy the limiting of our perception of nude bodies to that mandate. Our bodies express so many things beyond sex appeal. Even very early Playboy and Penthouse feels quite different than the new "varnished" airbrushed carbon-copy images. The touch of humanity seems to be fading from the commercial side of the genre. Miles Feb 26 06 05:21 pm Link It sounds prettier than saying "technically sound soft-porn still images". Feb 26 06 05:49 pm Link Portia VanPelt wrote: I do see your point. But you wouldn't believe the number of models that say "artistic only" but have almost "porn" style shots in there portfolios. It is somewhat a name game. To say artistic...sets well with friends, family, and co-workers I think. But in reality...they are glamour nudes if not more. Feb 26 06 06:52 pm Link Yeah, well some people think velvet Elvis paintings qualify as art. I know what they mean... the choice of words is just a bit off. Just because it isn't porn, that doesn't make it art. Feb 26 06 06:57 pm Link Chu wrote: ditto. I just find it funny that most of the models you say they want PB styles nudes have smut in their portfolio. I also notice that after the models does PB all of a sudden she is worth $300 per hour............funny girls :-) Feb 26 06 07:01 pm Link KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote: Only $300! I had a girl that was willing to do the cover of my magazine for free. She go published on the cover of playboy the very next month. She called me back and said, "hey, I still want to do your mag...my rates are $8k/day". I about dropped the phone! Feb 26 06 07:06 pm Link Ken Mierzwa wrote: My point exactly. Art is different things to different people. But it drives me nuts when someone puts a pretty girls on a backdrop with bad lighting, bad pose, desaturates the image lsts it as "artistic". Then the girls contact me and say this is the type of nudes I do?? Feb 26 06 07:08 pm Link Steven Eldridge wrote: SHYT GOT DAMN! Feb 26 06 07:08 pm Link KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote: No sh*t...talk about inflation. Feb 26 06 07:10 pm Link Chu wrote: Ty Simone wrote: Well...when the model is really "fine"... Feb 26 06 07:13 pm Link Wildcat Photography wrote: Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: Chu wrote: Ty Simone wrote: Well...when the model is really "fine"... LOL..too funny. Feb 26 06 07:14 pm Link Damn...I'll never get these quote things figured out! Arrrggghhhh! Feb 26 06 07:15 pm Link Very interesting comments regarding nudity. Its quite obvious that the American public is still very polarized on the whole issue. That term "artistic nudity" has always been laughable to me! I'd like to see George Carlin discuss the topic on one of his shows. If your'e naked your'e naked! Another man's art is but anothers trash. Some very good comments regarding Playboy,Penthouse , Maxim, Hustler etc.. were made in regards to whether they are artistic or smut? In the eyes of many aspiring and seasoned models Playboy and Maxim are the dream. If those models want to try and capture that dream then go for it! But being nude or semi nude in those publications still crosses the line, if your naked your naked! In the fashion industry the top agencies were known to zealously control their crop of models and steer them away initially from nudity. Always with an aura of whats good for the model's career and the agencies reputation. Then hypocritically later these same overly pampered and protected models would appear on catwalks and layouts in the most body revealing and sometimes scandalous creations imaginable.The industry and its pretentiousness created a mindset that it was different. The models were naked or near naked wearing completely sheer or stiched clothing but with an attitude of "ignore that" its fashion. Again,,, if your naked your naked ! If anything,,, getting published in Playboy/Maxim/Stuff etc, etc. is a validation for a model as being on the top of the heap. Its a major accomplishment for them. But what comes afterwards? If a model does nudes fine,,,but dont politicize it with those crazy phrases of artistic, Playboy style, fine art etc. Mar 04 06 05:06 pm Link Apfel Photography wrote: I don't think Playboy is artist at all. Their centerfolds work is cheap garbage done with better lighing and tons more Photoshop. Once in a while they will done a shoot with a celebrity which is great artistic work . Mar 04 06 05:23 pm Link Apfel Photography wrote: LOL....ok....here is my definition. Playboy is erotica/porn. Any type of nude that involves glamour nude or an image that says "come f*** me" is NOT an artistic nude. I feel that an artistic nude is an image that doesn't say "come f*** me". It is an image for the appreciation of the meaning behind it and the form of art....the form of the human body.....nothing more. Mar 05 06 02:08 pm Link This is the best article I have ever read on the differences between erotic and art. http://www.domai.com/text/DOMAI-style.html I believe the same concepts in this article can be applied to non nudes. I am in no way supporting or advertising for this site nor do I agree with 90% of what they stand for. But this article has help me define my own work and I think it can put into perspective the art question. As for Play Boy it is soft core porn. It advertises as soft core. And although i ever bought an issue, my understanding is it has progressively gotten harder over the years. They started with a Marylin Monroe Pinup shot and now have legs spread and shaved. High porn by a high quality photographer is still porn. Anyway read the article and think about it. Martin IV Mar 05 06 04:58 pm Link Mar 05 06 04:58 pm Link cut the bull, playboy is just ,T&A Mar 10 06 03:51 pm Link |
