|
Forums >
General Industry >
Regarding artistic v. porn nudes...
It's my understanding from some class oh so long ago that artistic photographic nudes typically are anonymous figure studies focusing on shape, form, shadow/light interplay, etc. However, I've always loved images where the model (or subject, depending on what side of the academic tracks who stand) makes eye-contact with the viewer. So, how would one reconcile making non-anonymous nudes, all else being equal (meaning its still a figure study, not a pinup or glamour shot)? As an example, I dig the work of a MN photographer, Craig Blacklock, except that if I had my druthers, I'd want to see the model's face and expressions as she moved around the rocks of Lake Superior in Blacklock's latest monograph. Any thoughts? Mar 04 06 11:54 am Link I made eye contact with this model but not in the shot. FWIW eyes are great in or out of the shot. But always make eyes with your model on the set. No eyes is a mysterious often seducive effect - see more in my port. E L Mar 04 06 11:58 am Link I'm not sure I even know what porn is anymore... Porn to me - bluntly - something i use to get off. lol. If I'm into feet - and I see a picture of a foot - does it make it porn?... I suppose that's a very akward - and not really correct analogy - but... .Porn is what you make it - I'm not sure there is any fit description to any type of art... but today Porn would probably be - sex/penetration/anything where the model is completely exposed.... !?... Hell! I dunno what porn is.... Or Artistic nudes for that matter....... I'll return when and if I find out...... Mar 04 06 12:01 pm Link Before the discussion moves into the realm of "what is porn?," what I'd really want to hear is what people think about anonymity in artistics nudes. Is it required in order to be an artistic nude? Again, when I see an artistic nude, I find myself thinking "what's her face saying?" even though her face is normally obscured or cut off. And yes, when I photograph a nude model, I make sure my eyes are focused on hers and not down low (at least not for long stretches. LOL). Thanks for the replies thus far. Mar 04 06 12:06 pm Link I thought there's a thread just like this being discussed on MM..... Mar 04 06 12:09 pm Link Mar 04 06 12:15 pm Link Artistic - to me - Anything where the girls legs aren't spread - the model and the backround work equally - Either or highlights the other... It shows - shape, tone - color - nothing is overly distracting. - I think the model can be looking at the camera. Mar 04 06 12:15 pm Link Ever hear of Helmut Newton? I don't consider his work porn. And I'd say his nude models looked into the camera more often than not. My impression is that Newton wanted his models, while nude, to still come across as strong and in control. I love his work. Mar 04 06 12:25 pm Link This is such a slippery slope (no pun intended). I'm putting together a fine art figure photo seminar and dealing with this exact issue. One of tracks will be a survey of the nude through history. It seems, with few exceptions, it is not whether the eyes are visible or looking at the viewer; but rather the almost complete lack of the models' interacting with their "private bits" that has defined the line between artistic and pornographic works. Although there have been strong reactions to the vast amount of skin shown in artistic nudes. Over time many artists' works involving the nude have been exhibited in public and are considered "classics" of the genre. Goya's Maga, Renoir's Odalisque, Ingres' Odalisque all fit this category of art, not porn. On the otherhand much of Beardsley's work is considered to be porn, with associated sexual "activity" being shown in his work. To counter-argue this point, there have been exhibitions of female genitalia that some considered porn due to the extreme gynecological point-of-view. Judy Chicago's Dinner Party at BAM drew such criticism. But so did Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" and there was nary a twiddly bit, dangly bit or hand touching such bits to be seen. So what governs what is porn or art? I believe the landscape is so wide that depending where the artist is standing one may or may not be able to see another artist's point-of-view. We can knowingly chose to make porn or make art, as it fits our personal definition. Consequently, barring Supreme Court intervention, we all get to decide what is or is not art and how we wish to express our vision...and it is up to the viewers to either accept or reject our vision. Kind of the essence of anything is life. Or as Larry Flynt said, "Hey, don't complain to me, complain to the manufacturer" Or I could just be full of crap! Mar 04 06 01:09 pm Link danzfotog wrote: There is a near infinity between the artistic nude and the porn nude. Call it whatever name of the day applies, whether it is "porn" or not is strictly in the eye of the individual viewer. As for whether the face can be shown in figurative art, there are no rules. Yes, traditionally it has been about the lines, shapes, textures and form of the torso and how they react with light, but in recent years the lines have become completely obscured. Many photographic artists now include a lot of erotica and fetish in their work, but as for my own work I've been shooting figurative art longer than many here have been alive and by far, the majority of my print sales have not included a clear face. Mar 04 06 06:20 pm Link danzfotog wrote: Those are called Figure Nudes: nudes where the face is not shown. Sometimes models say they'll do Artistic Nudes, and what they mean is Figure Nudes, where their face won't be shown. Mar 04 06 09:22 pm Link Two aspects are inherent in the dividing of the porn and artistic nude factions: 1) Intent of the photographer (and possibly model, depending on amount of collaborative input). 2) Intent of the viewer. The only thing you can ever truly concern yourself with is #1...as in, the creative process you have control over. If your motivation is genuine visual poetry, then it really doesn't matter how 'revealing' the images are. The only other factor is the quality of skill, which will affect how convincing a sincere artistic endeavor it will appear to be to those of similar mind. Mar 05 06 12:00 am Link I try not to live by categories, which is easy, because I don't know what they are, much (at least in photography). If eyes, or a figure, or a nude, or a clothed, or wet hair, or fresh-faced, or dark, or light, or a group, or a landscape will appeal to me in a given setting, it's what I'll shoot. If someone wants to assign a category to it, that's fine. If I like it but no one else does, that's a shame, but we'll all live on. Mar 05 06 07:58 am Link To really mix it up.... I was chatting with a young woman, not a model, who is clearly in the alternative scene, which is rather big in Toronto. She had extensive body modification. I inquired about shooting her nude to capture her tatoos and piercings. She said she would be cool with that, as long as she could make a political statement.... like with a crucifix or menstrual blood. Just so it wasn't porn... like Playboy. Mar 05 06 08:13 am Link |
