|
Forums >
General Industry >
The importance of the subject in nude photography?
(I'm sorry, Ivan. I had to.) Donley started a thread asking if we've exhausted all the possible discussions about nude photography. (You can read his thread here.) I don't think so, and posted my reason why on his thread. I'd like to see more conversation about the issues I raised, though, so I'm excerpting my thoughts here. Here's what I had to say about his question: "We haven't yet spent much time discussing the actual aesthetic of nude photography, and how much of what makes a nude photograph appealing is the shape of the model, and how much is the skill of the photographer. "People like Joel Peter Witkin, or Jan Saudek, or Brad Miller photograph subjects who are fat or deformed or in some other way shockingly outside the norm for nude photography, but they are such talented and creative photographers that people are [sometimes] willing to look past the shock and find something....meaningful? beautiful? worthwhile?" Beyond what I said above, are you more likely to remember nude photography that is shocking or unexpected in some way? If the subject isn't one that you would consider beautiful, do you still spend time with the image, and think about the why of it, and the statement the artist is making with it? How much of our enjoyment of nude photography is about viewing subjects we find sexually desirable? If you like work in line with the photographers mentioned above, what appeals to you about it, and would you hang it on your wall? If you hate it, why? Mar 14 06 12:54 pm Link I think we are more likely to remember an image that is shocking or different because it stands out. With the 'net we have a nearly infinite supply of nude images. Mar 14 06 01:04 pm Link You are going to regret this. I recommended against, but still, I will have to write something. Just not now, I have a meeting in an hour. Maybe tonight. I was recently reading in the NY Times book review an article about, and review of books about, art and art criticism. Most art critics are saying that art has lost its way, it has lost direction. The "school" today is every man for himself, do whatever you want. And some say that art CRITICISM has lost its way, it is whatever you like is ok. I can see that so I don't expect this discussion to make much of what could be called "progress." Still, a good try! I will check in later. Mar 14 06 01:07 pm Link Shyly...this is why I love reading your posts to the forums! My two cents (plus a little for inflation). For me nude photography isn't just about the body in the photo, whether it be soft and sinous or deformed and "shocking". For me so much more plays into what makes the photograph beautiful (or just plain interesting) For example: Color/Texture - I've gotten to see some excellent works both outside MM and here in the portfolios where the artist at hand has graciously melded brilliant colors into the aspects of his nude work. An example off hand would be JustinThai's work here on MM. Within his black and white photos he's added in elements (an apple, grapes) something non-personafied; and allowed that to be the only object of color within the work. In this case, the nude is only a fraction of the focal point. However, the curves of the body bring us back to the object at hand (no pun intended). A dual focal point per say. Form - Whether it is the gentle s-curve of a flowy female model or the ripple of the washboard abs of an athletic male model, the form of the figure is important to capturing the model. One wrong angle can turn a great curve into a personified image of the 405 freeway :-) Underlying definition - Is there a sprit to the photo that gives off an underlying meaning. Does the nude fit into a context? So many nudes are the same. Did I just say that? I must've. Why? Because it is true. I think there are a great many photographers who attempt to take a photo of the nude body but it doesn't embellish on any one aspect. A black and white nude photo of a male on a wall - What is it trying to say? Is there a meaning? Is it to capture the shadows falling along the muslcular definition? Is it to show the vulnerability of the male figure? Is it a portrayal of good vs. evil? Or is it just a nude to take a photo of a nude? To me, for me to stop there needs to be something...something particular. Typically it tends to be a detail (JustinThai's colors for example). Even if it is something that might not be particularly good at first glance there needs to be a detail of interest to draw me in for a closer look. I'd put this as being Shyly's "shock" value for one. Mar 14 06 01:13 pm Link Personally I'm relatively new to nude photography. My photography has always been geared more toward landscape and architecture. I am planning to begin a "Studies in Femininity" series soon and am in the process of lining up models. With my relative "newness" in mind, please take the following comments with a grain of salt if you feel the need. For me nude photography is about the beauty created by BOTH the model and the photographer. I personally think that the female form is truly beautiful in all shapes and sizes. It is the photographers RESPONSIBILITY to capture this beauty to do justice to the model. It's true that "shocking" images are ones that stay with the viewer, but I don't think "shocking" necessarily always has to have a negative meaning. Images that immediately came to my mind are some done by Mr. Leonard Nimoy (Spock) in his "Full Body Project" (warning - 18+) http://www.leonardnimoyphotography.com/7body.htm. I have seen some gorgeous models who have some terrible examples of "nude work". I have also seen many models that society may deem "unfit for nude work" who have some spectacular nude images. For me, many things must come together for the image to work. Showing/not showing genitalia doesn't really factor into the equation for me, what matters to me is EXECUTION of the image. To capture the human form and do it justice is a difficult task indeed. I applaud photographers and models who can do this in a manner that brings together a harmony of lighting, form, pose, composition, and mood. This is my criteria for a successful nude image. Body type and "shock value" are unimportant if these criteria can be met in my humble opinion. Mar 14 06 01:18 pm Link Nude photography is explored in so many different ways its hard to see the common threads, but they are there. The female form, in all its forms, entice us through our genetic sense of the beauty of creation. We react to all images on consious and subconsious levels, disturbing images evoke our protective or sadistic nature, gentle images of softer women bring forth a sense of nurture, and slender, lithe women tend to tap into the erotic. Bring it all together in every possible combination and we have a never ending array of expression through the female form. It has been that way for millenia, and will remain so until we disconnect thorughly with our humanity. Is the topic dead? Not as long as the human spirit retains one ounce of passion. The male form is another matter all together. There is beauty there, but its brutish. It can be intimidating, even overwhelming. I have never encountered the range of attraction available to the female form in the male, but this may be as simple as, I'm straight. The appeal may in fact be similar to those who are not, but I susspect that they are not the same. Women are the clue to this, they are half of a whole and to most women the beauty of the female form is far more appealing than the male. Even the common steriotype for the gay man is effeminate. It could be that Women project the life giving side of love, compassion, nuture and passion while men project power, strength, force and controll. The former gives us comfort while the later draws out the competitive tendancies within... Just a thought. Joseph Mar 14 06 01:32 pm Link Seeing a woman's tits. Okay, just joking, really. Shocking comment, though, isn't it? Which goes to the heart of the discussion. Is shocking necessarily art? And on the other side of that coin, is pleasing necessarily drivel? And in the end, isn't any beauty in the eyes of the looker? If you take it to shocking extremes, you could say that Hannibal Lechter has a different view of what makes a pretty picture than, say, oh, me. We could all probably agree to some extent on what is pornographic, although our cojoined definitions would look like some scrambled Venn diagram. Somewhere in that we'd find something in common to all our definitions about porn. But, isn't porn shocking? So can't it be defined somehow as art? This is, after all, the history of court definitions of it. Trying to nail down whether it's good or bad resembles the effort to stab a live fly with a pushpin. A further quotation that informs this discussion: I can't define beauty, but I know it when I see it. Had a funny experience with this once. Was out at a bar with a couple of other guys, and we got into a discussion about which women in the bar appealed to each of us. Not surprisingly, we didn't find agreement on more than one or two of the few dozen women in there. What we discovered, just before we got drunk, was that none of us would ever be competing for the same woman. We all went home alone that night, by the way. Mar 14 06 01:43 pm Link Beyond Images wrote: I love this man's brain. Got a sister? lol Mar 14 06 01:44 pm Link Beyond Images wrote: I can only agree with you on one point - The male form is completely different than the female form. Truth spoken that it is substantially more difficult to create an image using a male nude form. However, I wholy disagree that being straight vs. gay is a common denominator in determining attraction. I've been lucky enough to have seen both images that capture the "brutishness" of the bulky male figure but have still instilled a sense of vulnerability. As for the common stereotype - that is all it is, a generalized stereotype. Pay attention to photographers like Bruce Weber (the first one that I could come up with) or magazines dedicated to the male form (Aussie magazine Blue comes to mind) and you'll see a full range of postures, forms, and dedications to the male form, capturing a spectrum of emotion and underlying contexts. Mar 14 06 01:49 pm Link For me the nude is the landscape. I want to capture the texture, the contrast, the hills and valleys. The landscape of the nude is the subject. Not all landscapes are "picture perfect" (no pun intended), some landscapes are harsh and ugly but have beauty that is not readily visible. It is my job to make that beauty visible. I am glad this thread came up, I have several nude shoots scheduled in the near future. I had forgotten what my job was. I know what I want to create but I had forgotten the why and how to make that creation. Thanks Lee for havingthe word "landscape" in your post. Mar 14 06 02:02 pm Link I am tired of being shocked. Rather, I'm tired of people trying to shock me. Hardly anything that people can think up shocks me anymore. Creating something is a form of communication between the person creating and the person viewing (in case of photography). It's what feelings and thoughts you put into the work that count for me. If jump out at me and yell "boo" I will startle, shrug my shoulders, and keep on walking. If, on the other hand, someone is communicating their ideas, thoughts, and feelings I will stop and feel and look and think. To answer your question: from my perspective results of a photo shoot are only the photographerâs doing. Iâll assume that we are talking about the photographerâs own work and not an assignment with its constraints. Everything in the picture is the photographerâs choice including throwing away all the pictures from the shoot. The second subject: can deformed be viewed as beautiful. It can. To some. There are certain universal standards of beauty and they usually equal what is considered by a given society to be young, healthy, and prosperous. Itâs just evolution at work. In societies where most poor people are sick and malnourished fat is beautiful because it speaks to the wealth. In our society, where slim and in shape is healthy, slim is beautiful. When the only tanned people where those working outside, the tan among the wealthy was out. When the wealthy started going Riviera for the winter the tan became a symbol of wealth and it was in. Now itâs out again for the reason of health. Selecting the best suited genetic material is such a strong instinct that itâs hard to fight it on a social scale. Those instincts get manipulated by the media and their tricks. Perfect skin = healthy. Plastic skin = equals even healthier. Large breasts = feminine. Large breast implants = even more feminine. Slim and thin = young and fertile. 5â10â?/120lb= even younger and more fertile. So these are the standards which are fed to us by the media and which we perpetuate by outdoing each other in model slimness, younger and younger age (did you see the last Vogue? The models must be 12 years old, they look like girls playing dress-up). Can overweight, deformed, be beautiful? I guess the real question to what degree our appearance contributes to our beauty as individuals, human beings? When we think of hot chicks and studs in a fantasy world of romance and sexual adventure the looks is nearly all that matters. In the real-world relationships looks donât matter all that much. Many of you have been in relationships with great looking people who after a while didnât seem to look all that hot. So, if you compete in the fantasy game of modeling the fantasy beauty standards count. If you donât meet them you are at a disadvantage. But this great web site appeals to others who donât play the fantasy game and there is a lot to be said with pictures portraying bodies that donât fit the beauty mold. Mar 14 06 02:46 pm Link |
