myviewfinder wrote:
After looking through many of the portfolios on this site I find that a great deal of nude images are about sex.  I'm wondering if that is all there is to nude (bodyform) photography.

Not unless that's all you see.

myviewfinder wrote:
Is there more to it?

Many viewers and photographers do see a lot more than that, yes.

myviewfinder wrote:
After looking through many of the portfolios on this site I find that a great deal of nude images are about sex.  I'm wondering if that is all there is to nude (bodyform) photography. 
Is there more to it?  What about the archetypal images?  The nude images that relate humanity, vulnerability, or even comedy?  Is there anyone out there exploring the deeper metaphors that the human body lends itself to?
Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answers.  I am a man and sexy images certainly impact my physiology just like they would most other straight men but I'm curious if anyone else out there has thought about this and come up with any notions of why shooting the human form is so intriguing and where it can be taken that it has not yet gone?

I don't see "sex" in my work - but others do. I've been refused shows because gallery directors found my work to be "too provocative", or "too nude." (Yes, an art director at a fairly well known ATL, GA gallery told me that once.)

Another time, I was asking three photographers for an opinion on one image. All three were female. All three shot nude work. The image was a shot of the model on her side and centered on her hip, and was very contrasty. There was just the slightest hint of pubic hair visible out of the shadow area. This was an image that I had been told was too "erotic" for a group show. The responses went like something like this:

Lady tog #1: "It's not erotic to me. Could be a shoulder and armpit"
Lady tog #2: "Me either. It's very shapely and graphical, but not an erotic image."
Lady tog #3: Oh yes it is!

What was the famous comment in an obscenity case before the Supremem Court? ".....I can't define it, (obscene or pornographic material), but I know it when I see it....."

Perception is reality. It's all up to the viewer.

FWIW -

Bill Ballard
Blue Water Photography
Savannah, GA

myviewfinder wrote:
After looking through many of the portfolios on this site I find that a great deal of nude images are about sex.  I'm wondering if that is all there is to nude (bodyform) photography. 
Is there more to it?  What about the archetypal images?  The nude images that relate humanity, vulnerability, or even comedy?  Is there anyone out there exploring the deeper metaphors that the human body lends itself to?
Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answers.  I am a man and sexy images certainly impact my physiology just like they would most other straight men but I'm curious if anyone else out there has thought about this and come up with any notions of why shooting the human form is so intriguing and where it can be taken that it has not yet gone?

You deny it weakly -- but I hear a bias coming through clearly -- pictures that are about sex are "less" valuable than pictures that aren't. Why is that? Sex is a powerful and beautiful force in our universe -- doesn't it deserve to be portrayed in art?

Other than that though, I disagree with your premise. There is a lot of nude photography that isn't about sex. Perhaps not on MM, which has a decidedly "glamour" flavor overall, although I have seen some artistic nude work here that is not sexually provocative. . . .

Julia Gerace wrote:
my question is:   When you shoot fine art or nudes, are you doing it under the same business name as you would if you were a family or senior shooter?   I've been told recently that shooting nudes will hurt my business in the eyes of family/child clients...Is it difficult to set up a 'dba'?

thanks...

Take a look at my website. (Link on my port page.)

I've been shooting nudes longer than any of the other work shown there......

Don't be too critical - the site launched a week ago (re-launched, actually) and we're still squashin' bugs...

Bill Ballard
Blue Water Photography
Savannah, GA

Julia Gerace wrote:
I'm wondering this myself- when I think about nudes, I envision more of a fine art feel to them - I think we all have our own lines of where it crosses into 'too erotic' and you have to respect that - what's sexy for me, might be tame for you but totally over the top porn for someone else...

my question is:   When you shoot fine art or nudes, are you doing it under the same business name as you would if you were a family or senior shooter?   I've been told recently that shooting nudes will hurt my business in the eyes of family/child clients...Is it difficult to set up a 'dba'?

thanks...

Hi Julia -- this is something I have thought about too. In the end, I decided that trying to hide the fact that I shoot some nudes could actually backfire -- clients who are sensitive might think I held out some important information on them if they find out about it later. So the philosophy I have is -- don't shoot anything you wouldn't want the whole world to know that you shoot. I always remind people that the biggest Bible printers in the world also print Playboy and Hustler. . .

So far, I don't believe it has effected me. I have some VERY conservative business clients who represent a large percentage of my annual income. I know for a fact that they carefully perused my internet portfolio, and saw the nudes there among all the other work I do (glamour, fashion, products, musicians, editorial, politicians, sports). In fact, at the time I landed my most conservative client, the work on my port was a little racier than it is now. So I can't say it has hurt me.

On the other hand, I have recently gone back to shooting weddings. For THAT, I'm going to create a completely separate site to send clients to -- not so much because I don't want them to see nudes, but that's part of it. I just think that selling weddings is different enough from selling commercial and glamour work that a separate identity is warranted.

myviewfinder wrote:
After looking through many of the portfolios on this site I find that a great deal of nude images are about sex.  I'm wondering if that is all there is to nude (bodyform) photography. 
Is there more to it?  What about the archetypal images?  The nude images that relate humanity, vulnerability, or even comedy?  Is there anyone out there exploring the deeper metaphors that the human body lends itself to?
Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answers.  I am a man and sexy images certainly impact my physiology just like they would most other straight men but I'm curious if anyone else out there has thought about this and come up with any notions of why shooting the human form is so intriguing and where it can be taken that it has not yet gone?

Is there anything wrong with sexual undertones to nude photography? I don't see what is negative about exploring sexuality through nude art photography. I have shot some nudes that weren't "sexual" in any way, it was a fun shoot, too.

My next question is how many non-nude shots *don't* contain elements of sexuality. The world of photographing people often contains lots of sexual overtones simply because people are highly sexual beings. Nobody would want to take pictures of someone ugly, or in the very least a photograph of something that can't be found beautiful on some level. And beauty often lends itself to sexuality.

That is not to say that all pictures are beautiful, because not all photographs are taken with the intent to be beautiful...

I'm gonna stop rambling in my sickish sleepy fog....

Olaf S wrote:
When I came to the US from Europe, I was amazed that the vast majority of people here do not seem to distinguish between nudity and sex.  I think it's why there's such a weird, puritanical attitude towards nudity in the US.

Just an observation...

And a very astute observation Olaf.

Olaf S wrote:
When I came to the US from Europe, I was amazed that the vast majority of people here do not seem to distinguish between nudity and sex.  I think it's why there's such a weird, puritanical attitude towards nudity in the US.

Just an observation...

I thought it was weird too. Or the "sex and violence" expression.

myviewfinder wrote:
After looking through many of the portfolios on this site I find that a great deal of nude images are about sex.  I'm wondering if that is all there is to nude (bodyform) photography.

I don't think you can completely separate any representation of a human body from sexuality. Just like a picture of a Big Mac will always evoke a different feeling than a picture of a rock. You may not be hungry at the moment but you still know that a Big Mac is something you can eat.

To those that say that I just contradicted my previous post - I don't think so. In my previous post I was talking about consciously wanting to have sex with a person you see naked. This is more about how we perceive things. Semiotics.

Gregory Garecki wrote:

I thought it was weird too. Or the "sex and violence" expression.

YES!  You are SO right!  Why does sex ALWAYS get associated with violence?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Geez, buddy, don't think so hard. 

>>> There's absolutely nothing wrong with sex.  Each & every one of us is here because of a sexual act.  We are hardwired for sex.

>>> Everyone will view images differently.  Are the images on my portfolio all about sex?  You may think so, I may not, and who cares?

>>> I don't understand how it is easy to watch TV & see fairly explicit violence while any form of sex has to be implied at best.  On broadcast TV, you can see dozens of simulated murders a night, but not a single bare breast.  What's the sense in that?

>>> Let's be real:  it is much easier to create an exciting image about sex than it is to create an exciting light-shadow-form image.  In fact, light-shadow-form images aren't usually meant to be exciting, are they?

>>> Finally, it's easy to get a good number of responses to a thread with the word "nude" in its topic.

I whole heartedly agree....

Marvin Dockery wrote:
Face it, We are all sexual objects in some way.

In my case women object to consider sex. Does that make me a sex object too?

myviewfinder wrote:
After looking through many of the portfolios on this site I find that a great deal of nude images are about sex.

Sex is one of the most important and powerful urges in human nature from birth until death and it is very much responsible for the survival of the species through thousands of years of challenges to our very existence.  I'd say that qualifies it as a very apropos topic for any kind of expression.

myviewfinder wrote:
I'm wondering if that is all there is to nude (bodyform) photography.

You get to decide for yourself how you want to think about the human body.  Personally, I like sex as an activity and as a topic for my pictures. 

myviewfinder wrote:
...but I'm curious if anyone else out there has thought about this and come up with any notions of why shooting the human form is so intriguing and where it can be taken that it has not yet gone?

I shoot nudes with a certain undisguised sexual allure because it pisses off the goddamn conservative bible-thumping hypocritical crusading religious zealots.  And because I like naked women.

myviewfinder wrote:
After looking through many of the portfolios on this site I find that a great deal of nude images are about sex.  I'm wondering if that is all there is to nude (bodyform) photography. 
Is there more to it?  What about the archetypal images?  The nude images that relate humanity, vulnerability, or even comedy?  Is there anyone out there exploring the deeper metaphors that the human body lends itself to?
Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answers.  I am a man and sexy images certainly impact my physiology just like they would most other straight men but I'm curious if anyone else out there has thought about this and come up with any notions of why shooting the human form is so intriguing and where it can be taken that it has not yet gone?

I shoot what I like to shoot.  Nature is about sex.  We are hardwired for sex.  That said, I like taking a more subdued approach to my imagery.

Anjel Britt wrote:
mine aren't sex....overall the nudes I have done are, well... glad, uplifting, dark, painful, odd, fun,  frolics, vulnerable, sad, strong, lonely, dancing, musing, desparate, sweet, restrained, hurt, cute...see omp 78615
and so on
maybe a couple are  sexy - but not deliberately so!

Your port is very enjoyable to view.  Don't try too hard to not be sexy, your pictures reflect a good balance as they are.

Blue Water Photography wrote:

I don't see "sex" in my work - but others do. I've been refused shows because gallery directors found my work to be "too provocative", or "too nude." (Yes, an art director at a fairly well known ATL, GA gallery told me that once.)

Another time, I was asking three photographers for an opinion on one image. All three were female. All three shot nude work. The image was a shot of the model on her side and centered on her hip, and was very contrasty. There was just the slightest hint of pubic hair visible out of the shadow area. This was an image that I had been told was too "erotic" for a group show. The responses went like something like this:

Lady tog #1: "It's not erotic to me. Could be a shoulder and armpit"
Lady tog #2: "Me either. It's very shapely and graphical, but not an erotic image."
Lady tog #3: Oh yes it is!

What was the famous comment in an obscenity case before the Supremem Court? ".....I can't define it, (obscene or pornographic material), but I know it when I see it....."

Perception is reality. It's all up to the viewer.

FWIW -

Bill Ballard
Blue Water Photography
Savannah, GA

I've had some of my images barred from exhibit because they are "to provocative".  There are some screwed up people in the Phoenix art world.

Madalyn wrote:
I have been trying to find photographers that dont do the "sex" nudes, actually I want to be very classy with my nudes and thats what Im trying to do.

Your first post and you just insulted all the shooters who do "sex nudes" by suggesting their work isn't "classy". 

Gregory Garecki wrote:

In my case women object to consider sex. Does that make me a sex object too?

Everyone is a sex object to someone, or something.

Marvin Dockery wrote:
Everyone is a sex object to someone, or something.

That's precisely the reason I gave up my life of crime.  I don't want to wind up as someone's prison bitch...

myviewfinder wrote:
After looking through many of the portfolios on this site I find that a great deal of nude images are about sex.  I'm wondering if that is all there is to nude (bodyform) photography. 
Is there more to it?  What about the archetypal images?  The nude images that relate humanity, vulnerability, or even comedy?  Is there anyone out there exploring the deeper metaphors that the human body lends itself to?
Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answers.  I am a man and sexy images certainly impact my physiology just like they would most other straight men but I'm curious if anyone else out there has thought about this and come up with any notions of why shooting the human form is so intriguing and where it can be taken that it has not yet gone?

How I photograph nudes:
There is more to nude images than sex to me. Sex is not excluded, but it's not included in every nude picture. I like the way light drapes over the subject, and the way the shadow engulfes the subject. I like emotion. I like innocence, perversion, happiness and sorrow and lots in between.

Skin is always in. Photographing and painting nude forms has always been "en vogue". There are so many other contexts to doing it besides sex. Even different levels of "sex".

Because I live in a backwards society, the nudes I photograph do not end up in my online portfolio. I keep them away from people who would simply click on the image just because it has a naked person in it.

Blue Water Photography wrote:
I don't see "sex" in my work - but others do. I've been refused shows because gallery directors found my work to be "too provocative", or "too nude." (Yes, an art director at a fairly well known ATL, GA gallery told me that once.)

I had this exact thing happen to me at an interview/portfolio viewing at a local gallery in which I am ironically currently being exhibited. I was told most of my nudes were more commercial and sexual than art, to her. Why? Not the poses, not because they were explicit but because they showed her face and she was built too nicely. She is about 5 feet 5 with beautiful curves.
Ironically, she chose 2 of the nudes of the same model that did not show her face and only showed basically just her bare back.
If you would be curious to see, drop me an email sometime.

Julia Gerace wrote:
my question is:   When you shoot fine art or nudes, are you doing it under the same business name as you would if you were a family or senior shooter?   I've been told recently that shooting nudes will hurt my business in the eyes of family/child clients...Is it difficult to set up a 'dba'?

thanks...

I have a completely seperate business name and website for my art and nude work.As for setting up a DBA that is as simple as a business license which is pretty much what it is. I have one for each name and they run about 20-30 bucks a year each.

Pixel-Magic Photography wrote:
Since this question is philosophical, lets try a couple of thought experiments.

1 Would a person who is sexless, an alien without human sexuality, or a person with no sex drive, find photos of naked humans artistically appealing? In the same way that some sculpture and architecture would also be artistically/esthetically pleasing?

2 Many of us find photos of non-human objects artistically appealing (close up of the texture of tree bark, an egg, green peppers,  or other vegetables,  or a striking rock formation) and we sometimes describes these as "sensual". Sensual does not equate to "sexual" it simply means appealing to the senses (vision, touch, etc.). Or does it appeal to us because of some connection, a reminder of the human body?


I myself don't have any clear answers to these speculations, but I think it is worth thinking about these things.

Also:

Consider how different your life would be if the hormones that underly femininity/masculinity were turned off. At the very least perhaps, friendships would be based on criteria uninfluenced by sexual attraction/bias -although our brains of course have already differentiated during early development because of the presence of these hormones. This of course is not merely theoretical since many people have had to have surgical removal of hormone producing organs due to various illnesses (ovarectomy/hysterectomy, prostate removal etc). 

A good friend of mine, now close to 60yrs old, had complete prostrate removal, including the testes and has regular injections of female hormones (to suppress any remaining male hormone producing tissue which may aide and abet the cancer. He reports loss of libido, but still finds the pictures of lovely naked women pleasing.

Is this just a learned association? Remnants of a lifetime of "conditioning", or pure esthetic appreciation? 

I don't think clear answers to these questions exist either, although some smart  psychologist could devise some experiments.

What do you think?

Dan

Dan, I think that was the best thing that I've read this whole month.

Tony