myviewfinder wrote:
NC17  - I didn’t mean to say that sexual nudes are bad or in any way undesirable,  I really just wanted to know what other directions people are taking the naked form.  I think the connection you’ve drawn between beauty and sexuality is very interesting.  I suppose that it is very true that mankinds natural sexual drive is initiated by visual recognition of what is desirable (beautiful).  Still, it is humankind’s evolved ability to go beyond these instincts and find attraction for mental and emotional aspects of their counterparts that makes him/her unique on the planet.

I can't remember who said it in this thread (darn MM for not making it easy to reference while commenting!), but european attitudes towards nudity and sexuality are SO much different. I happen to like the european freedom towards nudity, its comfortable to me. People are people, no matter what their skin looks like... its all skin.

I can affirm that for me personally, looks is definately not the defining factor in what creates an attraction. I don't lust after far off celebrities, I fall for someone's personality. Their body just happens to follow after that. That is why many of my partners are much older than I am. I adore their personalities over whatever the outside of them looks like.

I find your comment about what seperates us from the animal world being the evolution of the distinction between surface beauty and whats inside interesting. I am not so sure that this is exactly true. I definately have nothing to back up to prove that animals do not bond over visual looks. But I sort of feel that even animals have much deeper senses when choosing a mate than the surface appeal. In a horse herd the stallion will choose to mate the mares according to a very strong pecking order. The pecking order is what keeps them alive, and thus as a result, will keep the offspring alive and prospering.

Its all very interesting.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
This is a site geared mostly toward fashion, glamour and such, not art. I keep my art nudes out of my fashion/glamour portfolio and sites like this because they really have no place here.

Since apparently fine art has no place here can someone suggest another site I can go to to look for models available to do my fine art work?

ChrisCorbettPhotography wrote:

Since apparently fine art has no place here can someone suggest another site I can go to to look for models available to do my fine art work?

Well, you can find plenty of models here who do fine art, its just that this site is more of a Glamour and Fashion based site.OMP Has a lot of fine art photographers and models on it and they display their fine art portfolios more on there because OMP covers pretty much all areas of photography and modeling.

ChrisCorbettPhotography wrote:

Since apparently fine art has no place here can someone suggest another site I can go to to look for models available to do my fine art work?

I dunno, but if you find that site, pu-leze let me know about it?

Olaf S wrote:
I'm sorry, but is it a MM rule that this site can't be about art?

It can be whatever the members want it to be about. 

It's "Model Mayhem"  I'm pretty sure there are models invloved in some forms of art photography.

I agree with that, Olaf.  I'm not a commercial photographer - I'm not even an experienced photographer - and I generally have more models who are willing to work with me than I have time to shoot.  (This falls under the header of "Good Problems To Have," incidentally.)

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:

I agree with that, Olaf.  I'm not a commercial photographer - I'm not even an experienced photographer - and I generally have more models who are willing to work with me than I have time to shoot.  (This falls under the header of "Good Problems To Have," incidentally.)

I want your problems..

Of course if I had your problems, I'd probably want to give them back..

J Merrill Images wrote:
I don't try to intellectualize it - I am just looking for pretty. When the shot is about the right thing, you know it.

Well said. I am attracted to this casual approach. I do not like it when nude photos seem like they're trying to be artistic or non-sexual. Just go with the flow. Part of being a photographer/model is knowing what looks good.

DreamPretty wrote:

Well said. I am attracted to this casual approach. I do not like it when nude photos seem like they're trying to be artistic or non-sexual. Just go with the flow. Part of being a photographer/model is knowing what looks good.

I'll agree.

Olaf S wrote:
I'm sorry, but is it a MM rule that this site can't be about art?

It can be whatever the members want it to be about. 

It's "Model Mayhem"  I'm pretty sure there are models invloved in some forms of art photography.

My post was a tongue planted firmly in cheek response to Glamour Blvd's comment. I of course disagree that it's not a place for fine art. It's probably not a place to get a lot of worthwhile critiqueing of it, but the site seems to be replete with models who'd enjoy posing for fine art images. That said, people with a commercial angle do seem to make up the vast majority of the members.

HerbP wrote:
Myviewfinder might try my site if he is looking for comedy in nudity. At least five of my entries were meant to be humorous rather than sensual. The intention of almost all of my pictures is to show the beauty of the female form rather than her sexual assessability or desire for sexual gratification by the viewer.

very amusing... I dig where you are coming from... after my earlier post i started up a shot list of comic nudes... I think there could be a lot of space to cover in this arena

NC17 wrote:
I find your comment about what seperates us from the animal world being the evolution of the distinction between surface beauty and whats inside interesting. I am not so sure that this is exactly true....  Its all very interesting.

I'm not sure that hypothesis is true either...  I think I'm probably oversimplifying or overstating or maybe just stretching it a bit...   I guess most dear hunters would tell you that lots of animals mate on scent before beauty...  Too bad we can't smell this site 

Michael Raveney wrote:
huh?

"obviously you are not a golfer"

myviewfinder wrote:
I'm not sure that hypothesis is true either...  I think I'm probably oversimplifying or overstating or maybe just stretching it a bit...   I guess most dear hunters would tell you that lots of animals mate on scent before beauty...  Too bad we can't smell this site 

heh.... I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or not!! LOL

myviewfinder wrote:
...perhaps there isn't much more to nude photography than sexually provocative images...

Yes, as long as there isn't much more to clothed photography than sexually nonprovocative images.

bang bang photo wrote:

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. . . .

Just my opinion...not much more...but I think photos about sex are really not much of a challenge for the model or the photographer...they can also be found a dime a dozen...so when someone is naked and sex doesn't cloud your mind on the onset then you can appreciate the model and photographers vision to take you to a deeper level or dare to be different and unique.

I think people should be appreciated and incouraged to take *nakey* to another perspective because if they are not then there will be a incessant turnaround of the same photos with the same theme, same poses and same purpose and I don't think anyone wants that...mundane is mind knumbing to most people...there is nothing wrong with switching it up a little bit, trying something new, appreciating a more challenging and less typical vision. I can truly appreciate a sexy photo...but I try to leave comments when I see a photog and model go out of there way to explore and unwind.

myviewfinder wrote:
I am a man and sexy images certainly impact my physiology just like they would most other straight men


I've got new for you...sexy images have an impact on men, straight or not...i'll bet women too!  As for what's erotic and what's art, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

David

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?

Just ma two cents . . . .  principles:

1. Photography traffics in surface and the surface contains always two parts: design & story.

2. Design may be abstract, metaphorical, or real (any green pepper will do) but enjoyed or appreciated solely on aesthetic, intellectual, geometrical, or other mathematical grounds.  Design in nature needs no defense, and the body with its curves, cylinders, and triangles represents that at its best.

3. Stories implied by illustration may be modulated for context (cold, distant, intimate, romantic, erotic) and intensity.  Put a woman in a nightgown on a chair and looking out a window with her hand on her cheek, and you'll get a sense of the humanity and romantic mystery in that figure, but place that hand on the inside of her thigh and the impression changes quite.  As stories are about language and language itself is about how we perceive and communicate symbolically about life and the world at large, it's up to the artist, the composer, to craft and intuitively find the soul of the things within his purview.  In fact, it's that artist's ability to grasp the vocabulary of his art and work it to express some part of nature through his own acquired and invented technique that lends itself to interest and depth.

4. Most well-produced work, from Wyeth's Helga drawings to Suze Randall's glam-porn mix design with story plus, I think, sensitivity to the subject's own sense of existence.  In any good theater, (sorry, prudes) the talent brings itself to the work and its spirit, which may come out in muscle (see Bitesnich) or expression (ref. LaChapelle), or honesty (go Don!) , informs the work.

Depth of soul behind the camera and lack of inhibition (but not necessarily of control) in front--dat's gonna be good!



--Jim

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...

I think your potential retail clients will appreciate the effort to wall off your two styles of photography but will be suspicious if you try to hide that you do this work.

My position is that I want to be and transparent as possible but I also want to be respectful of the mores of your target market. Form a retail prospective, photography is a luxury item. The people that have the ability to spend money on retail photography tend to be more conservative than the general population and those views have to be acknowledged.

Knowing that, I struggled with this for a while as well. I decided to split my photography up into three areas

-    Snap shots and miscellaneous interest – blog
-    Personal Work – Mickle Design Werks
-    Retail (Weddings, Familes, Childern, Lifestyle) – Rodney Mickle Photographer

I created Limited Liability Companies for Mickle Design Werks and Rodney Mickle Photographer ($200 each registration for Maryland) and got EIN for each so that they are truly their own separate entities.  I may convert them to S-corps in the near future.

Why the separation?  I wanted a clear line from my personal work and retail work.  I also didn’t want to hide that fact thus the inclusion of my name in both entities.  I did not want people that are easily offended by nudity or edgy images to easily run into this work but I also didn’t want to make an effort to conceal that I do nudes or provocative images.

So know I’m currently designing 3 sites to deal with this development. 

Oy.

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?

dunno, this seems a lot more about archetypes & vunerability than sex to me...

Same with a lot of my other work
But then mebbe I'm biased since they're my pics?

commart wrote:

Just ma two cents . . . .  principles:

1. Photography traffics in surface and the surface contains always two parts: design & story.

2. Design may be abstract, metaphorical, or real (any green pepper will do) but enjoyed or appreciated solely on aesthetic, intellectual, geometrical, or other mathematical grounds.  Design in nature needs no defense, and the body with its curves, cylinders, and triangles represents that at its best.

3. Stories implied by illustration may be modulated for context (cold, distant, intimate, romantic, erotic) and intensity.  Put a woman in a nightgown on a chair and looking out a window with her hand on her cheek, and you'll get a sense of the humanity and romantic mystery in that figure, but place that hand on the inside of her thigh and the impression changes quite.  As stories are about language and language itself is about how we perceive and communicate symbolically about life and the world at large, it's up to the artist, the composer, to craft and intuitively find the soul of the things within his purview.  In fact, it's that artist's ability to grasp the vocabulary of his art and work it to express some part of nature through his own acquired and invented technique that lends itself to interest and depth.

4. Most well-produced work, from Wyeth's Helga drawings to Suze Randall's glam-porn mix design with story plus, I think, sensitivity to the subject's own sense of existence.  In any good theater, (sorry, prudes) the talent brings itself to the work and its spirit, which may come out in muscle (see Bitesnich) or expression (ref. LaChapelle), or honesty (go Don!) , informs the work.

Depth of soul behind the camera and lack of inhibition (but not necessarily of control) in front--dat's gonna be good!



--Jim

Wow... Another really insightful response.  Thanks for taking the time.  You've given me a lot more to think about...  Thanks again

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?

No, I just shoot images that turn me on and make me hot!!!!!!