Photographer
Les Sterling
Posts: 439
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Ivan123 wrote:
A nude figure is less sexual than a partially clothed figure. AMEN! Good lord, I wish more people realized this!
Model
StacyJack
Posts: 2297
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
Here for a while I thought i was an art model. guess i was wrong.
Photographer
megafunk
Posts: 2594
Los Angeles, California, US
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Ivan123 wrote:
A nude figure is less sexual than a partially clothed figure. Side Effects Studio wrote:
AMEN! Good lord, I wish more people realized this! I've said repeatedly that the average nude is less sleazy looking than the suggestive crap that you see in magazines like Maxim & FHM
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
...Stacy wrote:
Here for a while I thought i was an art model. guess i was wrong. Sorry to disllusion you!
Photographer
Les Sterling
Posts: 439
Kansas City, Missouri, US
IMHO, I don't think that a photograph of someone dressed has any less potential to be art, but the question really is (as others have already mentioned) whether or not it's marketable as art.
Model
CrazyRussianHelicopter
Posts: 3256
Madison, Alabama, US
Fotticelli wrote:
Can I be a bus driver if I don't want to drive a bus? yes.
Model
CrazyRussianHelicopter
Posts: 3256
Madison, Alabama, US
Addie Rocks wrote:
if you're going to be an art model, you have to be open to all kinds of artistic ideas. because the female body is so beautiful and there are so many artistic things you can do with it, people tend to want to photograph it. Is that what Mr. Photogropher told you?
Model
CrazyRussianHelicopter
Posts: 3256
Madison, Alabama, US
Mike Walker wrote:
Mike
PS..Let's Make some Art! 
..Baby... you forgot to add. Let's make some Art, Baby!
Model
CrazyRussianHelicopter
Posts: 3256
Madison, Alabama, US
Ivan123 wrote:
I will go into a coma if we start another discussion about the definition of "art" ........ If the figure is more than partially clothed, then you run the risk of taking pictures of clothing, not people.
I think that a picture has more sexual content when photogropher is trying to capture a grass, and dressed model on the background.
Photographer
vanscottie
Posts: 1190
Winnetka, California, US
I guess I just wonder in general why art photographers rely so heavily on nude models. Why do the words "art" and "nude" always seem to go together? Why isn't there more variety in how art photographers use models in their images? I can guarantee you have NOT studied the history of photography to make a stament like that. For well over a 100 years not photogs have captured nude, semi-nude, and clothed models in hundreds of ways, go check out a nice big picture book and open your eyes, don't assume nude photography started with the internet
Photographer
C h r i s H e n r y
Posts: 90
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Edward Weston created art with peppers and shells. Art is about the truth. The question for the artist is what kind of art do you want to create and what truth do you want to express. Once you define your intention, then the use of the model with or without clothes can be used to create your art! An artist's model can be clothed, but for me, I prefer the nude. Who needs props when the art is about beauty and the clothes get in the way.
Photographer
Lotus Photography
Posts: 19253
Berkeley, California, US
![https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/37/WhistlersMother.jpeg/300px-WhistlersMother.jpeg]() not sure this would have better if he was painting his mom nude
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12990
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
Capt Stu Beans wrote:
ummmm. wasnt Mona Lisa dressed?
man, art is what YOU make it. Yeah,
But that was just a head shot before they had film,
portraits are not really art.
I'm sure it would have been a better picture if she were naked.
and more artsy.
Photographer
Josh Separzadeh
Posts: 116
Venice, California, US
Chris Macan wrote:
Yeah,
But that was just a head shot before they had film,
portraits are not really art.
I'm sure it would have been a better picture if she were naked.
and more artsy. oh my god
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12990
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
Josh Separzadeh wrote:
oh my god You like the logic.....
Photographer
Archived
Posts: 13509
Phoenix, Arizona, US
I think any artist would rather work with someone who is cool with nudity, regardless of the finished product being a nude or not. It's just less headache working with someone who is totally open to any ideas, because they understand where the photographer is coming from and what he's trying to do - rather than trying to get an "artistic" image out of someone who says NO NUDES SO DON'T EVEN ASK. Also, this is amusing: Capt Stu Beans wrote:
ummmm. wasnt Mona Lisa dressed?
man, art is what YOU make it. Chris Macan wrote:
Yeah,
But that was really just a head shot before they had film,
portraits are not really art.
I'm sure it would have been a better picture if she were naked.
and more artsy.
Model
StacyJack
Posts: 2297
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
SLE Photography wrote:
Sorry to disllusion you! I'm sure I'll live. thanks. 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12990
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
Dave Wright Photo wrote:
I think any artist would rather work with someone who is cool with nudity, regardless of the finished product being a nude or not. It's just less headache working with someone who is totally open to any ideas, because they understand where the photographer is coming from and what he's trying to do - rather than trying to get an "artistic" image out of someone who says NO NUDES SO DON'T EVEN ASK.
Also, this is amusing:
Capt Stu Beans wrote:
ummmm. wasnt Mona Lisa dressed?
man, art is what YOU make it. Chris Macan wrote:
Yeah,
But that was really just a head shot before they had film,
portraits are not really art.
I'm sure it would have been a better picture if she were naked.
and more artsy. Ask a silly question
Get a silly answer.
Model
_Cinnamon_
Posts: 1697
San Francisco, California, US
_Cinnamon_ wrote:
I guess I just wonder in general why art photographers rely so heavily on nude models. Why do the words "art" and "nude" always seem to go together? Why isn't there more variety in how art photographers use models in their images? vanscottie wrote:
I can guarantee you have NOT studied the history of photography to make a stament like that. For well over a 100 years not photogs have captured nude, semi-nude, and clothed models in hundreds of ways, go check out a nice big picture book and open your eyes, don't assume nude photography started with the internet Well, you'd be wrong. That often happens when you let your sense of superiority get the best of you.
|
