swhnyc wrote:
Breasts don't mean 'art.'

neither does a 'paintbrush'

~Slim~

dgold wrote:
...blah, blah, blah.

"and God Created Woman"
http://mail.google.com/mail/?view=att&r … a91dd1ab10

...breasts and all.
Celebrate life and call it what you will.

What's this link supposed to go to?  I just get a standard GMail menu. 

Anyway, I think you might have missed the point.  Never said there's anything wrong with showing off the body -- or even that there's anything wrong with showing it for no purpose.  Just that if a person does show it without a purpose, then it irritates me when they expect others to shower them with titles and praise.

MsChris wrote:
Forget it, now I don't take off my clothes, not even for the sake of art.

That is a shame. Art's loss.

Mike Walker wrote:
I shoot Fine Art Nudes. The semantics are there to seperate me from the "...sit indian style and make a horney face..." images MsChris mentioned loving to do so much! AND in the hope that when she sees MY work she may reconsider her statement. LOL!
Mike

Mike, I think your work is gorgeous.  And I realize a lot of this seems totally subjective and who am I to say what's art and what's not?  But at the same time, you're able to use lighting in a subtly suggestive way to create a kind of narrative in your shots.  Like, what as it called, "Last Time With Amy" or something like that?  You're able to use the selective nudity and the ring of shadow to develop a sense of exhausted isolation which is very effective.  It's certainly not the work of some GWC with delusions of grandeur.

Capt Stu Beans wrote:

That is a shame. Art's loss.

Thanks for the compliment.

MsChris wrote:
I agree with the OP here. I used to do "artistic nudes" but have since removed that fact from my port. I was just getting too many offers for paying work that was supposed to be artistic, then when I get to the shoot, the truth comes out. "sit indian style and touch yourself..Make a horney face and pinch your nipples, etc." Then when I refuse, they say something like "your port said you do this kind of thing, don't tell me I just wasted all this time for nothing. You don't expect to get payed still do you?"
Forget it, now I don't take off my clothes, not even for the sake of art.

It's very unfortunate you had those experiences and I can certainly understand why you chose to stop. But there are some photographers who specifically don't ask you to do such things or play a "bait and switch" game on models. Perhaps one day you'll find people to work with who aren't playing those sorts of games with you.

  -P-

Mike Walker wrote:
I shoot Fine Art Nudes. The semantics are there to seperate me from the "...sit indian style and make a horney face..." images MsChris mentioned loving to do so much! AND in the hope that when she sees MY work she may reconsider her statement. LOL!
Mike

You do have some very beautiful nude work up.  From the looks of your port, you are not the kind of perverted photographer I am speaking of.

Michael Donovan wrote:
I agree with the OP. There are so many people with absolutely no skill, vision, preperation abilities, and talent who believe that they are doing something artistic because they have a nipple showing. There are also the 'artists' who believe they are artistic because they tarnsfer these images to black and white. These remind me of the people who shoot women with a flower or a teddy bear and call it glamour: puh-leaze!!!! 

I do my thing and others do theirs, but it is always good to see that there are others on MM who havesimilar values!!!

So, what you're saying is I shouldn't use that teddy bear I've been saving all these months...? Damn! And I suppose you're going to say the caution tape is right out as well. Some people take all the fun out of aaaaart...

 

Pat Thielen wrote:
But there are some photographers who specifically don't ask you to do such things or play a "bait and switch" game on models. Perhaps one day you'll find people to work with who aren't playing those sorts of games with you.

  -P-

I've been approached by photographers that are legit on here, but they never offer paying work. This is completely understandable, but I have a toddler to feed and bills to pay; so I guess I've been a little niave when I hear money is involved. Next week I am going to a few agency open calls. Hopefully, I will get signed again so I can make some damn money. Otherwise, it's back to the old 9-5.

MsChris wrote:

I've been approached by photographers that are legit on here, but they never offer paying work. This is completely understandable, but I have a toddler to feed and bills to pay; so I guess I've been a little niave when I hear money is involved. Next week I am going to a few agency open calls. Hopefully, I will get signed again so I can make some damn money. Otherwise, it's back to the old 9-5.

I wish you the best in finding paying work. I would like to find some of that myself -- being totally broke isn't a good place to be. Hopefully at some point I'll be able to pay models, but I'll have to be fairly successful first and have a ready market for the images.

  Good luck at the open calls!

  -Pat-

Yerkes Photography wrote:
i concur ....

it seems as though there are enough "photographers" out there who just want to get a girl naked in thier studio ... and i've heard some very creepy stories from girls that i've shot , about a bunch of photographers that claim to be professional ...

if you dont have a story to tell , dont have somthing to say , or dont have the ability to say it with your camera .... thats fine , just dont claim artist status ...

You know, I've heard some very creepy stories about this myself. Once I heard about a girl that would not take her clothes off no matter what the photographer said or did. I posted to a thread about this a few weeks ago in which I detailed this photographers exploits in of all places, my home town. He was responsible for the death's of many a model that showed up without an escort. At last count the girl above was number 33. Can you imagine that, 33 models murdered in one small town by some creepy art photographer. Yikes!

swhnyc wrote:
I get so frustrated with guys who take dull, flat, meaningless photographs of models who are partially or fully nude and expect us all to believe they're artists for it.  Your ability to talk somebody out of their clothes doesn't mean you have anything relevant or creative to say.  I don't judge it: just don't go calling yourself an artist unless it's either aesthetically powerful, or expresses something -- ANYthing -- or is at the very least deliberately crafted with some semblance of skill.

Just a rant; don't mind me.

it may be a rant but i don't think the photogs harness some ability to talk a woman into getting nude , the models really want to pose nude and thats from my experience working with models who pose nude unless your talking about models who specifically state on their profiles they don't  do nude shots and the photogs used some secret mind controlling trick to get them to go against their will and submit to the photogs demands.

MsChris wrote:
I've been approached by photographers that are legit on here, but they never offer paying work. This is completely understandable, but I have a toddler to feed and bills to pay; so I guess I've been a little niave when I hear money is involved. Next week I am going to a few agency open calls. Hopefully, I will get signed again so I can make some damn money. Otherwise, it's back to the old 9-5.

There are paying jobs out there that do not have to lower the models standards.  Virtually all of the models I use are hired for paying jobs.  Though they can be difficult to find and you do have some b.s. to go through to find them, they are out there.

Pat Thielen wrote:

So, what you're saying is I shouldn't use that teddy bear I've been saving all these months...? Damn! And I suppose you're going to say the caution tape is right out as well. Some people take all the fun out of aaaaart...

 

HA! Just be sure to use them well. Maybe you can have a shot of an alternative model at the dinner table with a fork and knife in hand. On the table is the stuffed animal baked and burnt while the cautiuon tape is stopping intruders from coming through the door until the model finishes her meal. The rose could be coming out of her mouth.

I'm actually developing several shots which will require topless/nudity but the stories they will tell will be extremely entertaining!

Mike!

missing fingers product wrote:

it may be a rant but i don't think the photogs harness some ability to talk a woman into getting nude , the models really want to pose nude and thats from my experience working with models who pose nude unless your talking about models who specifically state on their profiles they don't  do nude shots and the photogs used some secret mind controlling trick to get them to go against their will and submit to the photogs demands.

Hey! Stop giving away our secrets! It took a lot of time and effort to learn my "mind control" techniques...! I guess I'll not be photographing any more nude models now. Thanks a lot.

  Hmph!

Michael Donovan wrote:

HA! Just be sure to use them well. Maybe you can have a shot of an alternative model at the dinner table with a fork and knife in hand. On the table is the stuffed animal baked and burnt while the cautiuon tape is stopping intruders from coming through the door until the model finishes her meal. The rose could be coming out of her mouth.

I'm actually developing several shots which will require topless/nudity but the stories they will tell will be extremely entertaining!

Mike!

I like it! Although I think I'd have the caution tape set up to keep the people safe from the model; she would be eyeing them with her knife and fork (after all, I'm sure they'd look much better to her hungry palette than the burnt teddy bear). And of course she'd be topless so the photo would be considered art. Maybe I'll even do some way-cool selective color in it as well...! Damn I'm good!

  -P-

  PS -- Keep in mind I'm being at least a little facetious here. Even the most trite cliches can work if done right. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Pat Thielen wrote:

I like it! Although I think I'd have the caution tape set up to keep the people safe from the model; she would be eyeing them with her knife and fork (after all, I'm sure they'd look much better to her hungry palette than the burnt teddy bear). And of course she'd be topless so the photo would be considered art. Maybe I'll even do some way-cool selective color in it as well...! Damn I'm good!

  -P-

  PS -- Keep in mind I'm being at least a little facetious here. Even the most trite cliches can work if done right. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

HAHAHA! I'll agree that cliche can be cool- but only if you KNOW that you are doing sokmething cliche and you have fun doing something to the cliche!

AGFA Guy wrote:
a great artist I know and respect once said

Pictures can be works of art, or they can be visual information. Art is usually done for the benefit of the artist, so there is no need for others to like, dislike, or give an opinion on it.

However, there is a narrow space where we try to take pictures that we like & others will also like. It a VERY, VERY, narrow space, with a slippery floor, a low ceiling & no side rails.

Bob Barker, right?  : )

Yerkes Photography wrote:
if you dont have a story to tell , dont have somthing to say , or dont have the ability to say it with your camera .... thats fine , just dont claim artist status ...

"Successful" is a status.  "Artist" is a state of being, a frame of mind, a creative hunger.

Yes, there are people who label themselves "artists" who's motivations have little to do with creating, but I don't think that can be definitively determined just by looking at a few of someone's photographs.  The crappiest photographer in the world may be pursuing a creative outlet and gaining personal fulfilment and growth with every image he shoots.  If his work suffers from his lack of experience or training or talent, that can be overcome.  Not all artists are "good" artists, and even fewer are successful.  Being an artist is a personal, intimate thing.  It's no one's place to award or revoke as a "status."

HarveyT wrote:
art don't mean breasts

every time I look, art is fondling breasts though.

KM von Seidl wrote:

every time I look, art is fondling breasts though.

That's not all he's fondling...

swhnyc wrote:
Breasts don't mean 'art.'

Sure they do! As well as long attractive legs, beautiful smooth backs, curves of lips, shapely eyebrows etc.

I see it everywhere, in a woman. Works of art they are!

Of course I get your point too.

Cheers

Wolf