|
Forums >
General Industry >
Fine Art Nudes vs. Glamour or Simple Nudes
I've been doing a lot of portfolio surfing these last few days and damn if there aren't a bunch of nudes on this site. In sOOO many cases, the photographer bio has at least one cursory paragraph about his art being art, and oft times, a reference to the "celebration" of woman in his photos. All fine and good. So what I want to know is: 1. What's the difference between a fine art nude vs. a glamour or simple nude? 2. Are fine art nudes just a marketing ploy to get to the high end galleries and collectors? 3. Is a fine art nude just an excuse to take a glamour nude but not have the wife or GF go apeshit over what you're really doing (which is taking photos of babes)? 4. If you call yourself a fine art nude photographer, who are your influences in this photographic tradition? Sep 10 06 05:38 pm Link 1. What's the difference between a particle and a wave? 2. Is that cat alive or dead? 3. No. But I try not to label the images I create. 4. I've shot nudes I can't say what category they fall into and I don't really care.... but I do have a few favorite images from others that I'd call art and they happen to be nudes. Penn, Weston, Mapplethorpe, Newton, Witkin... there's many other these are the ones that come to mind. Sep 10 06 05:57 pm Link QOL wrote: What he said. Sep 10 06 06:01 pm Link My personal favorite nudes are the ones where you feel the photographer is flipping mad in love with the subject. They're rarely all that "fine art" and they're rarely "glam." Most of my favorites have long been shot by Paris-based fashion shooters shooting their favorite models on their down-time. It almost always seems to actually feel personal. Which is the beauty of a nude. Once the nude is a product or a statue or a mannequin and has no blood in it, what good is it? Sep 10 06 06:04 pm Link 1. What's the difference between a fine art nude vs. a glamour or simple nude? A simple nude can be a fine art or glamour nude. I, perhaps incorrectly, equate glamour with color, lighting, hair, makeup, and extensive postproduction work. Fine art nude might have some of that but is more likely to be an accent to the environment of the shot rather than the shot itself. That's inadequate but the best to get out of me right now. 2. Are fine art nudes just a marketing ploy to get to the high end galleries and collectors? Undoubtedly some people do that. Not all. 3. Is a fine art nude just an excuse to take a glamour nude but not have the wife or GF go apeshit over what you're really doing (which is taking photos of babes)? Undoubtedly some people do that. Not all. The loaded questions are betraying some apparent disdain. 4. If you call yourself a fine art nude photographer, who are your influences in this photographic tradition? I don't call myself a fine art photographer. My influences are generic and run through a whole bunch of neuron filters before a concept ends up being framed. Sep 10 06 06:20 pm Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: Sometimes a connection to the impersonal is more profound to an individual then a connection to the personal. Some of Spencer Tuniks work get's me there. Reminds though Sep 10 06 06:21 pm Link For decoding quite a few artifacts, including nudes in photography, looking back through the work toward context and intent may be helpful. You not only get what you plan in photography, in many ways, you get what you want (yes, and "if you try sometimes, you get what you need" ).  Sep 10 06 06:31 pm Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: I agree Marko. I see a lot of fine art nudes that seem like they are almost conscious exercises in a disconnect with the model. Sep 10 06 06:45 pm Link interesting...keep talking . . Sep 10 06 06:49 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: i think that is because the nudity is the subject moreso than the model. this is largely why i'm not a fan of "nude" photography - much of the naked work i admire casts nudity as an accessory rather than the subject. i suppose that's a whole new category outside of your original post. Sep 10 06 06:55 pm Link I have this set of nudes up in my OMP site and the couple of times I posted them in a OMP forum I got the "What the f... is that about? " Fine art nudes have something about them that in some cases (but not always) is not too commercial. But this it could mean that the point is not perfectly obvious. Many times people opine that their favourite art nude photographer is Jean-Loupe Sieff. Probably the reason is that this photographer's nudes are easy to understand and easy to like. My influence in shooting nudes has been the recently departed (at age 101) Manuel Alvarez Bravo. http://ompi.onemodelplace.com/_image_co … DE08A52CA5 Sep 10 06 06:56 pm Link This one has been up at a gallery a couple of times and many have commented on it and even liked it. I would believe that this a a fine art nude. It shows a one-armed model who adapted a long time ago to use her feet. Alexwh http://ompi.onemodelplace.com/_image_co … DE08A52CA5 Sep 10 06 06:58 pm Link My narratives (as I call them) are hard to pin so many consider them to be fine art nudes. Alexwh http://ompi.onemodelplace.com/_image_co … DE08A52CA5 Sep 10 06 06:59 pm Link These "colaboraciones" with my Argentine painter friend Juan Manuel Sanchez, have sold very well at a local gallery. Would you believe (the photograph is about 3x4) around $200 Canadian dollars! Alexwh Sep 10 06 07:02 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: If it's mainly a study of light and form doesn't that disconnect you from the model too? Sep 10 06 07:02 pm Link Sep 10 06 07:03 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: That depends. Is D. Brian Nelson's work considered art? Sep 10 06 07:04 pm Link I did a series of photographs using a pinhole camera (my RB with a body cap pinhole). They sold very well as normally printed selenium toned photographs. The ones you see here are colourized and I sell them as giclées. Alexwh Sep 10 06 07:05 pm Link This one appeared in a fine art web page with the model and I both writing about the experience. In her case she had never been photographed in the nude before. It seems (without me wanting to agree) that any photographic process that brings in the idea of a narrative of purpose somehow turns the photographc project into an art project. Alexwh http://ompi.onemodelplace.com/_image_co … DE08A52CA5 Sep 10 06 07:13 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: The difference is how comfortable a photographer is with what he's doing, vis-a-vis how society perceives it. KM von Seidl wrote: More likely, it's photographers who think they're going to be able to get someone to take their clothes off more easily for "fine art" than "naked pictures." So, in that case, it's a byplay between the photographer's comfort level with social values regarding nudity and the model's. (For the record: I've noticed that I could call my nudes "lampshade nudes" and it would have zero effect one way or another on my ability to get models) (A stack of $20, now, that's another story). As far as getting into a gallery - same thing. The gallery owner doesn't give a rat's a** what you call your photos he/she is going to look at whether they are saleable or not. At which point the interaction is between you, the gallery owner, and the gallery owner's perception of social norms regarding nudity in the gallery's customer base. KM von Seidl wrote: I'm sure for some guys there's a bit of that. Sep 10 06 07:13 pm Link This one I sold for good piece of change as a 3ft by 4ft giclée. You cannot really notice it here but after the drum scan of the 6x7 Ektachrome I did two clicks of the Paint Shop Pro 8 "One Stop Photo Fix". This gave the image a very slight posterized look. Some people thought it was a hyper realistic painting. Alexwh http://ompi.onemodelplace.com/_image_co … DE08A52CA5 Sep 10 06 07:16 pm Link As per usual in MM there is a lot of talk (writing). It is far easier to explain a concept with graphic (this is supposed to be a visual site) examples. Show us the goods! Alexwh The example below is more a piece of art that I photographed than a fine art nude. The reason is that painter Juan Manuel Sanchez painted the model in the exact same way as he paints nude women on canvas. I tend to think that most body art is not art nor do I consider this image to be so. http://ompi.onemodelplace.com/_image_co … DE08A52CA5 Sep 10 06 07:20 pm Link alexwh wrote: What do you call that? "Fine art"? Sep 10 06 07:32 pm Link Before enlightenment. drink beer, click shutter. After enlightenment, drink beer, click shutter. art.. enlightenment... it's all in how you perceive it Sep 10 06 07:36 pm Link Is this "fine art"?? Would it still be "fine art" if I told you that I was thinking "what a pair of boobs! Holy sh*t!" when I shot it? https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=30149 I'm being silly but my point is serious. As much as Alex wants to try to describe categories by example, it's pointless to do so. Because, to a degree, we are dealing with the artists' intent. I have a friend who does really really bad photos but he considers them to be "fine art" - and, to him, they are. Bottom line: leave labels to those who care about labelling things. mjr. Sep 10 06 07:39 pm Link Marcus J. Ranum wrote: Mr. Ranum, Sep 10 06 07:44 pm Link QOL wrote: I love Jeanloup Sieff. His landscapes, his women. His work to me is extremely sensual. I can almost taste his models, myself! Sep 10 06 07:47 pm Link Christopher Bush wrote: It might be. But share. Examples? Sep 10 06 07:50 pm Link i always thought of it like this (fine) art nude: emphasis on the image itself. the model's pose is deliberate, and lighting and setting are very important. oftentimes done in black and white, and the models face does not have to be seen. usually not meant to evoke any kind of sexual feeling. glamour nude: emphasis on the model, oftentimes meant to evoke some kind of sexual feeling. model does poses that take advantage of being nude, and may deliberately hide or display privates in order to emphasize them. simple nude: emphasis on model. usually in a pose that would be done clothed and not deliberatly hiding or displaying privates...just being. Sep 10 06 07:54 pm Link Marcus J. Ranum wrote: While many might consider themselves to be artists (as your untalented friend does) and while there is a great history of artists who were not deemes so until they were disocovered (right before their death or after!) there is a nebulous label of what is art and what isn't that has nothing to do with the photographer (let's call him/her that) intent. The fact that you were admiring your model's breasts means nothing. You don't have to be in a spiritual mode to be an artist or not to be one. It is not important. Sep 10 06 07:54 pm Link Jay Bowman wrote: You know what I think about D. Brian Nelson's work. I admire it and consider it art. His writings too. Sep 10 06 08:05 pm Link From the moment that art ceases to be food that feeds the best minds, the artist can use his talents to perform all the tricks of the intellectual charlatan. Most people can today no longer expect to receive consolation and exaltation from art. The 'refined,' the rich, the professional 'do-nothings', the distillers of quintessence desire only the peculiar, the sensational, the eccentric, the scandalous in today's art. I myself, since the advent of Cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind. The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through amusing myself with all these absurd farces, I became celebrated, and very rapidly. For a painter, celebrity means sales and consequent affluence. Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya were great painters. I am only a public clown - a mountebank. I have understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But at least and at last it does have the merit of being honest. (Pablo Picasso, 1952) Sep 10 06 08:12 pm Link As someone who has been doing fine art for over 35 years, let me throw in my 2cents worth. As I can define this in such a limited space, a fine art nude evolves out of an artist's personal vision as to what his/her feelings are for this particular subject matter. Books have been written on trying to define and clarify the parameters and distinctions between art and commercial work. One makes art because there is no choice. This is literally a life or death issue. Or at least it should be. One of the primary components of art is passion. I find it hard to believe such passion exists in a commercial assignment where the style and look of the piece is usually defined by others. And in my opinion the use of images to sell things also does not elevate it to a higher level. Picasso did not make his paintings to sell Coke or Levis. So the ultimate usage has to calculated into the equation. Fine art, glamour, simple (what's that?) are simply genre categories and all three of them may or may not be art. Also if you think any top gallery can be fooled by some guy/girl because they say it is art, you have obviously never either been to a fine art photography gallery or talked with the dealer. These people are smart and sophisticated. I have had the honor of being represented by some of the top galleries in the country and believe me, none of them could be fooled. They looked at the work and valued it on its own accord. The problem with most photographers is they have absolutely no knowledge of photographic history, so have no way of knowing what has gone before, who one's anticedents and influences are, and so may reinvent the wheel, doing work they think is original, but the work was done by someone else 3 decades ago. Nobody is interested in derivative work. This gets us back to defining a personal vision. That defining can happen only with years of work, knowledge of photo history, and being able to work through your influences to come out the other side with something that resembles an original point of view. This takes about a ten year journey. And if you have any talent to say something that no one else has done, that is when it will happen. Shooting the nude is so much more complicated then most people think There is so much more to it then doing dramatically light body parts. Imogen Cunningham, Edward Weston, and Ruth Bernhardt did it better 50 years ago. Photographers who do this do not add anything new to the lexicon. And when nudes are done outdoors, there is a lot more than leaning a girl up against a rock and shooting a picture. Uniqueness in vision, not technique, not lighting, not production values, is what truly define a fine art nude. And by those definitions, most of the work on this site does'nt even come close to art. Patrick Alt Sep 10 06 08:13 pm Link Mr Alt, "You write: Shooting the nude is so much more complicated then most people think There is so much more to it then doing dramatically light body parts. Imogen Cunningham, Edward Weston, and Ruth Bernhardt did it better 50 years ago. Photographers who do this do not add anything new to the lexicon. And when nudes are done outdoors, there is a lot more than leaning a girl up against a rock and shooting a picture. Uniqueness in vision, not technique, not lighting, not production values, is what truly define a fine art nude. And by those definitions, most of the work on this site does'nt even come close to art." Every once in a while when I read posts of people writing this or that about "my art". When I look into those ports I see gagged women who are laughing (or not) I thing as you do. But I don't want to alienate many here by writing what you have just written. You will be acused of being elitist and that the only factor that is important is that one consider oneself to be an artist, no matter what the world thinks. I agree with you. But you will be lambasted. Alexwh Sep 10 06 08:21 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: Sensual is a wonderful word. Something you said earlier... can Art be arousing? As long you don't limit your self to only sexual arousal then I'd say that it's imperative that Art arouses. Not all Art is sexually arousing but we are sensual creatures with more to us then our genitals. Not that there is anything wrong with genitals. Sep 10 06 08:24 pm Link QOL wrote: If art doesn't arouse, can it be art. Or is it merely just an intellectual exercise? Sep 10 06 08:31 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: Yes. Erotic Art two words like Clock Radio. Apart they are useful, together they've changed the world. Sep 10 06 08:35 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: You are now throwing all kinds of other stuff that confuses your original question. Does art have to arouse is not crucial here. You are trying to answer the question of what makes some nudes fine art, or simple nudes or just plain nudes. Sep 10 06 08:35 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: In an effort to legitimize the nude as a subject for art it certainly seems like a lot of effort has gone into pretending that there's nothing sexual about a naked body. Sep 10 06 08:42 pm Link Let's not forget that the word erotic comes from Eros, the greek god of lust, love, and sex, and the common greek noun eros, "romantic or sexual love" Sep 10 06 08:45 pm Link |
