|
Forums >
General Industry >
Fine Art Nudes vs. Glamour or Simple Nudes
I model for artists and sculptors. For them, and photographer who do fine art nudes the pose that offer the most interesting lines, shadows and negative space is preferred to any eroticism. Any line that is created in nature is of interest to the artist. Only those of the human body, because the model can take directive from artist, can be set to meet a artistic composition. Sep 10 06 08:49 pm Link alexwh wrote: Let's be gentle on the word "intent", which is not synonymous with "aesthetic experience" or "intuition". Sep 10 06 08:50 pm Link I think sensuality is a necessary component of Art.  van gogh  degas  mapplethorpe When I look at an image... I look at it in the context of everything that has gone before it. Then I shut my eyes, forget everything... and look at it again. Sep 10 06 08:50 pm Link ...fine art nude: https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1309292 Sep 10 06 08:52 pm Link 1. What's the difference between a fine art nude vs. a glamour or simple nude? The Viewer 2. Are fine art nudes just a marketing ploy to get to the high end galleries and collectors? Only if the ploy works 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)? Yes...but so is shooting "fashion" or "portfolio building" -- one says whatever it takes to get the Missus to put down the rolling pin. 4. If you call yourself a fine art nude photographer, who are your influences in this photographic tradition? If I ever call myself a fine art nude photographer, smack me. Sep 10 06 08:53 pm Link ...glamour nude: https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1270190 Sep 10 06 08:54 pm Link ...simple nude. Sep 10 06 08:55 pm Link Was Michelangelo a fine nude artist? His statue of David was one of a nude man with a large penis, he painted the Sistine Chapel with many figures of nude men and women. Many would consider his work to be fine art and would pay millions of dollars for it, if it ever went up for sale. I think the better question to ask nudity aside are you making art? Art IMHO is something you make just for yourself. You may sell it, and if you do that is cool, but you would make it even if you never sold anything. I have a lot of buddies that play in bands, and have for years. Now that we are all getting old, the dream of being a big rock star has long since gone. Some of them have stopped playing because of that, others will continue to play even if they have to sit in their wheelchair at the nursing home to do it. Why would they do that? Because it is who they are, and it is all they think about. It does not matter to them if they are playing a stadium in front of 100,000 fans, a small bar for 50 people, or sitting on their bed when no one is around. They play because they must, it is who they are and how they express themselves and nothing else will make them happy. That is art. Sep 10 06 09:01 pm Link commart wrote: My written English is terrible here. But do consider that It was Marcus who raised the subject of intent. I guess he might mean (he can explain further) Sep 10 06 09:04 pm Link QOL wrote: Post some abstract impressionism and try to discern the sensuality. Is it there? Is it not there? Can only certain people see it? That is irrelevant. It will still be art. Sep 10 06 09:07 pm Link Agfa Guy, this is one heck of an understatement. "Many would consider his work to be fine art and would pay millions of dollars for it, if it ever went up for sale." Alexwh To call David a statue with a large penis is to go to the bone (sorry!) but there is more to David than that. Sep 10 06 09:11 pm Link alexwh wrote: I can't discern sensuality... I feel it. Sep 10 06 09:15 pm Link Agfa Guy, You wrote: They play because they must, it is who they are and how they express themselves and nothing else will make them happy. That is art. By your definition kleptomaniacs would be artists. I would agree that the really good ones would be artists. The others would be lousy kleptomaniacs. I think we have to bring into the picture the term: Lousy Artists. Alexwh Sep 10 06 09:15 pm Link QOL wrote: That is a very good example of your point. But I will now put an example of Gerhard Richter's art that is considered to be art and is art but if there is sensuality in this one I am too stupid to see it or feel it. But remember I don't think that sensuality is necessary to make art art. Sep 10 06 09:21 pm Link  it's abract... it's expressionsism... is it art? Sep 10 06 09:21 pm Link The way I see it everything is art. I think it's more important for and image to be artful rather called art. One man's art is nothers trash or obsenity. Cave drawings of early man are consdered art by us but to them it was a record of a hunt and way to tell and record a story. Some call a black dot ona white canvas art. I guess if you can BS enough about it some people will buy it. This argument is as old as whether photography is art. Sep 10 06 09:21 pm Link alexwh wrote: If you don't get a sensusal response from this, it's not because your stupid. Sensuality has nothing to do with education, intelligence, or schooling. All of which you would need in order to see that this is Art. âOne has to believe in what one is doing, one has to commit oneself inwardly, in order to do painting. Once obsessed, one ultimately carries it to the point of believing that one might change human beings through painting. But if one lacks this passionate commitment, there is nothing left to do. Then it is best to leave it alone. For basically painting is idiocy.â Knowing who he is... yes it turns this piece, for me, into a sensual experience. Of course it is. It's just one that requires a background in Art history and the artist. Sep 10 06 09:36 pm Link Like Patrick Alt, QOL you are beginning to sound like an educated elitist. Careful this is MM! You could get into trouble. Alexwh Sep 10 06 09:44 pm Link Here's my own version of "nude art." I hope it's within the forum guidelines. If not, someone tell me, and I'll edit it out. There's no way you can call this glamour, at least to my way of thinking of "glamour." I just like the bare skin texture with the log texture, the way the log and branches are framing it, and the hair. It's not meant to be arousing, or anything other than what it is. If it's influenced by someone else, that's great. Just tell me who that might be.  Now as for the ambiguity of art: Here's something I did sort of as a sideline project that brought out a strong visceral reaction with a couple people. They thought it was nightmarish, unsettling, etc. To me, that's good praise.  But really, when I look at it, I think "farting around in Photoshop." Sep 10 06 09:49 pm Link Sorry, I'm not educated. I looked him up in wikipedia to understand what the piece was about. I'm not an elitist and I hope I didn't come across as one. For me, and I mean only me. Art has to be sensual, if it becomes just an intellectual discussion then it's no better then philosophy or science.  Sep 10 06 09:53 pm Link alexwh wrote: When I haul out the pony, "context x intent", I have in mind a social intent tied to genre: "I'm going to play rock and roll" has nothing to do with how well that's going to happen, but we may presume the effort will have more of the flavor intended than some other. Sep 10 06 09:55 pm Link AGFA Guy wrote: David has a tiny penis. Take another look. Sep 10 06 09:56 pm Link Tzalam wrote: "The way I see it everything is art. I think it's more important for and image to be artful rather called art. One man's art is nothers trash or obsenity. Cave drawings of early man are consdered art by us but to them it was a record of a hunt and way to tell and record a story. Some call a black dot ona white canvas art. I guess if you can BS enough about it some people will buy it. This argument is as old as whether photography is art. " The above goes a bit against the grain of what you wrote QOL. I would agree with you (and let's play it safe here) that education is an important part in our perception of what art is. The statement "the way I see, everything is art" is difficult to refute. It as difficult as trying to prove the nonexistence of God to someone who believes in God. I would think that because so many believe that anything is art is one of the reasons there is so much in MM that isn't. What is interesting is that not everybody could see Michelangeolo's ceiling because so few could travel. But those who saw it , marvelled. Now art (this is a statement of fact with no implied subjectivity on my part) to be considered art has to be done so by a few. And those who might think that Gerhard Richter is pure BS they might want to look into his book War Cut which is a passionate attack on war. Alexwh Sep 10 06 09:59 pm Link QOL wrote: I am disappointed! Sep 10 06 10:03 pm Link This is a great question.. I have no influences in my work other than the people I know in the business and the art that wanders into my life due to happen stance. In other words, I ont do openings..I dont go to galleries..etc... I shoot what I like and I am pretty clueless to the art world. I have a few pieces I have purchased..again..happen stance and I really liked them. As to nudes... I guess I could sum it up by saying..I have always done better when a pretty girl was looking.. IE...In track I ran faster bacuse te girls were in the bleachers cheering...I played football and became captaqin only because I thought girls dug it. Oh sure I was a fine athlete, trophies and all... I'm girl crazy for sure...For me it's not about looking at pretty women or naked women.It's about making them happy...I want my subjects to be in love with their images...It's more of an emotional exchange for me. Not a sexual one.. Am I making sense? V Sep 10 06 10:08 pm Link QOL wrote: For the term "intellectual" substitute "intuitive", "empathetic", "imaginative", and "visionary" and thereby make art more than the equal of philosophy and science. Sep 10 06 10:08 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: I always object to the term "fine art." It's a bad translation from the German and is mostly used in academic circles to distance their departments from "practical arts" departments. And of course on the web, where the term is used to convince models to get naked. KM von Seidl wrote: Probably. Like most academic art, most of what I see are simply copies of what people think sells (or is proper or acceptable) and doesn't have anything to say. Rather than "high end galleries" we should be thinking "schlock houses." KM von Seidl wrote: Dunno. Not my problem. KM von Seidl wrote: I call myself an artist. My influences include Newton, who put kinky sex in front of fashion-conscious women and they loved it. Who would have thought that would happen? Mapplethorpe, who investigated his sexuality, then showed the world. Araki (though I hate his pictures) who decided to go see sexual stuff and take pictures. Sita Mae Edwards wrote: "Pretending" is the word. The naked body, particularly in our culture (for EVERYONE raised in it), is sexual. De-sexing the body is a crime. And usually a lie. Sep 10 06 10:09 pm Link alexwh wrote: So right you are, and this smart ass is going to can it for a while . . . . Sep 10 06 10:11 pm Link It's about the photograph. If she wears a swimsuit, hides in a coat, or covers her face in a scarf, it's about the photograph. Forget what she wears or doesn't wear. Does it help or hinder the photo? Sep 10 06 10:14 pm Link D. Brian Nelson wrote: One of the very best (and most human) aspects of our culture, frankly. And I say these "people" should be shot, and not with cameras, either. Sep 10 06 10:15 pm Link alexwh wrote: I guess it would come down to original academic meanings and practical experience. I'm referring to coffee shop philosophy... the need to DEBATE over love and everything. For the definition you give all I require is my five senses and a nice place to sit. Sep 10 06 10:21 pm Link I'm thinking there's probably a market for fine art nudes printed on black velvet. Whaddya think? -D'Brain Sep 10 06 10:31 pm Link Who owns the right to say what is and what isn't art? It reminds me of the debate over same sex marriage. It's the need to have your belief be the right one then impose it on everyone else. If someone wants to call their work art, it really shouldn't matter to anyone. Somehow this definition of art coinicides with christianity to me. It's quite common throughout western thinking. We're only going to let in the believers the ones who have surrendered to the common belief. The belief that's written in the book. The one that our establishment supports. The one that separates us from them. There's so much art from around the world that's dismissed because it's not in our western art history book. There's as much philosophy dismissed because it's not in our western philosophy books. We dismiss soapstone carvings, zen paintings, tibetan mandelas so much... simply because we choose to use such narrow blinders in defining it. Sep 10 06 10:41 pm Link D. Brian Nelson wrote: When I was a kid we had this amazing black velvet of a topless spanish woman hanging above our sofa. You could sell me one. Sep 10 06 10:44 pm Link QOL wrote: 1) History. Sep 10 06 10:45 pm Link D. Brian Nelson wrote: 4) all of the above Sep 10 06 10:48 pm Link " Opinions like assholes ,everybody got one " LOL By the way good conversation. Sep 10 06 11:02 pm Link Hmmm, is this thread just an exercise from 'art 101, or is it serious. It seems to be one more question about "what is art". If y9ou need to define "art", then forget it, it is not definable. Glamour is about 'the' woman, the woman pictured in the image. Figurative art is about the generic 'Woman', her shape, form, lines and textures. Nude glamour is about a nude model smiling into the camera, figurative art is not. Figurative art is often anonymous and rarely about a specific woman. I've absolutely no idea what a "simple nude" is. Sep 10 06 11:15 pm Link AGFA Guy wrote: I have met a few people who have felt that the Statue of David is pornographic due to full frontal male nudity and the belief that Michelangelo was gay. I would suspect that many non-artisans in the bible belt share this ideal. Which leads me to Melvin Moten jr.'s comment "What's the difference between a fine art nude vs. a glamour or simple nude? ...The Viewer." Sep 10 06 11:20 pm Link "Fine" art .. 1. Art for art's sake. Not created for decorative, illustrative or commercial purposes. Art created for purely aesthetic expression, communication, or contemplation. 2. The term "fine art" was coined in 1767 in reference to the arts that were "concerned with beauty or which appealed to taste" (S.O.E.D 1991). The term has been used to refer to a limited number of visual art forms, including painting, sculpture, and printmaking, and is still used by schools, institutes, and other organizations to indicate a traditional perspective on the visual arts, often implying an association with classic or academic art. 3. Artists who are full of themselves think their shit is fine shit, and not useless, mediocre shit like everyone else who is a waste of space in the true Fine Art world. Fine Art Nude? .. any of the above, or anything else, plus nude. Sep 11 06 12:41 am Link |
