Gabriel Rodz wrote:
I think this is a thread that could evolve in smart and artistic dissertations.

On this forum?  You're dreaming...

Personally, I don't like it.  A little light rope play can be kind of sexy but all the hard bondage, elaborate knots etc. doesn't appeal to me.  And as it seems to be getting more and more popular I'm actually getting prett sick of seeing it.  So I don't bother clicking on it and avoid it as much as I can.  Whatever, to each their own.

I actually did a shoot with a model "handcuffed" to a pole.  I like the shots but it's pretty tame compared to a lot of the stuff that's out there.

Gabriel Rodz wrote:
Udo, very elocuent. Nice.

We're getting to my concern. My problem with fetish photography has nothing to do with the obvious freudian conducts that most people "suffer" of. I must agree with Makayla that some kind of light bondage or handcuffing as Gary mentioned, is part of our quest in search of new sensations. Probably most of us experimented with that part of our sexuality where control roles are given in major or lesser degree.

My concern is more simple. When did we start considering it art? At what point we draw the line between doing an art piece and just satisfying some saddistic-opportunistic conduct of a sick photographer?(this one is gonna get a lot of smoke ;-)

I'm not going to deny, there are some amazing shots of fetish here and generally on the web, where you can see a great production and professionalism. But in most cases I feel that I'm seeing the journal of some pervert psychopath.

Of course I know I can just ignore it and not support it. The issue is beyond the excercise of freedom of speech. I just want to know if there's an ulterior motive. Maybe someone that practices this "art" can defend their expressions.

I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself clearly. Anyway, it would be nice to continue discussing.

I have done some bondage photography since 2000, when a new model brought up the idea. I showed these first tied images to a few of my collectors, and some of them ordered prints. (I sold a tied image tonight on Ebay)

I can take it or leave it, it's not a big turn on for me, but I do like pleasing others, and some of my models seem to have the need to be tied.

If, as an artist, I was told I could never paint with green paint, I am sure I would dream of green.  Tell a woman that she can not do tied poses, and I will bet my last dollar she will want to.

Gabriel Rodz wrote:
My concern is more simple. When did we start considering it art? At what point we draw the line between doing an art piece and just satisfying some saddistic-opportunistic conduct of a sick photographer?(this one is gonna get a lot of smoke ;-)

I'm not going to deny, there are some amazing shots of fetish here and generally on the web, where you can see a great production and professionalism. But in most cases I feel that I'm seeing the journal of some pervert psychopath.

Of course I know I can just ignore it and not support it. The issue is beyond the excercise of freedom of speech. I just want to know if there's an ulterior motive. Maybe someone that practices this "art" can defend their expressions.

I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself clearly. Anyway, it would be nice to continue discussing.

Gabriel... for this fetish you need to look away from western society ["...When did we start considering it art?..."] to that of Japan. Rope bondage is a high art form in a segment of Japanese society. It has been practised as "living art" for many many years and rendered in photography and, before that, in paper art (painting, drawing, sketching) for several HUNDRED years.

Unfortunately, in the west people do two things concerning it: First they read something into it that is not there in the Japanese work - explicit violence; and, second, in the west we  do not understand, and can not duplicate, the essential formalism associated with it as art.

The quality Japanese practitioners, in turn, often tend to consider western attempts to emulate the art form as inept, perverse and lacking any level of its essential qualities.

I agree with that position on the part of the Japanese artists who do that kind of work to the highest traditional standards. First, and foremost, it is an metaphoric art form that illustrates not, as westerners see it, "subjugation" but rather, in the Japanese view, "[willing] obedience to authority" and the consequences of disobedience.

Studio36

Lapis wrote:
...many pics of men bound, but somehow we don't see much of that on this heterosexual(ist?) portfolio site.

Well I was planning something revolving around a man done up in shibari for our next shoot...But we've discussed before how hard it is to get a male "model" to do anything out of the [very] ordinary.

Gabriel Rodz wrote:
Udo, very elocuent. Nice.

We're getting to my concern. My problem with fetish photography has nothing to do with the obvious freudian conducts that most people "suffer" of. I must agree with Makayla that some kind of light bondage or handcuffing as Gary mentioned, is part of our quest in search of new sensations. Probably most of us experimented with that part of our sexuality where control roles are given in major or lesser degree.

My concern is more simple. When did we start considering it art? At what point we draw the line between doing an art piece and just satisfying some saddistic-opportunistic conduct of a sick photographer?(this one is gonna get a lot of smoke ;-)

I'm not going to deny, there are some amazing shots of fetish here and generally on the web, where you can see a great production and professionalism. But in most cases I feel that I'm seeing the journal of some pervert psychopath.

Of course I know I can just ignore it and not support it. The issue is beyond the excercise of freedom of speech. I just want to know if there's an ulterior motive. Maybe someone that practices this "art" can defend their expressions.

I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself clearly. Anyway, it would be nice to continue discussing.

I'd be more than happy to discuss the motivations and emotions behind my own fetish work, but I really don't think you're interested in hearing them.  The fact that you freely associate fetish/bondade imagery with words like "sick" and "sadistic" tells me that you are much more interested in hearing from people who share your pre-existing [negative] mindset rather than those of us who are different.  Perhaps someone else will pick up the thread and engage you, but most of the people I know are no longer interested in this sort of debate/trap.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

I'd be more than happy to discuss the motivations and emotions behind my own fetish work, but I really don't think you're interested in hearing them.  The fact that you freely associate fetish/bondade imagery with words like "sick" and "sadistic" tells me that you are much more interested in hearing from people who share your pre-existing [negative] mindset rather than those of us who are different.  Perhaps someone else will pick up the thread and engage you, but most of the people I know are no longer interested in this sort of debate/trap.

Well said Melvin....
it seems those things people do not understand they tend to scowl at...its sad that people are so closed minded...
Just because people are into diff lifestyles.it does not make them sick or more perverse than a guy who wanks off to a porn...
its life,and if its not for you,,,dont look

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I'd be more than happy to discuss the motivations and emotions behind my own fetish work, but I really don't think you're interested in hearing them.  The fact that you freely associate fetish/bondade imagery with words like "sick" and "sadistic" tells me that you are much more interested in hearing from people who share your pre-existing [negative] mindset rather than those of us who are different.  Perhaps someone else will pick up the thread and engage you, but most of the people I know are no longer interested in this sort of debate/trap.

I'm gonna have to disagree Melvin. Your work is one of those that I mentioned I like. Calling me close minded is very close minded from your part, and from Cyndie, for I have stated clearly, several times, that there's fetish work indeed that has artistic merit and I personally like. In your work there's a language. There's caring. There's production work. There's a difference between being different and wanting to be different, and you must know about that. You're an artist and we can see that in your portfolio. So if I'm gonna judge your work is going to be in a positive way.

About Mr. Klein. I'm sorry, I'm not gonna answer. I'm really sorry to say it but I can't respect someone that disrespects a woman, a genre, art itself, the way you do.
"I think a woman is a gift and I like my gifts wrapped..." That's what I mean when I say sick. I'm sure at least most artists will agree. Now, maybe it was a joke. But your work portrays perfectly that kind of thinking.

Hope that with further comments everyone understands that it doesn't have to be with bondage or fetish. I'm over aware of human conducts how they have evolved and the quest for new sensations. Fetishism is really old and has always been part of our society. I think my point is simple and has been, at some point misinterpreted and taken in an offensive way. I tell you again, it's not my intention. What I want to say is how offensive I find that people with no knowledge or interest whatsoever in art, suddenly get excited by tying and controlling people to satisfy their low esteem and then selling it as art.

It's not about a cup of tea, it's about the detriment of our craft. ;-)

Gabriel Rodz wrote:
What I want to say is how offensive I find that people with no knowledge or interest whatsoever in art, suddenly get excited by tying and controlling people to satisfy their low esteem and then selling it as art.

It's not about a cup of tea, it's about the detriment of our craft. ;-)

I get what you're saying, Gabriel (I think).

You're talking about, basically, pornography masking itself as art. In other words, instead of using fetishism or bondage to make an artistic statement it becomes a cover for more unwhosome urges, especially now since the fetish lifestyle has become somewhat mainstream. I agree in a sense - there are those who pose as an 'artist' when all they really want to do is take pictures of tied-up women.

But the problem is in definitions. The idea of bondage and SM as artistic themes has been in western society openly since the Dadas and Surrealists. Man Ray in particular dabbled in the ropes, shooting some full-blown bondage shoots with a travel writer (Seabrook? Seabeck? Can't remember his name) and his wife. Hans Bellmer had some kinks in his hose in that respect, too.

And what about Irving Klaw and Betty Page? They weren't out to create art, but they ended up doing it anyway. Betty's bondage photos are some of the most compelling imagery ever - a perfect mix of innocence and deviance. A pure fantasy.

I agree with some of the other posters that your definition of bondage and fetish may be a little stilted. Bondage is all about dominance and submission, an idea that creates order in all of nature, whether in a flock of chickens, a wolf pack, or a bunch of primates. All us animals need to know our place in the herd.

But we humans can subvert that for our own pleasure. And I can tell you, just because someone is tied up doesn't mean they're not in control. There's a phrase in the BDSM world, 'topping from the bottom'. More often than not, a 'submissive' may actually be calling the shots even if they're bound and gagged and getting smacked with a riding crop. They're exactly where they want to be, and can manage the whole scene to their heart's content.

Anyway, it's an interesting debate. Glad you brought it up - gives everyone an opportunity (hopefully) to think about it.

Gabriel Rodz wrote:
What I want to say is how offensive I find that people with no knowledge or interest whatsoever in art, suddenly get excited by tying and controlling people to satisfy their low esteem and then selling it as art.

It's not about a cup of tea, it's about the detriment of our craft. ;-)

Lots of crap is sold as art.  In our capitalist system, the marketplace has as much to say about what is successful art as do critics...just look at all of that Thomas Kinkade stuff that was QVC big up until a few years ago.

Photography isn't always about art anyways.  Oftentimes it just serves a functional purpose, i.e. to sell product or in the case of porn to get people off.   Sometimes there is craft involved, sometimes not.

Personally, I see lots of folks with apparent low self-esteem spending tons on camera systems only to take pedestrian shots of a sunrise, a yawning puppy, a cooing baby, a bikini clad babe with her tush up in the air.    If one is truly concerned about the detriment of the photographic craft, this is far more of this kind of work as there is bondo-world.

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
The whole bondage/piercing/fetish thing is trendy in our culture and hence it gets reflected in photography.

"All the cool kids are doing it."

It's most definitely NOT a new thing. Bettie Page did bondage shoots 50 years ago. But it has become very trendy in the last 10 years or so and therefore you see it more often.

Why has it become trendy? I have no idea. I could sit here and come up with 1001 theories like an armchair psychologist and try to explain away the thought-processes of our culture ... but why on earth would I waste my time with that?

It is not more trendy lately as it is more accepted therefore more photographers who have been shooting it all along are nolonger scared to exhibit their fetish photography work.
As for the  is it art post, look at some of your more ellaborate
Japanese bondage, the symetry in the lines created by it,etc.
Don`t just look at is as oh shes tied up, that`s weird or sick.

Alex Alexander wrote:
Having grownup in the bible belt area of the midwest, where there is a church on every corner I could be damned by such images. Yet there is a place for just about everything out there, but if we grown in that we want clients to view this site for resource for hiring us we need to think how this is viewed upon us as a whole. It is not something I want to enforce, but it takes the sense of what we do down.

I am a preachers kid, myself,lol. I never feared my family seeing anything I do. I have gotten plenty of compliments from my entire family about my nude work and some of them have some of my nude prints hanging on their walls as we speak.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
It is not more trendy lately as it is more accepted therefore more photographers who have been shooting it all along are nolonger scared to exhibit their fetish photography work.
As for the  is it art post, look at some of your more ellaborate
Japanese bondage, the symetry in the lines created by it,etc.
Don`t just look at is as oh shes tied up, that`s weird or sick.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.  One of the best things about the internet is that it's empowered and exposed thousands of fetish photographers and lifestylers to each other, allowing the artists to grow their work without fear and participants to explore their desires without stigma.  The fact is, we've always been here, but the land-based "industry" chose to lock us out and marginalize us.  Thanks to the internet, that's no longer possible, though many people seem to wish it was. 

Too bad...for them.

Gabriel Rodz wrote:
Udo, very elocuent. Nice.

We're getting to my concern. My problem with fetish photography has nothing to do with the obvious freudian conducts that most people "suffer" of. I must agree with Makayla that some kind of light bondage or handcuffing as Gary mentioned, is part of our quest in search of new sensations. Probably most of us experimented with that part of our sexuality where control roles are given in major or lesser degree.

My concern is more simple. When did we start considering it art? At what point we draw the line between doing an art piece and just satisfying some saddistic-opportunistic conduct of a sick photographer?(this one is gonna get a lot of smoke ;-)

I'm not going to deny, there are some amazing shots of fetish here and generally on the web, where you can see a great production and professionalism. But in most cases I feel that I'm seeing the journal of some pervert psychopath.

Of course I know I can just ignore it and not support it. The issue is beyond the excercise of freedom of speech. I just want to know if there's an ulterior motive. Maybe someone that practices this "art" can defend their expressions.

I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself clearly. Anyway, it would be nice to continue discussing.

I think that fetish work "became art" around the same time that these types of photos (found in your portfolio)"became art". Same subjuect matter (sex), different viewpoint.

Hel Inferna wrote:
I think that fetish work "became art" around the same time that these types of photos (found in your portfolio)"became art". Same subjuect matter (sex), different viewpoint.

I can state from personal experience that the idea of carrying liquid [wine, honey, saliva, chocolate, milk, etc] from one person's mouth to another looms large in the repetoire of many Domme/Dominas [both professional and lifestyle].  You're engaging in an intense bit of fetish content yourself...perhaps without realizing it...or is there another force at work behind this image?

Dark Matter Zone wrote:
I think that models who do bondage modeling, do it because it pays very very well. I wouldn't make any judgement about the model otherwise, any more than I'd judge a pro-football player who hurts people and gets hurt for a living! And we sit in arenas with 50,000 people cheering on the football players every time they inflict pain!

You make a good point, but money isn't all that motivates people in fetish/erotic art.  All of my work is done TFP/CD...the reasons my subjects work with me are as diverse and personal as the reasons photographers do this sort of thing.

Justin N Lane wrote:
The internet has always been a place for people to live out their sexual vices... then there are those who rip off the image of the lifestyle because it's "edgy".  Ever stop to ask why almost all fetish photography looks the same?

Does it?

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
or is there another force at work behind this image?

Diffuse glow.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
...the reasons my subjects work with me are as diverse and personal as the reasons photographers do this sort of thing.

I think the reason people work with Melvin is because he is one of the best photographers in the genré. Someday, his images will be coveted*  in the same way people collect the prints of  E. J. Bellocq. I've already started my collection of Melvin Moten Jr. prints, and I recommend that anyone interested in fine art erotica do the same.

*Melvin self-published a series of folios entitled coVet!

Justin N Lane wrote:
The internet has always been a place for people to live out their sexual vices... then there are those who rip off the image of the lifestyle because it's "edgy".  Ever stop to ask why almost all fetish photography looks the same?

Hmmmm... I dunno about that.  I can point to at least half a dozen producers here on MM that have very different styles and methods to their fetish photography (myself included.).  Mine is pretty much the "Detective Magazine" cover style albeit with much simpler backgrounds. Melvin Moten's photos are darker, but again has more eroticism to it and his photos are more complicated.  Viva Van Story's photos have a 1950s/1960s feel to them, although with some definite modern hints to them. 

Very different photographers, and very different images, but all fetish...

J Merrill Images wrote:
I don't care for it. Women are partners in my life, not subjects to be controlled. Nuff said.

But what if your partner really, really wants to be controlled?  (Maybe just for an hour or two.)