Katherine Phoenix wrote:
so we can post them in our avitars and on myspace!!

So this is the reason that you do this? I am still wanting to know is this a new form of Art?

Ransom J wrote:
Art is subjective.  You can't say whether the act of covering  one's breasts with your hands is an artistic technique or not, it can be done well or be done poorly.

But it's been around for as long as people have been photographing nude/semi-nude women.  Definately prevelant in early pin up.

This is true but I am seeing more of it now for some reason.

Katherine Phoenix wrote:
so we can post them in our avitars and on myspace!!

You can not pose them on MM if you show your full breast?

Glamour Makeover Studio wrote:

This is true but I am seeing more of it now for some reason.

An overabundance of it doesn't make it more or less art.  it is what it is. 

A tease technique.  No more, no less.  Much like a flirty wink, a pouty look or bedroom eyes.  Just a way to convey a "you want me huh?  well you can't have me!' attitude.

And you probably see it more because of the abundance of "models" flooding the net.  many come in, thinking they are going to be the next Kate Moss/ Claudia Schiffer/ Tyra Banks, yet they are 5'4".  So their options to model are limited.  Commercial doesn't portray the "glamourous life" of a model for all these wanna be's art normally requires them to get nude and while glamour might have a strong sexual intent, it can still be done without having to "show it all" plus it has all the bragging rights of being in big name magazines and what not.  So that's where a lot of your too short, too thick, too naieve models are going.  hence a rise in those types of photos.

but this is just my opinion.  Never counted for much.

Glamour Makeover Studio wrote:

So this is the reason that you do this? I am still wanting to know is this a new form of Art?

I have done it for that reason.

DAntony wrote:
Whenever I've committed the hyprocrisy of shooting that cliche'd old pose ,I regret it afterwards. It makes no sense to me after viewing the results. If a woman wants an implied topless then I'd rather use a piece of fabric, chain, anything but the hands. The hands always mash the breasts too much, the models put a death grip on the boobs. When they relax a bit, they then tense up more. The natural outline and form of the breasts is lost to clenched hands, bony fingers and bulging knuckles. Madness!!! Need I say more?

Meh!  Depends ont he emotion you want to convey.  You can use that tension from boney hands and bulging knuckles to take it outside of the normal cliche' into something different.

viola!



I've always said, that people that complain about cliches are too uncreative to reinvent it into something worthwhile.

Durham Sorrow wrote:
its pretty overdone and ridiculous. a lot of photogs just want a cheap look.

Well I will agree with you on one thing it does look "Ridiculous"

DAntony wrote:
Whenever I've committed the hyprocrisy of shooting that cliche'd old pose ,I regret it afterwards. It makes no sense to me after viewing the results. If a woman wants an implied topless then I'd rather use a piece of fabric, chain, anything but the hands. The hands always mash the breasts too much, the models put a death grip on the boobs. When they relax a bit, they then tense up more. The natural outline and form of the breasts is lost to clenched hands, bony fingers and bulging knuckles. Madness!!! Need I say more?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1368123
check this one out.

Vegas Alien wrote:
If people want to do it and it doesn't affect you, don't let it worry you.  Just like some may not like the cliche of posing a model in front of a standing mirror.  Been done millions of times. The more people do things like everyone else, the more chance you have to stand out. Or, as stated earlier, think of a new way to do it.

It does not bother me at all. I am just trying to understand it and have decided to discuss it in a mature and professional way on this forum. However I agree with you that maybe someone should create a way that it can be done better. The question is how do you make it better than putting your hand over your breast?

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Please, take a step back and stop being so snobbish.

The pose draws the distinction between what is allowed in mainstream American publications that are not considered nude, and what is not.

It's the difference between Maxim, which any pimply-faced 15 year-old can buy on the newsstand and Playboy, which he, for better or worse, can not.

Nipple and areola are considered nude. Covered, any amount of breast showing is considered non-nude for publication standards (note that I'm not making a legal distinction or even a codified distinction).

If you don't personally like the pose, fantastic. I, personally, hate clowns. But they seem to be popular at the circus. My problem, I suspect.

well said!!

Ransom J wrote:
Meh!  Depends ont he emotion you want to convey.  You can use that tension from boney hands and bulging knuckles to take it outside of the normal cliche' into something different.

viola!



I've always said, that people that complain about cliches are too uncreative to reinvent it into something worthwhile.

That is a great shot!  See, in yours the hands-on-breasts thing works, but I think part of that is her intent in doing it isn't specifically to hide her nipples (obviously.)  It just looks like it was a spontaneous action that fits with the scene.

The only types that get on my nerves are the ones where the model just has palms glued to breasts looking like she's thinking "So long as no one sees my nipples, I'm still modest!"

But then again I've even seen a few of those made to work.

Ransom J wrote:

An overabundance of it doesn't make it more or less art.  it is what it is. 

A tease technique.  No more, no less.  Much like a flirty wink, a pouty look or bedroom eyes.  Just a way to convey a "you want me huh?  well you can't have me!' attitude.

And you probably see it more because of the abundance of "models" flooding the net.  many come in, thinking they are going to be the next Kate Moss/ Claudia Schiffer/ Tyra Banks, yet they are 5'4".  So their options to model are limited.  Commercial doesn't portray the "glamourous life" of a model for all these wanna be's art normally requires them to get nude and while glamour might have a strong sexual intent, it can still be done without having to "show it all" plus it has all the bragging rights of being in big name magazines and what not.  So that's where a lot of your too short, too thick, too naieve models are going.  hence a rise in those types of photos.

wonderfully said

StarlaMeris wrote:
That is a great shot!  See, in yours the hands-on-breasts thing works, but I think part of that is her intent in doing it isn't specifically to hide her nipples (obviously.)  It just looks like it was a spontaneous action that fits with the scene.

The only types that get on my nerves are the ones where the model just has palms glued to breasts looking like she's thinking "So long as no one sees my nipples, I'm still modest!"

But then again I've even seen a few of those made to work.

Thank you!

But it seems to me that you aren't critical of the hands being over the breasts so much as the models inability to emote something that justifies the pose or the photographers inability to direct the model to emote, or both.  Either way it's not the fault of the pose.  Any pose can look contrived and lifeless if the model/photographer sucks.

Also that shoot was a great shoot.  Bradley (the model in the pic) is absolutely one of the most expressive, emotive models I've worked with.  I think for that set i churned out about 150 snaps and had at least 100 keepers.

Glamour Makeover Studio wrote:
I have been a photographer for many years. I have noticed in many portfolios pictures of female models with their hands over one or more of their bare breast. I am trying to understand what type of nude art this is. I know I am from the old school but this is new to me. Why would a model show 75 percent or more of their breast and then put their hands or finger over it to hide it? What does this mean in the art of nude or semi nude photography. I can understand implied nude but the hands over the breast has me lost.

They're doing it to irritate you.

Especially her.



(Link to the pic if the hotlink doesn't work: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/39510472/)

Good job, ladies!

In all seriousness, what kind of a question is that? As has been pointed out multiple times, the pose is not new: it's common in artistic nudes and erotica from the beginnings of photography. And as to why they're doing it? They're doing it because they and/or the photographer don't want you to see their nipples in the picture.

I mean, why do models wear clothes in pictures at all? Isn't that a horrible waste of film that could all be of nudes? (Well, I may be on to something there. But I digress.) The picture is the picture. If you don't like it, fine. Lots of pictures I don't like. If you don't understand the photographer's motivation, fine again. Lots of pictures I don't get. But treating it like it's some sort of Art Movement and/or conspiracy (often these two are related, I admit) is just melodrama of the most trivial sort.

M

Ransom J wrote:
But it seems to me that you aren't critical of the hands being over the breasts so much as the models inability to emote something that justifies the pose or the photographers inability to direct the model to emote, or both.

Exactly.  I just think there should be a good reason for the pose besides modesty on the model's part.  Or at least the model and photographer need to find a way to make it look like there's a better reason.

Glamour Makeover Studio wrote:
I have been a photographer for many years. I have noticed in many portfolios pictures of female models with their hands over one or more of their bare breast. I am trying to understand what type of nude art this is. I know I am from the old school but this is new to me. Why would a model show 75 percent or more of their breast and then put their hands or finger over it to hide it? What does this mean in the art of nude or semi nude photography. I can understand implied nude but the hands over the breast has me lost.

It's nothing more than a technique of posing that allows the images to be on major magazine covers (think Rolling Stone, Maxim, People) that could NOT publish the complete nude otherwise.  Mainstream glamour nudity is not acceptable in mainstream magazines.  This hand bra pose, although over used now, it allows a more titillating style to grab our attention.  I enjoy shooting the implied and pin up style without showing nudity.  Is it art?  Well that is in the eye of the beholder.  Nothing you should stress out over.

Ransom J wrote:
Extra question:

What cliche's are OKAY?  because it seems to me the EVERYVODY has something in their port that has been done to death.  What made your overdone cliche better than the one you hate so much?

Very true!  The pose of the hands over the breasts have been used in classic art as well as modern images since ... well the beginning of time?  So we pretty much borrow (sometimes out right steal!) from past images that worked.  It doesn't mean it will work for all of us.  It can be great, or it can be cliche.