The "thoughts" here are certainly valid and worthy of consideration, but some will disagree.
I, for one, will take exception to the idea that there "should be no interaction between the viewer ..."
What specific "interaction" could be in question, I do not know ... but, IMHO, the idea of establishing some *relation* between "figure" and "viewer" through the photographer is of paramount importance.
"Eroticism"? - I remember one painter - Renoir? - who was asked if his work was "erotic". He answered, "If it is not, I have failed miserably".
I have to concur with Ed. It seems to me that there is little point in creating art that generates no interaction between viewer and subject. This would apply equally to landscapes and nudes. In fact without interaction there is no art.
Nude studies are clearly erotic - otherwise they'd be called portraits. We are a society that clothes itself at all times and hence, disrobing is inherently erotic. If we deny that we deny human nature. If we were a society comprised only of nudists, (God forbid!) then in that context a nude would be merely a portrait, and a clothed person would be .......well hot! There is a clear difference between nude studies and pornography - although better, (much better) minds than mine, such as the US Supreme Court cannot articulate the dividing line here. Personally, I don't much care about the dividing lines my art appreciation is limited to that which elicits an emotional response on my part.
I have to admit that I've not read every word of this thread but I'll add a few thoughts of my own. I shoot a lot of nudes along with general portrait portrait work and find that in both scenarios the results are much better if I'm engaged with the subject. This engagement is not on a sexual or erotic level when shooting nudes it is usually simply general conversation along with direction for the shot that I'm after. So I agree with Ed on this one.
I once had a nude model compliment me saying that she was impressed because I kept her engaged. One of best pictures came out of that session.
Is there a certain level of eroticism in nude work? I believe that there is and this is something that I try to be very aware of and control. We as the artists are in control of this. I control it not because I don't want it to appear but because I believe that the level is very much a part of the message that the picture communicates.
Generally it seems that eroticism is viewed as a bad thing. Why is this and why should we view as a bad thing? If treated carefully and given proper respect it can be a beautiful thing.
You have misappropriated a common phrase, figure nude, and are trying to re-define it into something which is illogical and artistically sterile. Adding a layer of pseudo-religious claptrap doesn’t make it alright. Your nonsense is still nonsense. And your “rules” are without merit. Whether a nude model is looking at the viewer or not is irrelevant. Whether the artist intends the work to celebrate, sexually stimulate or shock is irrelevant. Whether the viewer sees the work as beautiful, erotic, or disgusting is irrelevant. Whether the work is in two or three dimensions is irrelevant. Whether we evolved from apes or were created by God is irrelevant.
There are no rules that govern nudes: there are just the emotions, creative impulses and the creativity of artists and models. And there are no rules about how viewers react to nudes: there are just their emotions, taste and opinions. There are nudes I have made, nudes I want to and will make, and nudes I don't want to make. But I will decide what I do and do not make - I'll be damned if I'll let a linguistic mountebank try to define what is or is not acceptable for me to do with my work.
This appears to be an exercise is separating "Fine Art Nudes" from "Figurenudes" ... or am I mistaken? That is a distinction I have trouble making - and I don't see any necessity for making it. Perhaps you can post examples of each so that we can determine the difference between the two?Quote:
Erotica is NOT bad at all. It is just not found in figurenudes. Sensual, perhaps, but not intentionally erotic.
Just as a 'landscape' may appeal to your senses of beauty, a figurenude should as well.
Not all fine art nudes are figurenudes. Few art nudes actually are. They are not superior to another nude. They are just different.
Now I am lost. Skinless animals? The creator DID first present woman (and man) nude.Quote:
... Depending on whether you accept the Bible or not, humans were created nude. The first 'blood sacrifice' for human sin was integrated in clothing them. Animals lost their skins. Fig leaves just didn't cut it...
... I always say, " If God had ever wished a woman's figure to be presented nude, He would have done it first Himself." ...
From the top:
1. Nicely done "Fine Art".
2. Somewhat "coarse" in my aesthetic opinion. Are aesthetics in question?
3. Odd. Not really erotic - Possibly still within the bounds of "Fine Art", but arguable. Emotional response: flinch.
There is an interaction >within< the photograph. Was that incorrectly described as a "relation" between the *photograph* and the *viewer*?
4. No. Fine Art, at some level.
I think I'll avoid using the term "figurenude". It seems grossly affected, and unnecessary.
In my opinion the first image posted is extremely good. However, I have to say that it is also erotic. Not only erotic but clearly intentionally so. That the nipples of the model are as they are, and in the absence of "goose flesh" suggests, in fact overtly conveys a state of arousal. This must have been intentional else the photograph would not have been taken - or at least would not have been finished. This in no way detract from the value of the image, but does, however, call into question claims of inadvertent eroticism.
this thread has unfortunately been hijacked into something other than the content of your article.
that's a pity, as there are many things to discuss.
I have two small "issues" (I am not so fluent in english, so bear with my simple wordings..)
"Personally, I believe there is sufficient ugliness in the world without me adding to it.."
can't an image of a Challenger be beautiful? does it have to be ugly?
I have moved from being a Celebrationist (I still celebrate the female form) into being more of a challenger.
However, I doesn't seem to be able to make "ugly" images.. (or so I am told).
where does that leave me?
I don't like the horndog/robot labels... mostly because I have no idea what a horndog is.....
"Nudes and the Model
How should photographers work with models in the studio? Many, if not most, people have an opinion on this. I don’t know whether there’s a “correct” way of working.....
First: having had numerous discussions about this with models, I "always" miss the point of view of the model!
as a photographer, we assume, we do it right. which doesn't mean we do it right.
you continue: "as both of them are comfortable with it and they trust each other."
that's true of course. I think the "correct" way of working with a model is simply (not easily done) to be honest.
If you're honest, you can do about anything with the model, because there is no hidden agenda.
which makes it easier for the model to be comfortable.....
when I finally make my book on nude photography (if ever), then I have promised my self a whole chapter in that book on how it looks from the models perspective..
does this make sense?