Thoughts on Nudes and Photography
Why do I create photographs of nudes? Is there a difference between what I do and what another photographer chooses to do? Does it matter how viewers of my photographs react? And if so, should that have an effect on what I do and how I do it? I’ve recently had cause to ask myself these questions about my work, and this article is my attempt to frame a coherent response.
I have no desire to trigger another endless rambling discussion, so please use the "Post Reply" button with moderation. I'm really interested in what you think about this article, but the topic is not really suitable for megaphone discussions. So if you think I'm right or wrong, out of line or spot on, or just want to let me know your opinions, then please PM me so we can talk constructively.
Two Fundamental Questions
There’s a fundamental question to address before discussing nudes: is photography art? Of course photography has many uses; and many are purely practical, such as scientific or judicial records, social documents, or communication aids. But I practice photography as a means of self expression, so it should therefore be no surprise that I consider photography to be an artistic medium and my photographs to be art. (Whether it's good art or bad art I’ll leave for others to decide.)
The other fundamental question is whether there is a difference between nude and naked. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines naked as an adjective meaning, “without clothes,” and nude as an adjective meaning, “wearing no clothes.” But it goes on to say that as a noun, nude means, “a naked human figure as a subject in art…” So although the OED doesn’t help much, it does suggest that the nude is an art form and “the naked” isn’t.
That sounds like common sense to me – few people would describe a photograph of a naked baby on a sheepskin rug as art, but the artistic status of Edward Weston’s “Neil, Nude” from 1925 is unlikely to be challenged by many. So it seems reasonable to state that the nude (whether sculpted, painted or photographed) is an artistic form differentiated from other representations of naked people.
Celebration or Challenge
Artists choose their themes for many reasons, but I think two are worth highlighting: the desire to celebrate something and the desire to challenge society. Although not entirely mutually exclusive, the extremes of these two motivations are to a large extent contradictory. There is, in essence, a continuum with Celebrationist at one end and Challenger at the other.
Many artists use nudes as a way to challenge society by asking taboo questions, shocking people, and stimulating debate. The best example of this philosophy I can think of was exhibited at Photo London in 2006: a mural-sized photo of a woman urinating into a drain on a London bridge (with everything on show and nothing left to the imagination). Whether this was important art or just disgustingly poor taste is beyond the scope of this article, but without a doubt it achieves the goal of challenging society.
Others choose instead to celebrate humanity with their nudes, showing beauty, or emotion, or strength, or grace, or whatever trait they wish to honour through their nudes. August Rodin and Ruth Bernhard are both artists whose work exemplifies this for me.
Personally, I believe there is sufficient ugliness in the world without me adding to it. I work almost exclusively with nudes because I find the body deeply emotive, visually fascinating, and sumptuously beautiful. I work primarily with women for the same reasons. So, in short, I’m a celebrationist.
Horndog to Robot
I have to thank Scott Davis for this concept. At any moment in time every human being is somewhere on a continuum from horndog to robot. While making out with a lover we’re likely to be more like a horndog, and during a job interview we’re more likely to be at the robot end of the scale.
For most of the time, most of us are somewhere in the middle. But external stimuli can move us rapidly and unexpectedly around the scale. Ever been cuddling up on the couch with your lover when your pet walks into the room and is sick all over the carpet? It kind of kills the moment doesn’t it. Or have you been in a meeting at work when a stunningly attractive person walks by the door? Just for a moment you moved a little closer to horndog didn’t you.
As an aside, a model I worked with also works as a dominatrix in a city dungeon providing unusual services for consenting adults. She told me that some of her best and most loyal customers are members of a strict religious sect which prizes family values and expects high moral standards from it’s members. I’ll let you decide on the morality of this, but I think it reinforces my point that we are all emotional beings (it’s part of the human condition).
While many of us are good at hiding where we are on the horndog to robot scale (sometimes even from ourselves), it exists and it effects how we act whether we like it or not. We may even be able to control where we are on the continuum to an extent, but it still exists. And, I believe, it’s a fundamental part of how we react to nudes.
Nudes and Sexuality
Are nudes about sex, or should they be devoid of sexuality? Is a photograph of a female breast sexy, beautiful, or boring? Is a photograph of a penis art or porn? Where does the sensual end and the erotic begin? Should “naughty bits” be shown? Is eye contact right or wrong?
I believe these are pointless questions, because the answer will be different for every person on the planet. But I also believe that to deny that sexuality has or should have a place in art is to deny our humanity. We exist as a species because of sex; and it’s one of the three fundamental motivations that direct most people’s lives - the other two being personal survival and survival of our children.
As a species, our sexual interests are, thankfully, very diverse (remember the dominatrix?). And as art is all about self expression it’s only natural that artists will seek to portray sexuality in all it’s technicolour glory. And long may that continue.
Nudes and the Viewer
Does it matter what effect my photographs have on the viewer? Of course it does. I’m a celebrationist, and if my work doesn’t communicate my passion then I’ve failed. So I want my work to have an effect on the people who see it. And I want that effect to be a strong emotional reaction. And I want that strong emotional reaction to be one that’s in harmony with my passion for humanity.
But of course I can’t control how people react to my work. Every person who looks at one of my photographs has a whole lifetime of experiences that filter what they see and how they subsequently react. And every viewer is somewhere on the horndog to robot continuum at the instant they see my photograph.
So while I hope that the most viewers will share my passion for humanity, I have to acknowledge that some won’t see my work in the way that I do. And I also have to accept that a strong emotional reaction will sometimes move someone closer to horndog than they or I expected, leading them to do or say things that they wouldn’t when they’re closer to robot.
I know sometimes I say and do things that with hindsight I think were wrong, so it would be hypocritical of me to expect perfection in others. Anyway, I’ve chosen to put my work “out there” so I have to accept how people react to it.
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, but I suspect that actually it doesn’t matter how an artist and their model work together so long as both of them are comfortable with it and they trust each other.
I believe that if you’re going to ask someone to undress for you in the name of art, and if you want them to put aside their self image and allow you to mould them to your vision (whatever that may be), then they have to trust you. Without trust they won’t relax, and if they’re not relaxed then it will show in the photographs. And of course if they don't trust you then they’ll never work with you again, as well as telling other potential models to avoid you too.
Likewise, if the model thinks you’re too much of a horndog then their discomfort will show in the photographs, and if they think you’re too much of a robot they’ll be bored which will show too. But if you’re both in harmony then you’ve got a real chance of creating something significant.
As far as I’m concerned, the same principles apply whether you’re working with a professional model, a friend, or someone who just wants to broaden their horizons. Without trust and harmony between the model and photographer then you’ll fail to create significant artwork.
Nudes and the Artist
The nude as an art form was invented in Ancient Greece, discovered again in Renaissance Italy, and re-discovered once more in the early 20th Century by artists such as Rodin and Weston. In more recent times, I think the nude has often been swamped (shouted down even) by commercial sexuality and establishment art.
I believe that the human body is inherently beautiful, and I seek to celebrate this beauty through my photography. That is my purpose.
Some people won’t like what I do. That’s fine, but I hope that most people viewing my work will join me in celebrating the wonderful people I work with, and the wider circle of humanity that they represent.
Curtis, I’m flattered that you mention my name in the same sentence as Kim Weston (a photographer who is far, far more significant than I am). And I appreciate that your figurenude concept is important to you. But if you want to promote your figurenude concept and your website then please start a thread in the appropriate forum rather than continually spamming this article. Thank you.
Originally Posted by CurtisNeeley
Let me add my voice to Ians.
Originally Posted by Ian Leake
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".
Ed Sukach, FFP.
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.
"Why is there always a better way?"
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Ed - you're back! I'm so glad to "hear your voice" again.
Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
Curtis, your “figurenude” concept is wrong on many levels. As several previous posters have said, all art engages the viewer - if it doesn’t engage the viewer then it’s not art, it’s a just a record. And all artists engage with their subject – if they’re not engaging with their subject then they’re not making art, they’re just making a record. It doesn't matter whether the subject is a person or a landscape or a collection of things - engagement must be there or it just doesn't work.
Originally Posted by CurtisNeeley
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.
?Must??? Nothing is mandatory ... To me, "interaction" is necessary. Who has the authority to declare what must, or must not, be done?
Originally Posted by CurtisNeeley
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?
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.
... 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." ...
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Well ... the way I would probably evaluate these if I were to experience them hanging in a Gallery -
Originally Posted by CurtisNeeley
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.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
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.
"Why is there always a better way?"
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?