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.
Dear Rainphot, since Im still here Ill quickly reply to your most recent comment: "I do believe that when we view anothers work, find positive ways of responding, or be polite and just say it doesn't work for you. Is there any real need to disparage another?" I have already discussed the incorrect manner in which I initially wrote about Mr Leake's work, I have also discussed that the manner may have been alittle agressive, but the sentiment remains. If I were to ask someones opinion of one of my images, after countless hours of my deciding whether to rip it up or tone and frame it, I would be more insulted by a coy "it doesnt work for me..." none-answer than an honest open critique/attack of the work in question. Having studied the work myself before anyone else I would be able to defend its merits, and open to admit its faults, objectively. Despite the stiff upper lipped caracature that the British may have invited upon themselves, my friends and I realise, understand, and are very grateful for our openness with each other with respect to our creative work. We appreciate these discussions, learning and growing from them, something impossible to do with a nonchalant "it doesnt work for me..." aside. How doesnt it work for you? Why? Questions, answers, opinions, debate...one will never grow without teachers, be they an open young child unafraid to say what he thinks, or a wise old master, whose valid comments, though harsh, may be just what the student needs to develop and grow...and yes, we are all eternal students. Bye for now! R.
Originally Posted by RichardWright
For a critique to have value it needs to reveal something new to the person receiving it. An experienced photographer, an artist in another field, an art historian, an ordinary person, or an innocent child could all reveal something new. But in all likelihood, the knowledgeable person is more likely to reveal something new because they have a greater breadth of experience to draw on.
You have chosen to critique my work on two grounds. Your first critique was an emotional statement that my pictures do nothing for you. Fine. I accept that. I've had worse comments from people (such as when a porn aggregator linked to my web site and I had 12,000 visitors in one weekend - not surprisingly they were mostly disappointed with the pictures I show - and some of them couldn't handle that disappointment very well).
But your second critique was about technique and process - you've talked about camera kit, lighting, backdrops, platinum printing, posing, composition, etc. I'm sorry, but if you're going to set yourself up as someone I should listen to about these things then you have to demonstrate you know something about the subject. If you cannot or will not do this then you are no better than those college lecturers you derided in one of your posts.
The internet is full of armchair critics who use critiques as a way to puff up their egos and tell everyone how fantastic and important they are. I am coming to the conclusion that you are one of these people.
It's time to put up or shut up, Richard.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Who, me? That's jolly harsh Sanders
Originally Posted by Rolleiflexible
Ian, no: "Richard," of course. He's a troll
who comes in to insult and provoke. Why
do you all indulge him by taking him on
his own terms?
The world is full of insult. What has been
served by permitting its increase here?
Please spare me platitudes about free
speech. This was an unprovoked attack
-- on the forum as much as on Ian.
You are right, Sanders. And I shall say nothing more for now.
Ian, your earlier posts are very well stated. I'm reminded of a song by Ben Sidran - "critics, they can't even float, they just stand on the shore, they just wave at the boat"
Btw, just received your book today; and am looking forward to testing your methods - a well done book. Having only worked with the NA2 process, I still have alot to learn.
Last edited by doughowk; 01-19-2010 at 02:29 PM. Click to view previous post history.
van Huyck Photo
"Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"
Whew--I thought you meant me.
Originally Posted by Rolleiflexible
Wow,,, Just read the whole thread. Painfull journy to the end.
Confirms my belief about people however.