Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,484   Posts: 1,571,258   Online: 1031
      
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 100
  1. #21
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,392
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    I didn't see the incident in question and I have no objection to the subject matter. But I have a difficult time conceiving how it could be done artfully and not pornographically. The title of this thread implies that nudity itself is somehow an art form, and it's not.
    No the title of the thread is: "Attitudes to nudity and photography as well as other art forms".

    The title is about nudity and photography and nudity and sculpture, drawing, painting, film, video etc - (the other art forms), so not implying that nudity itself is an art form.

    There are have been issues over the years with classical nude sculptures being disfigured in more puritanical times. The borderline between whats acceptable in society and what's pornographic is indistinct and open to different interpretations, In my case my rule of thumb was always what I felt would be acceptable to show my mother, which was tasteful nudity with no explicit detail of private parts.

    Ian

  2. #22
    gandolfi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    1,804
    Images
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by eddie View Post
    If it's the image I remember, I found nothing offensive about it, either. The one I'm thinking of was a bromoil, which obscured anything which could be considered graphic. It was only the model's expression which led some to believe she was self-pleasuring.

    .
    and a "fun" fact: the image or rather the motive is still in the gallery... The bromoil version was pulled as a "discussion" was taken from the gallery to the open forum - and it was not really nice read...

  3. #23
    Jaf-Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    I don't see that nudes are necessary in photography.

    If you are a painter or a sculpter then you have to do nude studies to learn the human form. But it's not necessary for photographers.

    Portraiture is a much better art form, simply because a person's face is so much more expressive than their behind.

    Mind you there are some photographers who do it well. But I only get irritated when I browse the film groups on flickr and see photos by guys who obviosuly have been photographing their gf without clothes.

    It's not big or clever.

  4. #24
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,469
    Images
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by gandolfi View Post
    and a "fun" fact: the image or rather the motive is still in the gallery... The bromoil version was pulled as a "discussion" was taken from the gallery to the open forum - and it was not really nice read...
    Well, I thought it was a beautiful image, created by a master of the genre.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,849
    Images
    27
    it is easy to suggest that portraiture
    ( or architectural work, or still lifes, landscapes or pet photography or abstractions or ... ( fill in the blank) )
    is a much better use of photography, it's easy that way

    it it has to do with "quality" .. there are just as many "not so good" portraits, architectural photograph, landscapes, pet-0-graphs, abstractions still lifes &c
    as there "not so good" nudes ...
    its just that nudes ( and pet-0-graphs) ( good or bad ) get more hype because there is someone without clothes in the photograph ... and humans like to oogle.
    ( and all pet-0-graphs are "soo cute!" )
    Last edited by jnanian; 05-26-2014 at 11:30 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    I didn't see the incident in question and I have no objection to the subject matter. But I have a difficult time conceiving how it could be done artfully and not pornographically. The title of this thread implies that nudity itself is somehow an art form, and it's not.


    Yes, it was done artfully and quite so. You had to see the image to see how and why.... Nudity itself is nudity just as landscape itself is landscape. As far as I'm concerned, it's what an artist do with it that makes it an art. (and let's not start "what's an art" discussion!) It was an magnificent work and I don't even like nudes.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  7. #27
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,696
    Images
    1
    I rather be critized as a pornographer,as Helmut Newton did than being told that my images are 'nice or 'cute', which would really hurt my pride.That's why I don't do kids or puppiesand no floers either.Getting strong objections is better than no emotion at all.At least, thatway, I know I got some impact.Nice pictures don't move anybody anymore.magazines are full of them.Buy National Geographic if you like nice and cute;they do it well.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  8. #28
    resummerfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Alaska
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,293
    Quote Originally Posted by giannisg2004 View Post
    .....Anyway, what I totally disagree with is removing (=censoring) a photo, against the photographer's will, because someone "got offended".
    Getting offended is a personal matter than one should resolve himself, facing his inner demons and insecurities.
    Getting offended is a ridiculous reason to censor others.
    I can't force the Muslim girl walking next to me to take off her burqa because I "get offended".
    I can't stop the Christian lady in the tube murmuring a chant because I'm an atheist and "get offended".
    I can't force the gay couple next door from kissing in front of me, because I'm heterosexual and "get offended".
    Why should I be able to force someone to remove their artwork because I "get offended"?

    "Getting offended" is a buzzword to enable people to essentially censor what they don't like and limit the freedoms of others.
    Well said.
    —Eric

  9. #29
    gandolfi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    1,804
    Images
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaf-Photo View Post
    I don't see that nudes are necessary in photography.

    If you are a painter or a sculpter then you have to do nude studies to learn the human form. But it's not necessary for photographers.

    Portraiture is a much better art form, simply because a person's face is so much more expressive than their behind.

    .
    Don't understand that at all... If nudes aren't nessecary in Photography, then faces are not either - or landscapes - or houses or.... Nothing is nessecary - they are all options..

    A painter or sculpter doesn't "have to learn the human form" - except if they want to do nudes (?)

    Portraiture is not better - just different... (And I know of people whos' behind is more expressive than their faces.. )

    Nudes is a choise - a challenge - a daunting one, as there's SO much crap out there and because it has been done a few times over the years....

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,012
    Quote Originally Posted by resummerfield View Post
    Well said.

    Except that online, we take it to extreme and turn it into a personal attack. In almost every case, the discussion starts when someone finds an image objectionable. Then the attack turns into photographers' view, skill, or taste as an artist. In some cases, the attack goes toward the subject. Objections on the images turns into haterate for the photographer and the subject. At that point, the discussion or the objection is no longer about the image itself. Being online, the discussion doesn't stop there and degrades to name calling until moderator steps in and clean up the thread, then close it.

    In everyday life, when faced with unplesantly, one's tendency is to ignore it and walk-by. On online forums, tendency is to comment. Then comment on comment on the comment. Then comment on that. Now the comment is about the comment, not the subject.


    If we can stick with the issue at hand or discussion of the image, then I think it's great. In practice, not so much.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin