What bothers me about nudes is that they so often deny sexuality. In our culture, open nudity IS about sex unless one is taking a bath or a shower. So, what is there to be offended by? Seeing a (typically) young naked man or woman draped over a rock, or leaning against a tree is so patently false it's almost laughable. SHOW the arousal...give a REAL reason for posing without clothes instead of the uptight attitude that manufactures a silly excuse to bare it all. Or, just don't bother.
While you may be perfectly able to judge the photo's success ( or failure), I think anyone that shoots them has a better appreciation of what it entails. You haven't done it, so you have no experience dealing with someone who is offering themselves up, in the most vulnerable way, trusting someone to make a photo. I think portraits are a similar situation, but the nude more so.
Originally Posted by Wayne
so here you answered your own claim : IF they are going into artwork of people with their clothes on...
Originally Posted by Jaf-Photo
But what if they are going into non figurative sculptures?
And I don't buy that we photographers get it for free... I have become a much better photographer with people with their clothes on, because of my nudes..
I had followed that thread since it started. Yesterday everything seemed fine, I went to mow the lawn, came back and saw deleted posts & the thread closed. Looking at the deleted posters, I instantly knew what happened, as has happened many times before (and has been confirmed above).
As for nudity, I've always felt we are a bit repressed in the U.S. Regardless of photographic intent, what is so awful about our bodies that we are offended by them? That is not to say I don't sometimes feel a photo may be gratuitous, but still, it's just a naked person - no big deal.
I am honestly more offended by habitually poor spelling and grammar from native English speakers; I have no problem if English is a person's second language, but do expect someone raised with it to know how to use it.
I whole hartedly agree!
Originally Posted by jovo
In the closed thread the word honesty was used.. And I think that's the key.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
honesty is good
but we live in a world where
honesty is not common practice.
the poster in the other thread also suggested non-honest (portraits) were BS ...
when BS is the norm, honesty becomes BS
Last edited by jnanian; 05-26-2014 at 02:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.
It's in the eye of the beholder. But folks have to define what is art, pornography and erotica. But for the some, any nudity equates porn. I think prudish societies have more issues with sexuality and body image. To be fair, there should be a warning for those that think differently just as those have problem with nudity should not censor those that want to that want to show nude art. Live and let live.
“We are buried beneath the weight of information, which is being confused with knowledge; quantity is being confused with abundance and wealth with happiness.
We are monkeys with money and guns.”
― Tom Waits
I too was puzzled until I saw the deleted posts.
Originally Posted by Truzi
A real shame as I found it to be a fascinating thread.
I'm sorry but I don't see any falseness. Perhaps the photographer's intent is to contrast the softness and vulnerability of the human body with the hardness and permanence of the rock.
Originally Posted by jovo
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I suppose it is up to individual perception, but when does artistic nude photography move into pornography, soft porn, hard porn, paedophilia, etc?
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”