After reading Ed's "Renoir" thread in the interesting quotes threads in off topic discussions ( that's a mouthful) it brought to mind an observation I've had about nudes in photography. I meant to mention this before but Ed jogged my memory.

I'm wondering if it's because the US was founded by Puritans and a lot of other religious sects that we have such a strange relationship with nudes in art, as I guess in everything else.

I see so many nude photographs that are so self conscious, so peek-a-booish and so adolescent that I want to puke. It's like, "well I've shot three rolls and I've talked her out of her bra, now maybe if I can just get her pants off. Or from her point of view, "well I'll show you my tits but nobody get to see my pussy" (if you'll pardon the expression) .

What happened to photographs that celebrate the beauty of the human body, male and female. Why are nipples okay but genitals not. If the body is beautiful all parts are beautiful. The cleft ofa womans genitals is as interesting as the cleft of her breasts and her butt. The landscape of human body can put Yosemite to shame anyday. Do the models actually put crazy glue on the insides of their knees before each sitting.

Where are all the women photographers that should be photographing nude males. 99% of the nudes of males are done by gay men. They are great but how about some from a womens point of view. Is not the erect male penis as intersting as an erect female nipple. Is not a male shot from behind as intersting as a female. Do not the curves of the male equal the curves the female.

I realize that there are lots of photographers doing great nudes and some are members of this site and some are absolutely great. But I'm still in awe of the self consciousness and self censorship I see. After all in my opinion it is still the most beautiful form that has yet to be invented and the most fun to photograph.

I'd love to hear your opinions,


Michael McBlane