Art nudes: Are we showing pictures in bad taste?

[Kathy Rappaport]

FWIW, as a female who does figure study and nude work, showing genitalia without purpose to it just for art sake is degrading to the subject - it's just my opinion. How does it add to this image?

I find many male photographers, in their quest to pound their chests and conquer, show the female body sexualized for their own gain as opposed to having a concrete respect for the female model. I am seeing work where the product is not finished to benefit the model because they did not charge but they did pay with their dignity. I am finding that there are many who will remove their clothes in hopes that they will be discovered but the sad part is that it's just a conquest for many of these men with long lenses who are conquering their prey without procreation. And yet the women are being screwed because they are not being portrayed as who they really are.

Less is more....

 

[Mitch Alland]

That's a facile statement for a woman to make, but is also, at this point (of political development), trite; and bears little relation to what Doug is doing, or his model for that matter. It would be a lot more interesting, Kathy, if you spoke, with some more originality, to the point and the specifics of this picture.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[janet Smith]

That's a facile statement for a woman to make, but is also, at this point (of political development), trite;

Hello Mitch

Kathy is expressing her honest opinion which is not always an easy thing to do, furthermore I think her comments are far from facile and trite.

Whether or not you agree with the opinions of others, those opinions deserve to be treated with respect.

Clearly the issue of displaying genitalia is a contentious one and will provoke strong opinions, the point is that opinions which differ from your own should not be treated with derision…..

 

[Charlotte Thompson]

Doug

I have been back to this picture 3 times and I do so love what you do with bandw-lovely!
now as far as the statement itself --you have picked a rather "almost" impossible thing to define-Divinity" but I say bravo- glad it isn't my course but yours
I only have a very small problem with the female genitalia it seems to be too pronounced in the pose- that I don't find anything wrong with my genders "whole of our Divinity" at all but that maybe you could place the leg in front to cover partial- and trust me I am "no prude" I get that this is art and should be seen as art/expression- also the seeds are a wonderful idea! would you be able to take the seeds falling out of her hand/slipping through as if she were seeding the earth a fertility thing- maybe a few caught on the ground in front of her as "happenstance" Just my humble opinion-for what it's worth-
great idea and shot - I like the way you think and what you do-Oh I like the scarf-it adds such a look and it makes you look!

Charlotte-

 

[Mitch Alland]

...Kathy is expressing her honest opinion which is not always an easy thing to do, furthermore I think her comments are far from facile and trite.

Whether or not you agree with the opinions of others, those opinions deserve to be treated with respect.

Clearly the issue of displaying genitalia is a contentious one and will provoke strong opinions, the point is that opinions which differ from your own should not be treated with derision…..

Jan, I was not at all making fun of Kathy's statement in which she is, as you say, expressing her opinion: I was expressing mine. Also, her post was not about the narrower issue of displaying genitalia but about male photographers taking pictures of the female body, and she implicitly applied her negative view about what "many" male photographers do what Doug has done, which is unwarranted and flies in the face of a 2,500 year tradition in Western art. But, with so much emotion being exhibited here on this issue, further discussion of this matter is not likely to be fruitful as it will only generate a lot of heat and little light.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

The image

Sorry Mitch that you don't get my comment.

As for Art, the genitalia on this image if framed by her leg, highligting the Vulva. As I stated there is no real purpose to having that highlighted in that manner to bring forth the statement on seeds. I think it degrades the woman in the photography, just as the wearing of the scarf does not bear relation to the image either.

 

[Doug Kerr]

I'll bet you can't say "vulva" on PPH.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

I'll bet you can't say "vulva" on PPH.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi Doug,

What you say is true. To be merely controversial, pointing out that one can't use that word in dpreview, LL and PPH and more would be fine. However, let's not over focus on what PPH can't do as this puts OPF in opposition to one forum and that's not what we're about. We don't want to slip over to derision!

In OPF we do allow discussions but not offense. So we don't want to get into the region of knocking particular people. Our purpose, in discussing what one can include in art pictures and discussion is to facilitate good work. Part of photography is handling sensitive issues. so this discussion is in itself worthy.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Kathy,

The last bastion of privacy is the mind. However, in a practical sense, in most cultures, the ultimate exposure is removing one's undergarments. For romance and in a couples bedroom, this is part of agreed intimacy. Where culture blocks easy access to views of the entrance to procreation and its pleasures, erotic art celebrates and pornography denigrates. At extremes, it's easy to categorize where a picture lies. However, many times, this is a hard place to tread. But why do we have this torment?

Art allows access to thoughts normally locked inside one's head. More than that, art allows a series of private ideas and experiences to be linked in some physical form. At it's best we get symphonies and Picasso's masterpieces. We do easily understand the concepts of art as beauty. Beauty is an experience which requires no associated purpose, no spirituality, transcendence nor social intent. The form of the female can be enjoyed, thus, for its wonderful curvaceous physicality. But art can be more than just such dreamy innocent esthetics.

We would not exclude beautiful art with an erotic component. Still we don't want to celebrate art that's merely denigrating and thus, pornographic.

In the picture Luke shared for critique, he accepted the idea that the vulva was perhaps a distraction. He is very open to feedback. However, I'd not want to conclude that we cannot show genitals. Only that we don't want OPF to be about that and to become disrespectful.

This the first time we've faced this.

I hope we don't want to ban celebrating the human form down to any part. However, I agree we can't belittle or disrespect women, or men for that matter. So what can and can't be shown?

Asher

 

[Daniel Buck]

me personally, I don't see much point to showing nudity in alot photographs. I think a robe or some sort of cloth to cover up the model could be just as sexy, or intimate, or whatever the original intent is. But maybe that's just me

 

[Ron Morse]

I agree with Kathy.

 

[janet Smith]

We would not exclude beautiful art with an erotic component. Still we don't want to celebrate art that's merely denigrating and thus, pornographic......

I hope we don't want to ban celebrating the human form down to any part. However, I agree we can't belittle or disrespect women, or men for that matter. So what can and can't be shown?

This is a real dilemma for me, your distinction between erotic art and pornography is a valid one. The dichotomy is where does one draw the distinction between the two? In some ways I like this shot, yet whilst saying that - I have concerns at female genitalia being so openly displayed on a public forum.

Andy Warhol said “Art is what you can get away with” does that apply here?

Is it about pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable under the guise of Art?

After all, what one person perceives as Art, another will see as pornography. We do need to be ever mindful that this could really offend someone, do we want to do that?

OPF is a mixed forum and I would like to think that the standards which have always been applied here will continue. It is after all an open forum, mixed sexes, ethnicities, cultures, and religions, which is what makes OPF such a good place to be, some members may be offended by this photograph, and that concerns me.

My personal opinion is that this shot is absolutely teetering on the edge of acceptability in a public forum, is this the way we want to go?

 

[Asher Kelman]

This is a real dilemma for me, your distinction between erotic art and pornography is a valid one. The dichotomy is where does one draw the distinction between the two? In some ways I like this shot, yet whilst saying that - I have concerns at female genitalia being so openly displayed on a public forum.......................

OPF is a mixed forum and I would like to think that the standards which have always been applied here will continue. It is after all an open forum, mixed sexes, ethnicities, cultures, and religions, which is what makes OPF such a good place to be, some members may be offended by this photograph, and that concerns me.

My personal opinion is that this shot is absolutely teetering on the edge of acceptability in a public forum, is this the way we want to go?

Hi Janet,

This forum is yours! I do not own your speech. I'm just a captain of a ship we built with maps we have to write together. So we'll get more opinion. We might move the original thread to this particular forum too.

Asher

 

[Michael Fontana]

L' origine du Monde by Gustave Courbet, dating 1866 and beeing in the"Musée d'Orsay", in Paris, now.

Meanwhile Kathy found some disrespect in Doug's photo, I didn't even reacted at the vulva at first sight, I looked rather at the seed and the face, the later could have a male side.
But then, I might lack something specific, beeing male.

Not beeing familiar with taking nudes within photography at all, I found it difficult, not ending up in endless censorship/political correctness-discussions full of bigotry.

Off course, a nude doesn't has to show a vulva, but I leave it to the model and the photographer to decide. And IMHO, a fora should allow it, as long it doesn't becomes pornography, which would brake the fora's rule.

 

[Michael Fontana]

Interseting sidenote:

reading more about l'origine du monde, Lacan had that Courbet-painting for a while, and asked Masson to paint a cover for it. So Masson made a landscape-painting wth the same lines....

I have to think also about M. Duchamp's Etant donées, beeing in Philadelphia at the K. Dreiers-Collection.

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Perspective

Funny, I was at the Musee d'orsay two weeks ago and saw that Courbet. To me, it was not done in a distasteful way. The angle of the image was such that it allowed for the woman's privacy. It was not disrespectful - the image just showed basically the pubic area - not the inner labia

The image in the other post, does not need to show her, with her head scarf, from my Western viewpoint, already being submissive, to showing her "private" area - a view that to me is not showing her any respect when there is no need to have that angle to view her - which is necessary to get the point of the image across.

While I am not an art scholar, I do view art frequently as an inspiration for my photography. Photography as a medium has the potential for more abuse to women based on it's accessibility to the masses. It is rare to find a graphic painting of women in an art museum, while on the corner newsstand will frequently have photos of women available in pornographic form.

From a personal standpoint of a female who has worked diligently for 30 years to see that women in the world are respected in all avenues of life, not abused or silently viewed as less than the males of the species, why is it necessary to include that in a piece where it is not necessary? If the image were of a woman, perhaps with a newly born child, it might make more sense. But in B&W that image of her vulva bears no relation to the seeds which look to me like coffee beans.

As photographers, we talk about not creating images of homeless people unless it has a real documentary use. Why do we not talk about being respectful of our female subjects? Do they not have the same needs? In my travel earlier this year, it was requested that we not photograph women in Morrocco - in full dress out of respect to them. Yet, would not that image have expressed the same message if her thighs did not highlight and frame her vulva? In a male, would full frontal nudity be shown? I have yet to see any nude males on the fora. Yet regularly, we photograph women in suggestive pose.

One of my personal issues is that I do frequently see females posed without clothing. In one recent series by an OPF member (not on OPF), I was morified to see a female posed, legs spread, nude, in a standing position with backdrops all wrinkled, her cellulite not processed - but her face and breasts were. It was strictly - in my opinion - for the photographer's own benefit to see this beautiful woman naked, like a trophy to show his fellow photographers.

All of this is a statement to me of what the photographic community's mores are at the moment. It has been banted about for generations. There is nothing wrong with depiction of a woman's beauty,, her nakedness or the art that we produce. But we don't we owe our subjects our best representation of them, that is respectful of what is private, no different than taking images on the street of the down and out and yet never knowing their name?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Kathy,

Your remarks are commendable and a must reading to start a discussion. However, there's much more to this. If women are not to be shown as trophies ever, then we have to re examine the whole nature of man and women from earliest times and see where artists have got it wrong.

Despite covering ourselves with a patina, we are still our biology. More than that is often hubris or a degree of self-delusion.

So, Kathy, even when really respect each other, there's still a set of meanings that will always be there. The concept of power and trophy is deeply written in our nature. The current image did not show a trophy, but rather a possibility and one I thought was, perhaps, unneeded. However much I support your protest, and you are fully justified, I think there is no bad intent in this current picture.

Still, I tread here carefully and so every comment we have here is highly valued.

Asher

 

[James Newman]

I guess that shows how non-observant I can be because until I started reading this thread, I did not even notice that in the photo. Honestly I saw it as the same scarf that you can see draping over her left leg. I spent most of my time looking at her face, eyes, hands, and the lighting. Her eyes are very captivating. I really liked the image when I first saw it but I am not sure if I really grasped the whole seed and fertility viewpoint from it. The scarf also did not necessarily bring anything to mind. My mother used to wear scarfs just like that back in the 60's in Texas. Could that be something dark or Freudian? Now that this item has been pointed out, I am no longer sure how I feel about the photo. When I go back and look at it now, after reading these posts, now that is all I see. Why is that? What causes that? Is it possible that C&C from so many different people can sway my own perception and change my feelings or thoughts about an image? Am I that easily led? I wish I had stayed out of this thread now. For what it's worth, I think I am about as male as one can be and even I don't see anything at all trophylike in this image. I do know what Kathy is talking about though...I think.
James Newman

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Trophies

Absolutely women should be adored. They can be trophies any time. They can and should be cherished. But that needs to be done with respect.

 

[Michael Fontana]

Funny, I was at the Musee d'orsay two weeks ago and saw that Courbet. To me, it was not done in a distasteful way. The angle of the image was such that it allowed for the woman's privacy. It was not disrespectful - the image just showed basically the pubic area - not the inner labia
......

Kathy

I respect your point of view, while it's not the mine:

pornographic or not - that's not a °technical° question like having hairs or not, thus covering the inner parth... or having the scarf over it, nor it's a question of taste (distasteful way?):

it's more a attitude, that could be expressed with a covered labia, without any problems, as well.

Personally, I don't find that attitude in Doug's image.

As long as we intend photography potentially to be art and agree not to censor art, there's really no big choice; I don't see a solution for that:

worst case in that discussion is someone taking himself as a authority or instance, on top of the others.

--------------

°don't hit the luggage and think to hit the donkey° as we say here, when taboo's are involved.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Most Recent Posts as a conversation, (reconstituted from backup)!

Kathy Rappaport responds:

Absolutely, I do not feel we should censor art either. But, I do think we have some kind of responsiblity to our subjects - regardless of them being male or female - to portray them as themselves with dignity and respect. Othewise it is not art - it is trash.

But my opinion stands that the piece is disrespectufl. The Courbet image is not.


Jack_Flesher adds:


I agree with Kathy (I think). When I first saw the image in question it didn't sit quite right with me. I'm not a prude, and I've shot nudes myself that show as much or "more" than than that image did. However, there is something about the pose itself that seems to go too far to me -- I suspect it is mostly because it looks compositionally forced specifically to reveal her vulva as the main point of interest... Anyway, IMO the image would have ten times more artistic value if the bottom end of the scarf was draped between her legs instead of over her left leg. In that situation, clearly her eyes would have become the center point and IMO they are the most captivating part of the image.

On the flip side, does this image cross the line from art to porn? I don't think it even comes close. I am reminded of a line from the movie "Chinatown." Jack Nicholson asks a judge what the definition of porn is, the judge says something like "I don't have one, but I know it when I see it."

My .02 only,


Mitch Alland remarks:

Absolutely women should be adored. They can be trophies any time. They can and should be cherished. But that needs to be done with respect.

What's that supposed mean? We can say all people should be cherished but that is a meaningless statement, as sometimes they are and sometimes they are not, for such is life. Should murderers also be cherished? Should, for example, OJ Simpson be cherished? I have real problems with this type of New Age pablum.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/


Kathy answers:

Mitch,

Maybe it's a cultural issue but my viewpoint is not new age. Maybe it's feminist - although I am far from a Gloriia Steinem feminist. Maybe because my background tells me that as a female, we can have it all.

We just aren't going to be on the same page. I respect your opinion to be different from mine.


James Newman offers a different perspective:

I would be curious to know what the model herself thought about the image. Afterall, she did see it and signed a release I presume? Was she offended by it? Did she feel like she was being exploited or taken advantage of? Was it demeaning or objectifying her as a woman to have that body part in view? Are we worried about her and her well being and what she felt about it or ourselves and how we feel about it personally?

Rachel, doesn't want to be left out of the action:

Ok, wading in here.....

I seem to be taking middle ground. I think the image is very well done and artistic....but I also fund the vulva unnecessary. I don't think it was left in simply for titillation purposes but I find it....also distasteful.

I think this may have a lot to do with sex differences in attitudes toward genitalia. Women still often grow up believing female genitalia are somehow "distasteful" is the only word I can think of. I'll see if I can find some scholarly references for this.


Kathy replies:

Rachel - As someone who spent years studying Psychology and family systems (Satir, Bowen and even Freud), yes that may be a true statement - that some women do feel that some parts of their bodies are distasteful because of religious mores but for the most part I think that has passed in the society in which we live. I think that attitude and thought is from the Madonna (not the one divorcing Guy Ritchie) and the thoughts of purtiy etc from the religious writings.

Rachel returns with references!

Unfortunately I don't have time to do this properly. The best quick and dirty reference I can find is here, where for example, it states "Men had more positive genital perceptions than women for both their own and their partners' genitals."

Similar results were reported here.

Oh, Kathy, it certainly is due to the cultural context! I could go on and on about that, but I don't want to turn this political. It is shaped by culture and in turn continues to shape attitudes and treatment of people. That is one reason it is so complex.

I'll stop now, but I think it has a lot to do with gender differences in attitude.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Let me share my responsibility. In OPF, we have created a community to help support, nurture and celebrate our passion for photography. We are especially interested in promoting creativity. Everyone is going to make their own goals and paths to them: creative and commercial.

It starts from each of us wishing to get work done in the best way possible. One component is expression of our hopefully original ideas into great pictures. So how fo we do this and what's O.K. to include? Sunsets, flowers, beautiful creatuire are always popular. Vulgarity is a turn-off and demeaning messages are not wanted. So how and what should be included here?

Beauty is much easier to deal with. It does not need a purpose to draw us in or to keep our admiration. The addition of praise to god in religious work, celebration of harvest, victories in battle or the plight of the man all can buttresses our interest in a photograph. So what about nudity?

Imagine seeing a beautiful person. One can admire him or her. How often have you felt that that we need more? Art is the same and so is photography. We also have filters. We tend to shun people with opposing tastes.

I'm hoping for openness to new ideas and that means tolerating parts of work and individual pictures which might seem off the wall or somewhat offensive. What I'm looking at is where the intent and power of offense is. There is no absolute measure of this but I will be wary of what we do and tolerate.

Your ideas, like the actions of seabirds for the fisherman and sailor, I'll watch for and try to relate that to our own needs and destination.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Personally, I find this discussion of immense value and hope to see more thought-provoking topics explored in such a honest, direct and yet (overall) respectful way.

Asher, you made me giggle with "not wanting to be left out of the action." Pornography to a women's studies prof (my secondary role) is like the proverbial red flag to a bull. (I'm studiously avoiding any psychoanalytic examinations of that metaphor, by the way.)

 

[doug anderson]

This is always a good discussion. I'm of two minds about it: there is some nude photography that is exploitive. However, it's not the element of desire that is the problem. In fact, much nude photography, in my opinion, is cold: it's form oriented and the model seems to be made out of stone. There is nothing wrong, and again, this is my opinion, in representing a woman or man to be physically desirable. I disagree with some feminists whose reaction to any form of representation of the female body in the same manner as might a religious extremist. There was a woman who, when asked to lecture at a university gallery somewhere in the south, demanded to have a Goya nude removed from the gallery because it made her feel sexually harassed.

Now, pornography, soft or hard, is a system of signs that is designed to provoke a certain kind of simple-minded male response. I don't find this sexy. It seems as if we are being told what to desire, are being presented with stimuli that is intended to provoke us to an impersonal kind of rutting, with no regard to individual humanity. I can understand women's reaction to this kind of representation: I agree with them.

I remember hearing a comment by a woman who wanted to make erotic films but did not like pornography. She said, "The problem with pornography is that is made by a bunch of mafiosi who went to Catholic school." That really struck a chord with me. The pornographer and the puritan are partners in the dance.

It remains for us, as artists, to find a way to represent nudes in a way which allows for human sexuality but does not reduce the model to a system of simple minded, exploitive signs. And that includes, if necessary, the representation of genitalia.

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Perfectly stated

Doug!

Perfectly stated - exactly how I feel about the subject. Thank you for your intelligent and eloquent statement

 

[Asher Kelman]

.........
It remains for us, as artists, to find a way to represent nudes in a way which allows for human sexuality but does not reduce the model to a system of simple minded, exploitive signs. And that includes, if necessary, the representation of genitalia.

It's as if, Doug, we have qualified ourselves as artists with the appropriate values, judgement and esthetics to do this!

Personally, I think it's more useful to accept we are almost always exploitative! When we admit that, we can then at least attempt to leave the least trail of oprobrobrium possible.

Asher

 

[doug anderson]

Asher: my quibble is with the word "exploit" which always assumes that we are taking advantage of someone by means of some crassly commercial method. Is there another word? Evoke? Isn't there always some visionary aspect of a good photography that causes us to look at something in a new way, as opposed to merely, mechanically, playing the same note over and over again. This doesn't mean it isn't sexy. When we think back on our lives the women we have known who were truly sexy had something about them that had nothing to do with the size of their body parts.

The preponderance of exploitive images has greatly expanded the cosmetic surgery business: women are barbifying themselves in order to fit the systems of signs that are supposed to represent female sexual beauty. I remember going to a gym in California where there were several women using treadmills. None of their body parts moved. It was scary. They had sculpted themselves into fetishes. And, of course, we now have men being "kenified."

Horkheimer, of the Frankfurt school, predicted in the thirties that the commodity fetish would finally become the human being him/herself.

D

 

[doug anderson]

An Afterthought

Asher: here's the word: celebrate.

D

 

[nicolas claris]

Asher: here's the word: celebrate.

D

why not simply: show ?

 

[doug anderson]

why not simply: show ?

Because you can "show" anything without saying anything about it. Witness illustrations in computer manuals. (yawn) The best photography rediscovers and transforms its subject. I think "celebrate" covers it.

D