Art nudes: Are we showing pictures in bad taste?

[Asher Kelman]

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.

Both good points! However we always exploit too, sometimes positively and sometimes with licentious thrust. It's perhaps best to admit that this work is risky in that it can so easily be offensive.

I don't want to claim noble purpose, since we delude ourselves. We favor our own sets of permissions and then condemn others for no logical reason. We tend to allow and foster alcohol and look down on weed although both are mind numbing and remove higher levels of control. Viagra, Cialis and the "Wonder Bra" are O/K. to show on TV any time but Janet Jackson's aging breast is immoral and Broadcasters get sanctioned and fined heavilly! Go figure!

Here I'd like us to express our values and even then allow some departure from political correctness, otherwise we stifle creative expression. So setting lines of appropriateness will always be tough. Still, that's the water we choose to swim in when we invade privacy or question boundaries in any way.

The art/photography/expression/challenge has to be good and that means they each need life, worth and legs for a longer journey than a moment's titillation.

Asher

 

[doug anderson]

Both good points! However we always exploit too, sometimes positively and sometimes with licentious thrust. It's perhaps best to admit that this work is risky in that it can so easily be offensive.

I don't want to claim noble purpose, since we delude ourselves. We favor our own sets of permissions and then condemn others for no logical reason. We tend to allow and foster alcohol and look down on weed although both are mind numbing and remove higher levels of control. Viagra, Cialis and the "Wonder Bra" are O/K. to show on TV any time but Janet Jackson's aging breast is immoral and Broadcasters get sanctioned and fined heavilly! Go figure!

Here I'd like us to express our values and even then allow some departure from political correctness, otherwise we stifle creative expression. So setting lines of appropriateness will always be tough. Still, that's the water we choose to swim in when we invade privacy or question boundaries in any way.

The art/photography/expression/challenge has to be good and that means it need life, worth and legs for a longer journey than a moment's titillation.

Asher

The famous "wardrobe malfunction" with the big Viagra sign on the wall is a prime example of hypocrisy.

I'm not trying to take the high ground, just find a language that tells us what we are doing.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Where..Where can I see the subject of this mother of all controversies? Please!

 

[nicolas claris]

Where..Where can I see the subject of this mother of all controversies? Please!

Hi Fahim

Here

A controversial subject…

 

[Marcel Walker]

Can I tell you how many women not only abhor a simple visit to the OB, but avoid it as well? To have a woman’s vulva photographed and displayed is something that is so personal and intimate it’s no wonder that it will feel “degrading” to a number of people no matter how artistically it is done. Putting sexism, pornography, and culture mores aside, there are a number of other reasons why an image such as Doug’s may be offensive.

First, while some people may be able to say, "It's just a body part". Please, let’s not kid ourselves. It's not like a beautiful pair of eyes. You don't go to parties and people say, "Wow, you should see my wife's vulva!!! Mary come show Fred your vulva". Can you imagine a woman opening stripping and spreading her legs for a group of people? While, it may happen somewhere, it's certainly far outside the norm. The depiction of the vulva is explicit in nature. Frankly, there is no male part that corresponds with this part of a woman in my mind.

Furthermore, unlike breasts or other body parts, the depiction of a vulva implies not just intimacy and consent, but also penetration. Crude as that may sound, statistics report that as many in one in four women will be sexually molested in their lives. So while some be able to look at this image as see “divinity” others will see look at this image and see “violation”. To say "it' should be considered just art" is to belittle the experience of millions of women. Whatever your personal response may have to the image, we cannot disregard those who have been offended (for whatever reason)without demonstrating a measure of callousness and ignorance as well.

We also can not afford disregard those who found beauty in Doug's image. For each of us, what is or is not art varies. I doubt that Doug knew what a discussion his posting would generate and I certainly hope that he doesn’t feel dissuaded from continuing to share his work. Let us not forget that one of the purposes of art is to challenge.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Brilliant analysis, Marcel! Damn, you pinpointed and articulated it far better than I ever dreamed of doing!

 

[John Angulat]

Hi Marcel,
I don't know if it was your specific intention, but thank you for putting your thoughts on this subject in words men (at least myself) can have empathy with. A number of women have commented on this post over time, and all the opinions have been accurate, thoughtful and truthful. However...your post opened my mind.
Thank you.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Can I tell you how many women not only abhor a simple visit to the OB, but avoid it as well?

I understand that Marcel, but that is an end result not an a priori property of the reproductive tract.

There are a good reasons for privacy, not in the least is the major investment a woman has on one child in her body and only one at a time. Who gets to be the father is of paramount importance to each woman's life and the future of humanity. So reproductive access to a particular woman cannot be made trivial without harming her.

Still, who controls that access is important. Is it the woman herself or is it society? This is a fundamental issue in all societies. So is it surprising that this entrance to the future should be shrouded in such secrecy and mystery? But then, this rare access that sets the stage for revelation. That's what art might do at times. It sets ideas in new universes so we might re-examine out attitudes to things we thought we were certain about.

I personally have found little to admire of the male or female genitals. That's just my reaction. The high cheek bone and shadowed curve of the thigh is much more interesting and attractive, to me at least. Still, I've seen very creative work. A woman makes cloth artwork celebrating the vulva. I just received a notice of todays LA Photo Show, Photo LA, with a link to work by Judy Fox where the female parts have been made essential structures for large inventions simulating organic forms and even people. The male is also photographed but in a very feminine way. Artists might claim that such work increases respect and care for women. Go figure! Certainly the work is technically impressive. I will reserve by feelings until I've seen the works.

For me, I ask "Is it really inescapably obscene and demeaning?" I then find it always hard to be the judge, jury and executioner of other people's artwork. However, We all have values. I have on occasions asked for pictures to be withdrawn. Two of three were of underage girls, all dressed but with a flaw that made children vulnerable, just perhaps. There, we have zero tolerance. So we are stuck with my imperfect judgement. Don't give up on me! I'm always open to be better educated.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Asher, your decision to leave the image sparked this wonderful discussion. Kudos, my friend, not scolds to you!

 

[fahim mohammed]

The controversy over this made me curious to see what it was all about.

I, personally, consider this sort of image not my liking..it is demeaning to the sanctity of women. Some have mentioned that the vehicle of procreation and its ' artistic' depiction as acceptable. I do not.

I might sound an old fart..so be it.

If some get their kicks with such 'art' let them enjoy it. I shall look elsewhere for artistic creativity.

 

[Asher Kelman]

The controversy over this made me curious to see what it was all about.

I, personally, consider this sort of image not my liking..it is demeaning to the sanctity of women. Some have mentioned that the vehicle of procreation and its ' artistic' depiction as acceptable. I do not.

That is agreeable.

If some get their kicks with such 'art' let them enjoy it. I shall look elsewhere for artistic creativity.

Still, we don't wanting to be offending people. Is that forum totally offensive or is it just the one picture?

Asher