Nude

[A.K. Nicholas]

Three images, combined in Photoshop. Some filter processing to homogenize the surface a bit.

A.K. Nicholas: "Nude Untitled"​

 

[Asher Kelman]

Three images, combined in Photoshop. Some filter processing to homogenize the surface a bit.

A.K. Nicholas: "Nude Untitled"​

A.K.,

The form of the overlay reminds us a little of the Vitruvian man once more. However, the upper part is more playful. I find that multiple exposure with film a tough challenge to get the density of each ghost image right. With digital work, it's far easier for us today as we can alter the contribution of each layer at will. So there are countless ways this idea can be executed.

Overall, I like the result. The two images in the b.g show her well enough in beautiful poses, but in good taste, merely slightly saucy because she switches positions. An alternative way, amongst the myriads of other possibilities, would be to have the central image shown in purity. So I'd mask out all contributions from the two lateral images in the center, but that's just my opinion.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Lookers please add your feedback!

Thanks

Asher

 

[Maris Rusis]

I didn't want to rush to judgement so I've come back to this image several times but I'm still nonplussed.

It is an eternal hazard for the critic that a perfectly creditable picture may be disliked because the critic and the picture-maker have no mental common ground.

Another hazard is that the critic is mistakenly looking for something that the original artist never included in the picture.

It could be that a critic is culturally imbued with values that identify good art and the picture on show offers alternative values. Truly innovative art is always mistrusted on first look.

Critics, especially ones who make pictures themselves, reject works that do not resemble what they would have done under the same circumstances.

Given all that I still cannot distill valid reasons for looking at this picture and I suspect there are several (see above) for choosing to look away.

 

[Asher Kelman]

"openness to new experience"

I didn't want to rush to judgement so I've come back to this image several times but I'm still nonplussed.

Maris,

You recognize conditions that beset us all in viewing works of art. We may notice the work, look at it but nothing moves us! I appreciate your insight as to how this comes about. You are right to point to our own limitations and not blame the artist when we are not impressed and taken by the work.

I agree that for anyone approaching a work of art new to them, cultural and educational background may be needed, whether or not there's a message engraved within or some purpose behind it.

Also it's true as you indicate that, if we are ourselves artists, we have ways of expression that we find not only efficient and evocative but also have some merit in the quality of the craft we use. This comes from a lot of our own training and also extensive experience with the work of others we respect and enjoy. That strong and well-earned creative discipline might indeed limit us in appreciating work that uses utterly different techniques, standards of workmanship, motifs and forms. These may even appear crude or hardly purposeful. So naturally we'll not become so readily drawn in and engaged in such, to us, at least, "odd" work.

However, being an artist, and not just a craftsman skilled at workmanship, we also have a well developed sense of "openness to new experience". We can then work to close the gap between us and the artist. If the latter him/herself, has an introduction to that work or if there's a capable curator, then getting something more out of the new work might become possible. That's why good museums spend a year or more curating their proposed new exhibits so that they can provide the proper background and education to allow the works to be appreciated and so move more than a few of us despite our limitations.

I have approached the challenge of this picture from the pragmatic reverse process of asking, "What would separate this from the ordinary and make me pay attention and want to own this?"

Asher

 

[A.K. Nicholas]

I didn't want to rush to judgement so I've come back to this image several times but I'm still nonplussed.

It is an eternal hazard for the critic that a perfectly creditable picture may be disliked because the critic and the picture-maker have no mental common ground.

Another hazard is that the critic is mistakenly looking for something that the original artist never included in the picture.

It could be that a critic is culturally imbued with values that identify good art and the picture on show offers alternative values. Truly innovative art is always mistrusted on first look.

Critics, especially ones who make pictures themselves, reject works that do not resemble what they would have done under the same circumstances.

Given all that I still cannot distill valid reasons for looking at this picture and I suspect there are several (see above) for choosing to look away.

Thanks for the erudite explanation of your opinions. The work above is a fairly simple exploration of a not-too ground breaking idea. It is also fairly symmetrical. There's not much of a story, just a visual exploration. The new images formed in the overlapping area are where the interest is for me. A less symmetrical montage that shows a progression through three or five overlapping states would be more captivating.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks for the erudite explanation of your opinions. The work above is a fairly simple exploration of a not-too ground breaking idea. It is also fairly symmetrical. There's not much of a story, just a visual exploration. The new images formed in the overlapping area are where the interest is for me. A less symmetrical montage that shows a progression through three or five overlapping states would be more captivating.

A.K. Nicholas: "Nude Untitled"​

A.K.,

The direction you have for exploring superimposed forms is a good one that will pay off. You do have beauty on your side! However it's not easy to have such visual studies work beyond the ordinary now that we already know the perfect Vesuvan. It would be wonderful if it really moved us but that's not necessary. It has to just move you and erupt within you the feelings you intend.

We'll all benefit and enjoy further work.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

It doesn't speak to me but I do like the creative approach.

 

[Charlotte Thompson]

A.K.

I really love how this is done. Creative for sure. But more for me it has such a metaphor inside the original art
I find a heart shape movement in center of the female
while the two sides of her struggle to be the whole center of self- aa wonderful expression of "female"
I think it's beautiful. Just the photography alone stands out!

Charlotte-

 

[Bob Rogers]

I think it's a great idea, and that perfect execution would make a really stunning photograph.

What I see the potential for is the forms on the left and the right illuminating the form in the middle.

But it's not quite doing that. Almost, but not exactly.

Please do another.

 

[Nigel Allan]

I think it's a great idea, and that perfect execution would make a really stunning photograph.

What I see the potential for is the forms on the left and the right illuminating the form in the middle.

But it's not quite doing that. Almost, but not exactly.

Please do another.

I to some extent agree with Bob here, and yet...I am still on the fence

I think the idea is clever and I guess there will be certain executions of it where I go "Wow, amazing" based upon the skill and the execution, as I might with an advertising billboard which uses clever techniques.

Yet I can't help thinking that in some other ways I am left feeling a little empty because IMHO it is all about execution, as a good advertising photographer would achieve, which is not how I go about my photography, so to paraphrase Maris I suppose I am not equipped to judge something which is outside my own narrow world because that's not I would do....having said that I might now try since it has possibilities...ha ha....plagiarism is a sincere form of flattery if unspoken .

Another source of puzzlement to me is my own reaction to 'artistic nudes' in general and this might be a discussion for elsewhere:

I can't help thinking that as a red-blooded male my response to nude portraiture is heavily influenced by whether I find the girl attractive. Can I see and judge a nude in isolation detaching my degree of attractedness? I am not sure I can if I am honest. Would I find a well studied nude portrait equally appealing if the girl was wholly unattractive to me?...hmmmm food for thought

 

[A.K. Nicholas]

... heavily influenced by whether I find the girl attractive...

I would guess that you, like many, would be more broad minded than you give yourself credit for. For many, it is a question of whether you find the subject interesting. Interest could be based on attraction, but it could be other factors.

 

[Nigel Allan]

I would guess that you, like many, would be more broad minded than you give yourself credit for. For many, it is a question of whether you find the subject interesting. Interest could be based on attraction, but it could be other factors.

I am probably more broadminded than anyone I know, but I was just questioning whether I could separate my sexual attraction towards someone and view such a photo totally dispassionately.

Interesting is an interesting word!

I would like someone to take several tasteful, well composed yet slightly revealing nude studies of both a sexy beautiful girl and the exact same studies (compositions, poses, lighting, etc ) of an ugly woman and see if they generate the same response for being 'interesting'. I am not sure I know the answer.