• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Seminal

Doug Earle

New member
For some time now I've been working on the concept of the Divine Feminine and fertility/fecundity, experimenting with the use of seeds, plants and vegetables as props. I'm satisfied yet with my results, so thought I'd post an example and get some suggestions/critique/feedback/directions--anything besides "beautiful model" (wink).

Seeds_1457-BW.jpg
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
For some time now I've been working on the concept of the Divine Feminine and fertility/fecundity, experimenting with the use of seeds, plants and vegetables as props. I'm satisfied yet with my results, so thought I'd post an example and get some suggestions/critique/feedback/directions--anything besides "beautiful model" (wink).
Doug,

I like the idea and the general design. The connection between fertility and eroticism is ancient. The heathen godess Astarte celebrated this. Although I do have some criticism, I like the work you have done, so match what I've put below against the overall impression.

So, I do have issues:

  • The seeds extend into the foreground and we do not get around them. This pulls the eye away from the model to nowhere.

  • Next I find the showing of the genitals not offensive but perhaps not needed. I'm, not sure we get fertility from genitals shown like this. Would it be less powerful with this not present?

  • I wonder about the scarf. Today, with a great sense of political correctness, the image might be misinterpreted. I don't know if the question is fair, however it is out there, whether we lke it or not.

  • The loop of hair on her left cheek is unusual as it seems to come from nowhere! Is it a composite with this portion of hair added to the picture? It does not seem to obey gravity nor have any origin above it. I'm sure it's important to the image but could you tell us about it. It could be just the lighting I'm misinterpeting and then that's that!

Are there variants of this composition that address my questions?

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Coming back to this, I think this is an excellent photograph. I hope it can be seen as art and does not cause any offense.
 

Doug Earle

New member
Asher:
thanks for the comments. I'll begin with the easiest to answer: The hair seemed to have a mind of its own. we'd move it under the scarf and just before I'd take the shot it would fall back. Happened several times and as this was near the end of a long session and we were tired, decided simply to call it quits.

For some reason the scarf was working for the model. The other photos without it lacked energy. I get it about the political correctness and if I reshoot will use something from another culture.

The genitals are a problem. I have some other poses where they aren't showing but they don't work for other reasons. I, too, think it might be more powerful were they not displayed.

Finally, I hadn't noticed the effect of the seeds until you mentioned it. I'll think about how to do that diffrently in the future.
 

Mitch Alland

Moderator
For me this picture, while technically accomplished, doesn't work. Without the title I don't see it saying either fertility or the divine feminine. Perhaps the main problem I have with it is that it tries to work too conceptually and not enough through form. For example, if you hadn't said these were seeds I would take them as pebbles and would start thinking about the beach. The headscarf is also a problem in this respect, not for for the reason Asher states, but it's plain distracting. This may be just my taste, but I would prefer something not so staged and, hence, cold, to depict fertility, with the risk of pretentiousness.

Having written the foregoing, which I hope you don't read as being overly negative — we're really talking about matters of taste — I am at a loss in trying to formulate how I would make a picture to depict fertility, but all I can say is that I would try to do this from real life as opposed to a setup, maybe because I don't see how staging this can fail to be pretentious. I suppose that I also think that setting up a naked model with seeds becomes too simplistic. Therefore, my conclusion is that, for this subject it would be better to go with something natural rather than something staged. Basically, I think this needs a completely different approach and direction. Unless you can prove me wrong with another set up picture.

Much tighter framing could also help — I am thinking about coming in very close, cutting off all or most of the head, as we don't need to see a face or eyes for this, and showing the breasts and pubis. I would make it much more graphic in terms of emphasizing the form. Yes, that's the direction I would go in, perhaps along the lines of some of Ralph Gibson's nudes, but accentuating the fertility aspect by using a suitable model and through the tight framing.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/sets/72157594271568487/show/
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Mitch,

Your critique is well thought out and most helpful. I can agree with some of your points. However,

For me this picture, while technically accomplished, doesn't work.
it does! The picture must be experienced with it's exceptional title and objections. Art is ideas transformed to physicality to move our senses and evoke our imaginations. Here we have an idea and associated religious, erotic and social imperatives posed in one form. The artists intent is clearly perceived. Discussion is generated. The picture cannot be dismissed. It actually works!

Without the title I don't see it saying either fertility or the divine feminine.
Neither would we immediately understand a picture with a circle, dots and a rod as indicating the same subject. However, with a title, perhaps. Titles are sometimes as much part of the art's performance as the physics of the work itself.

Perhaps the main problem I have with it is that it tries to work too conceptually and not enough through form.
Mitch,

This is a difficult point since it points to the style and imagination of the artist. How things are translated from inside the head to a form we can experience together is particular to each creative artist/photographer.

For example, if you hadn't said these were seeds I would take them as pebbles and would start thinking about the beach.
Here you are correct. I thought they were pebbles too! Having them extend beyond the foreground, further gave the idea of a beach. Seeds placed as an offering for fertility would be localized and limited.

The headscarf is also a problem in this respect, not for for the reason Asher states, but it's plain distracting. This may be just my taste, but I would prefer something not so staged and, hence, cold, to depict fertility, with the risk of pretentiousness.
Actually, Mitch, this one point nearly made me move the thread. It's the showing of a headscarf which concerns me. However, it's a matter of speech. I do not want us to offend all the wonderful and pious Muslim women who have protested for the right to wear a headscarf. I also am aware that to others this very same scarf might symbolize a need for women to be more valued and respected and not exploited through lack of education and status. So if this photograph transgressed, it also makes us think about real issues.

I am at a loss in trying to formulate how I would make a picture to depict fertility, but all I can say is that I would try to do this from real life as opposed to a setup, maybe because I don't see how staging this can fail to be pretentious.
Mitch,

You're preference for real life subjects is obvious from your extensive work with street photography in Bangkok. But here, the picture is not meant to look natural. There's no need for this. We see a nude woman with symbols and a title, which together, grab attention. This itself doesn't make it art or successful. However, it's IMHO, an accepted choice.

Much tighter framing could also help — I am thinking about coming in very close, cutting off all or most of the head, as we don't need to see a face or eyes for this, and showing the breasts and pubis. I would make it much more graphic in terms of emphasizing the form. Yes, that's the direction I would go in, perhaps along the lines of some of Ralph Gibson's nudes, but accentuating the fertility aspect by using a suitable model and through the tight framing.
Here I just would have to wonder. I'll revisit Ralph Gibson and see how that might work.
 

Emile Kelman

New member
For some time now I've been working on the concept of the Divine Feminine and fertility/fecundity, experimenting with the use of seeds, plants and vegetables as props. I'm satisfied yet with my results, so thought I'd post an example and get some suggestions/critique/feedback/directions--anything besides "beautiful model" (wink).

Seeds_1457-BW.jpg

Hello Doug,

Emile Kelman here, Asher Kelman's son. I enjoyed your image. Here is a brief analysis with respect to visual imagery and form, only. I'll leave the concept review to my father.

Very nice simple imagery, clean and focussed. The essence of the image is the subject's form, the wonderful look of offering in her face, and the clean lines.

Here's what, in my humble opinion, might help drive the image some more. The image loses power with the clear view of the subject's genitals. This might be fixed by having the subject A. move her right leg to COVER or B. place to hands with seeds to COVER. You can try this by covering the area somehow (perhaps in photoshop) and see that the image gains power by removing this distraction.

Also, the seeds scattered on the floor: you might want to consider A. removing them all or B. completely covering the entire floor with seeds. Try both in photoshop and see what happens. This will also add power to the essence of the image.

Good luck,

Emile
 

Doug Earle

New member
Emile:
thanks. I've been conflicted about this image myself but couldn't quite figure out totally why. Your critique and that of Mitch, as well as your dad's have been very helpful. I'm going to leave this up a day or two more, see if it generates more discussion,then remove the image. I don't want to risk causing controversy for the obvious reasons stated.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Emile:
thanks. I've been conflicted about this image myself but couldn't quite figure out totally why. Your critique and that of Mitch, as well as your dad's have been very helpful. I'm going to leave this up a day or two more, see if it generates more discussion,then remove the image. I don't want to risk causing controversy for the obvious reasons stated.
Hi Doug,

the idea of feedback is that we get orientated as to how our pictures might be read by others. Then one has to compare this against one's core ideas for this work.

Asher

Re leaving or removing an image, once people have invested substantial time and thought, we don't remove images or else people's efforts are respected. When no one has replied, there's no loss. Our job is to make that decision early on. When I looked at your work, my reply speaks for itself and the picture was welcomed. Therefore it stays. No one has contacted me to say they are offended anyway. Art is art and we must not over regulate or there will be no ideas to get wrapped up in creative expression.
 

Emile Kelman

New member
Emile:
thanks. I've been conflicted about this image myself but couldn't quite figure out totally why. Your critique and that of Mitch, as well as your dad's have been very helpful. I'm going to leave this up a day or two more, see if it generates more discussion,then remove the image. I don't want to risk causing controversy for the obvious reasons stated.

Doug,

Do you have any other shots from this shoot, that might be a little more discreet? I would think that you must have taken other version of this, with her covered. I'm sure you have something else in that shoot that might work.

Emile
 

Mitch Alland

Moderator
...Actually, Mitch, this one point nearly made me move the thread. It's the showing of a headscarf which concerns me. However, it's a matter of speech. I do not want us to offend all the wonderful and pious Muslim women who have protested for the right to wear a headscarf. I also am aware that to others this very same scarf might symbolize a need for women to be more valued and respected and not exploited through lack of education and status. So if this photograph transgressed, it also makes us think about real issues....
That would have been going too far. It is, after all, only a scarf and obviously was not intended as a religious reference or connotation by the photographer or the model. Many — I would think most — people would not read religion or politics into this.


You're preference for real life subjects is obvious from your extensive work with street photography in Bangkok. But here, the picture is not meant to look natural. There's no need for this. We see a nude woman with symbols and a title, which together, grab attention. This itself doesn't make it art or successful. However, it's IMHO, an accepted choice.
You're right, I was not writing carefully or precisely enough. All I meant is that this would be more powerful if it were not so obviously staged. Unfortunately, we cannot upload attachments but what I wanted to show can be easily visualized: I cropped this picture heavily, from just below the eyebrows at the top to the middle of the genitals at the bottom and from the middle of the arm on the left to a bit inside the shoulder on the right and increased the contrast substantially, until the right eye can barely be distinguished. The result, to me, is a powerful photograph that doesn't require a title to have meaning — and is along the lines of the Ralph Gibson nudes that I was referring to. If you like I can email you the cropped version if you have a way of posting it here.

Incidentally, I have always found it difficult to make nude pictures without cropping substantially.

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

Doug Earle

New member
Mitch:
Thanks for the critique and I didn't take it as overly negative. This is work in progress and I'm not satisfied with it either, but needed feedback to help me tune my focus. The one thing I'd say is that while Gibson's work might be one way to take this, his work has, for me, a certain lack of "personness" and intentional connection between subject and viewer. I see both personness and connection as being essential to the divine, so the question becomes, how to convey it.

You may be right about context, as well as shape and form, so perhaps moving out of the studio into other space will prove the way to go. Although, the work of Flor Garduno does manage to convey this while working in studio.

Doug
 

Mitch Alland

Moderator
Doug, I don't think it's necessary to move out of the studio for these nudes. But I wonder what your reaction is to the type of tight crop that I suggested above? It seems that if you want me to post an attachment showing the crop, you need to enable that for this thread, although I don't know how that is done.

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

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
You may be right about context, as well as shape and form, so perhaps moving out of the studio into other space will prove the way to go. Although, the work of Flor Garduno does manage to convey this while working in studio.
Doug,

I'm not sure I agree. You set this as a studio shoot. You're on the right track. You just have to review what you intended, how your original idea has been fed by what your reactions to your work product. This leads to a new updated concept and intent.

When you can keep the main line on track and are going to the same destination, you can continue to make progress. Doing something spontaneous would fit in with Mitch's sensibility, but is this yours at this time for this project? Your job is to execute your own vision. Now if going spontaneous is what you are now after, then you'll likely have major set of new esthetic and organizational challenges to meet.

For this reason, if you still have the same ideas, I suggest working more here with the other pictures from the same shoot before changing things too much. After all, you have got a fair start with a good idea and agreeable model!

Asher
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Female point of view

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

Moderator
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

pro member
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

Well-known member
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

Moderator
...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

pro member
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.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So we have a new topic which has gained considerable interest. This is in just 6 posts and will make the start of a new topic.

So posts 15-17 and 19-21 have been copied to a separate thread devoted to discussion of exposing women in a disrespectful manner. Shortly, these posts will be then removed from this thread as all further discussion on the new, but valid new topic should be here in the new thread.

Here we should discuss ONLY details of the artwork itself as far as possible but don't let it limit your style.

Asher
 

Mitch Alland

Moderator
Asher, I'm not at all happy about the partial transfer of the discussion here to a new thread with what I view as a ridiculous title in a section called "Provocative thoughts". I responded on that issue only in the context of the discussion in this thread and on this picture and would not have posted in a thread on the new subject — I wouldn't even have read a thread with the title of the new one. I don't think people's postings should be duplicated in a new thread on another subject with a deliberatively provocative title. This leaves a bad taste.

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

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher, I'm not at all happy about the partial transfer of the discussion here to a new thread with what I view as a ridiculous title in a section called "Provocative thoughts". I responded on that issue only in the context of the discussion in this thread and on this picture and would not have posted in a thread on the new subject — I wouldn't even have read a thread with the title of the new one. I don't think people's postings should be duplicated in a new thread on another subject with a deliberatively provocative title. This leaves a bad taste.

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

The title is not meant to be provocative. I will gladly change it to something better that works! For now its, "Art nudes: Are we showing pictures in bad taste?" I hope that's better!

As far as splitting threads is concerned, we generally protect the original intent of the photographer. Imagine a discussion on Bangkok getting totally diverted to discussion of the wages of service workers supporting the tourist industry! We'd simply remove those posts and point to the new location. Mitch, rightly or wrongly, that's what we have been doing all along in OPF.

Meanwhile, please look and see, all the post that were reproduced in the new thread, are still here. We just want this area to be ffor direct discussion of the photograph, The valid discussion on what should one include in an art nude, we'd prefer continued here

Asher
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
For some time now I've been working on the concept of the Divine Feminine and fertility/fecundity, experimenting with the use of seeds, plants and vegetables as props. I'm satisfied yet with my results, so thought I'd post an example and get some suggestions/critique/feedback/directions--anything besides "beautiful model" (wink).

Seeds_1457-BW.jpg
Now that we've had this picture a while and discussed the stregth of different components, I realize that this photograph works effectively to get our attention, pull us in to the idea and stir up an array of reactions from beautty and fertility to even, for a few, at least, exploitation and resentment. Taken as a whole, this picture then works as art. I, even now. must concede that the display is not gratuitous but is obviously purposeful. That the model and photographer sought to show the vulva is then part of the design and that intent joins all the myriad of other decisons made along the way in formulating this image.

On careful deliberation, I see no insult or denigration of women here and I do like the photograph. Emile's suggested simplifications of having eitherno scattered seeds on the ground or all the ground covered with seeds are, IMHO, really worthy of trying. Also, as he suggests, lowering the hands would for sure obviate the necessity for the extra display.

Having said that, we can we tell tell the photpographer "You cannot show genitals". If it appears merely out of taste, the image will survive, as best it can, in "Controversial Discussion and Images".

Asher
 

John Angulat

pro member
Hi Mitch,
As a relative newcomer myself, I initially questioned the logic for separating certain threads. I too felt they should remain intact. I learned over time that certain posts generate a great degree of discussion. In those cases the comments sometimes depart from the thread's original intent (such as a critique of the image itself). The moderators then may choose to begin a new topic where the opinions run free. I believe this is fair to the originator of the post. Their work, and associated comments, remain separate from arguments, opinion and such.
I believe a good example of this is what recently happened to me. I had posted a number of images of NYC's homeless people. The posts were not intended to arouse a discussion upon the "political correctness" of photographing the disadvantaged. However, the thread took that direction. Cem elected to begin a new thread where the debate could, and did rage on (I took a pretty good lumping there, by the way). In any event, I believe what he did was good and what he did was correct as a moderator.
 

Gayla Coughlin

New member
Doug,


[*]I wonder about the scarf. Today, with a great sense of political correctness, the image might be misinterpreted. I don't know if the question is fair, however it is out there, whether we lke it or not.

Women in all cultures wear headscarves, it is only the dark nationality of the model that brings to mind a muslim origin, and should not be a focus of concern. I personally find the scarf an attractive addition, perhaps pinning the hair in loops underneath to give a frame to the face can add to the seductiveness (goddess) of the image.

Personally, I find the image attractive, yet the exposure of the genitalia is far too obvious in the pose. Exposing the vulva in its entirety can be accomplished with taste by trying a more "natural" pose (natural as you can get in a staged photo!). A partial draping of the vulva from the scarf would lead the eyes over the image to the points you wish to express.

Perhaps a slight tilt of the head/soft smile to hint a more suggesting attitude can help, too. Overall, an excellent image, far from vulgar or pornographic, and quite tasteful in my opinion.

Gayla.
 

Leonardo Boher

pro member
I personally found it too lit. The idea is cool, and her pose is nice... Maybe her facial gesture should express somehting. It's too neutral, like the light. The seeds out of the frame draws some chaos there.

I agree with most critiques here. However, I think the seeds doesn't grab the attention, in fact, they draws a trayectory that ends on her face: seeds -> hands -> knee -> face. Actually, I saw her sex after looking at the pic for some minutes...
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I personally found it too lit. The idea is cool, and her pose is nice... Maybe her facial gesture should express somehting. It's too neutral, like the light. The seeds out of the frame draws some chaos there.

I agree with most critiques here. However, I think the seeds doesn't grab the attention, in fact, they draws a trayectory that ends on her face: seeds -> hands -> knee -> face. Actually, I saw her sex after looking at the pic for some minutes...
Leonardo,

Return in a week to this picture!

Any objections I might have had about the exposure are gone. This picture has sort of grown on me and the seeds do work now. So I guess the art as it "was" recruited the ideas of the folks here and what the picture "is" now functions dynamically with all that and now, the ideas having matured, the picture has more movement, balance and energy.

Asher
 
Last edited:
Top