Your views on photographing art nudes: Art or exploitative titillation?

[Asher Kelman]

We have recently seen complaints about pictures posted as art where the subject is a woman nude. In this particular case of frontal nudity, it's of a model, an artist herself, who is paid for her collaborative effort. She represents the pose, gestures and ideas that the photographer requests of her.

Even if one pays, is this then, not exploitative. What makes such an endeavor an affront or in bad taste.

What allows the work to be elevated to the category of art?

Asher

 

[Michael Nagel]

It is and remains a difficult subject. One might consider the work of Robert Mapplethorpe, which is quite controversially discussed.

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Asher Kelman]

It is and remains a difficult subject. One might consider the work of Robert Mapplethorpe, which is quite controversially discussed.

Best regards,
Michael

Michael, this reference is instructive.

Maplethorpe did beautiful and sensitive work and attempted to move boundaries. The problem arises with the rest of us when there's a disconnect between what is done in private and the external attitudes folk hold on to of displaying to the world conservative values, ( so connecting with religious upbringing). However the latter is too often just a superficial veneer to hide their true feelings and interests.

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

Michael, this reference is instructive.

However the latter is too often just a superficial veneer to hide their true feelings and interests.

Asher

Goes both ways, Oh Virtuous One.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Goes both ways, Oh Virtuous One.

I never claimed to be virtuous, however I do try to be generous!

 

[Asher Kelman]

Obviously, there may be men with cameras who are only doing photography of undressed females to satisfy curiosity and crossing over to exploitation. So questioning is not inappropriate!

Some have relationships with models. Every year a model is found missing or worse. These are the bad side of things. However, we are not about to ban kitchen knives on account of domestic violence that unfortunately occurs rarely but enough to shock us.

Still, my experience knowing at least over 20 photographers who photograph nudes, that the relationship is professional and collaborative. I am proud that women I have photographed in the past, call to find out how I am and my family.

I know they give their best to support my own work. I hope to deliver art that makes this all worthy of the effort. But each relationship is going to be different as this is self-selected human behavior and complex.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

Obviously, there may be men with cameras who are only doing photography of undressed females to satisfy curiosity

Really? Curiosity? Quick, we should answer whatever questions they may have and that will solve the problem!


I am obviously joking (as I was when I posted a picture of "a young tit" because of the double entendre) and I find that this discussion is unlikely to bring us anywhere. It is unlikely that members of this forum are abusing models at knife point and if any of us is, it is even more unlikely that he (or she, some women are equally abusive) would admit so in public. Besides, the whole discussion started about a particular picture of a woman in a window but the real criticism was not that the photograph abused the model, but that the pose appeared contrived for no particular reason.

This being said, if you want this discussion to be serious, I can easily find and post photographs which will make you regret having started the discussion. Museums are full of them. We have had this discussion before.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Really? Curiosity? Quick, we should answer whatever questions they may have and that will solve the problem!


I am obviously joking (as I was when I posted a picture of "a young tit" because of the double entendre) and I find that this discussion is unlikely to bring us anywhere. It is unlikely that members of this forum are abusing models at knife point and if any of us is, it is even more unlikely that he (or she, some women are equally abusive) would admit so in public. Besides, the whole discussion started about a particular picture of a woman in a window but the real criticism was not that the photograph abused the model, but that the pose appeared contrived for no particular reason.

This being said, if you want this discussion to be serious, I can easily find and post photographs which will make you regret having started the discussion. Museums are full of them. We have had this discussion before.

You have a good memory. It's an important subject and worth revisiting when there are new challenges, as now.

From my perspective, I want folk who do photograph nudes for art to be able to post for collegial review without have non-specific moral objections based on that posters particular value set and not for the purpose of reporting something that simply does not belong in our forum.

Frankly, I would like posting of art nudes to be "protected" as long as the TOS are followed. That's why I started this particular thread - it allows those who suspect baser motives, (or which to challenge the entire concept of female nudes in art), to have a space to argue for their point of view with everyone present to put in their $0.02!

But perhaps, Jerome, I should just let folk do whatever they want in response to posted nude art and not aim to be protective of pictures that raise such questions. Perhaps I am too controlling. But it does annoy me when a nude picture is held to account for the assumption that it exploits women!

Asher

 

[Maris Rusis]

Art or exploitative titillation? Well, I'd say certainly art. Whether it is good art or bad art is another question.

As for exploitation, I've encountered suggestions by models that they claim usage rights of the photographs I may take of them. This on the basis that I'm a factotum with a camera and they are performance artists using their bodies as the instrument of their art. And some of them suggest expressive and sometimes incongruous (to my eye) poses which I imagine are intended to convey their artistic message. That artistic message may well be about the power of the titillator over the titillated.

I'm somewhat jealous about the integrity of my photographs and I mostly use model releases when photographing nudes. This is not so much about the usage of the photographs but to assert possession. Even though she may be a performance artist the photographs must be my art, my authorship, and my copyright. I won't start a shoot unless the division of credit is sorted out. Actual payment for effort and time tends to be a good and fair way to seal this artistic bargain.

 

[Maggie Terlecki]

I did not find the photo in the window frame at all objective to me. Actually, her alabaster skin and very tight body did not appear in the least bit sexy, sensual or seductive. Not sure what the fuss is about. Although she is beautiful, the image didn't feel like a beautiful woman; more like an object placed in the window framing. I had not posted on the image because I wasn't sure if I liked it or not. There were framing issues with the hand along the top edge where it is partially cut off.

I know some people think that a breast or penis, etc., shouldn't be shown but anything can be sexy, a woman's beautiful neck, for instance, or a great pair of hands on a man. Besides, I don't think there is a rule that art is not allowed to titillate, is there?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Art or exploitative titillation? Well, I'd say certainly art. Whether it is good art or bad art is another question.

As for exploitation, I've encountered suggestions by models that they claim usage rights of the photographs I may take of them. This on the basis that I'm a factotum with a camera and they are performance artists using their bodies as the instrument of their art. And some of them suggest expressive and sometimes incongruous (to my eye) poses which I imagine are intended to convey their artistic message. That artistic message may well be about the power of the titillator over the titillated.

I'm somewhat jealous about the integrity of my photographs and I mostly use model releases when photographing nudes. This is not so much about the usage of the photographs but to assert possession. Even though she may be a performance artist the photographs must be my art, my authorship, and my copyright. I won't start a shoot unless the division of credit is sorted out. Actual payment for effort and time tends to be a good and fair way to seal this artistic bargain.

You make a good point, Maris about "credit" and "ownership" of rights. I have made the mistake of trusting the organisor of a shoot only to find that the brand wanted copyright ownership of the pictures. So they ended up with nothing. I did a test photograph of a model who insisted on large percentage of any sale. So I paid her more than she asked for and decided not to use any pictures! She begged to be able to work for me without such conditions as the liked my photography, but to me it was a closed matter. If a person isn't happy from their heart, I don't care what the financials are. It is just not good karma for photography.

However, I did come to the idea that a great collaborator could receive a 7% gratuity from my sale as a gift of appreciation but without altering the copyright or ownership or publication rights of choice or refusal.

Asher

 

[Dave Butcher]

We have recently seen complaints about pictures posted as art where the subject is a woman nude. In ]this[/U] particular case, it's of a model, an artist herself, who is paid for her collaborative effort. She represents the pose, gestures and ideas that the photographer requests of her.

Even if one pays, is this then, not exploitative. What makes such an endeavor an affront or in bad taste.

What allows the work to be elevated to the category of art?

Asher

Okay let me jump in here since most think, and this is my opinion and my opinion only, that if you do not follow the established rules like many photographers do that it is nothing other than Snapshots, junk that nobody cares about. I for one do not follow a set of rules when I am taking photos. I take photos of what I find interesting and what moves me. Yes I take photos that I convert to Black and White and I do that because Black and White is moves me and makes me tick. I do not go out and shot photos that have a lot of color, have interesting people from South America, or those laying on a beach with industrial complexes in the background. I take photos of everyday people in the middle of trying to survive.

Like this man who is a Veteran and who is in a Wheelchair. He goes out everyday and tries to make a living with out living on Welfare and on the streets.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. Let us look at some of the famous artist such as Michelangelo and many others I find that their work is very dull and not attractive at all. Yet I prefer the works of H.F. Lang, Photographers like Eric Kim, Zack Arias, Anna Delany, Richard Sandler, and many others. When I take a photo like the one below I do not think about what people will think, what I think about is what I like and see and what catches my eye and what I think others will like.

To me this is honest, this is art. Art is what moves people and it is what makes the world turn. Still life, portrait, wedding photography, photo journalism, fire ground, police photography, train photography, aviation photography, fashion photography, porn photography, etc are all forms of art. They are forms of art because to somebody somewhere they are moving.

My Grandparents were two very beautiful and conservative people. Yet they had two photos from Magazines hanging their bedroom. One was Marilyn Monroe:

And the other was Burt Reynolds:

To most people these are not art but to people like my Grandmother and Grandfather they were art. I guess what I am trying to say just because you do not find a photo like this as interesting to your taste and liking does not mean it is not art.

To a lot of people photos like this are very much art. And I am one of those who thing photos like this are art.

I guess to me the definition of art is any item that moves a person. Instead a lot of people think that a piece of art is one that follows the rules. I do not agree with that. For me art is what moves me, whether it be the photo of a beautiful women, the photo of a child holding a toy, the fantastic photos that show life in South America, or photos that hit us between the eyes about what life is really like here in the United States.

This is reality. No mater what anybody thinks art is what makes people stop and think. Art in this day and age is reality.

One last thing if you do not like my photos then that is your problem. I shot what moves me and if it does not follow the rule of thirds or does not have the perfect composition, or the colors are not perfect I am not in the least bit sorry. For me that is the reason why I go out and shot with my camera, my phone, and my point and shot camera. I want to make a difference. I want to show this ****ed up country that I live in and the idiots in Congress and the Senate and the White House reality. To me REALITY is ART.

I will continue to shot and post what moves me and what makes other people stop and think.

To me showing reality of life is REAL ART.

 

[Tom dinning]

Then maybe I went down the wrong path.
I was interested in Asher's reference to collegiate discussion.
Such a group is to be taken in high regard. I'm not sure what qualifications are required for membership. Could they be listed for future reference?
Let's assume I might have some of the required qualifications, rash and assumptive as that may be.
I stand before James's photo on a gallery wall. I am puzzled. It appears trite and contrived. There is little thought for form beyond an unusual pose in an unusual position. There is no story for me to investigate, no depth, no pleasure, drama or pathos. I am mystified by its appearance because it seems to display a naked female for simply for the sake of it. Sure, she's nice looking and strong.
So I then wonder what the artist is demonstrating here. Is it nakedness which is the subject? Is it to titilate? Is the intention to use a naked female as the prop just to grab the attention of the passer by who might normally ignore James's photos? Or has james taken the fateful step of attempting to attract the collegiate who will discuss, at a higher level, any photo in B&W with a Nude woman in it, and call it art?
In my humble opinion, and certainly not to be ranked with those of higher status, this photo under discussion does little to contribute to james art portfolio. It resembles something a first year art student would hand me in order to impress.
My response remains the same with my hypothetical student. "What the **** are you doing? Go photo your grandmother. At least I'd know your not trying to give me a hard on."

Then again!

 

[Tom dinning]

You've made a good point with your images, Dave.
One that strikes me is your presentation of two of my favorite: Burt and Marilyn.
Art or not, there was no doubt in my mind the purpose of each.
Burt became an icon for his levity and bravery for this shot. Many followed but none could repeat the impact this had.
Marilyn is also an icon. Her sensuality was displayed for all us blokes to stare at, enjoy the pleasure of and wonder if we had married the wrong woman.
And that's the discussion we would have about either photograph. Anyone who would deny the titilating effect of either photo is dead from the waste down and rage shoulders up.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Tom,

I do not judge James' picture of a nude in a window on the basis of some goal he has reached. I am patient, looking for the future pictures that are shared and then I will try to figure out his path of adventure. Right now, I just accept what is shown and look for associations, like piled up sculptures in a vault at the Ecole de Beaux Art in Paris, where everyone starts making pale alabaster sculptures of nudes. I do not have to know what it means. However, eventually, the body of work will or won't explain everything. I am perfectly content to delay final opinions. I am not paying him a commission, he doesn't have my cash as a deposit. He is just sharing what he did that day.

I do not need the story to go with it.

There is room for work that we do not understand or which may prove to have zero traction with anyone else. Otherwise we suppress all attempts to develop.

However, you are free to express your mystery of what on earth is happening and in fact, that helps to qualify the work!

The moral basis debate, however, belongs in this thread!

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

Tom,



The moral basis debate, however, belongs in this thread!

Asher

Make up your mind will you. I'm running up and down the corridor looking for a room where I can speak my mind.
Trouble is, I have difficulty separating one subject from the other.
Art, morals, photography, politics, Marilyn and Burt all blend into one. They are all a subset of my overall thinking.
A couple of points, Ash, since you took the trouble to tell me what you see and look for.
JAmes might be dead next week. Where does that leave you waiting for the next shot.
You might accept whats in front of you. I don't. Would you like to arm wrestle to find out who is correct?
You don't have to know what it means but I'm not a big fan of James's stuff. I don't 'follow' him, as they say in the ether. I take the photo for what I see it as and react accordingly. If I'd have thrown up in the kitchen at the time I'd probably have sent you a sample to examine.
I took it that he was sharing, hence the photo. I shared as well.
Please send me a copy of the Book of Thinking Right.
I'd be interested in knowing how its supposed to be done.
Meanwhile, I've not changed my mind.
Its a stupid picture, especially considering it was purposefully constructed.
If I can assume I am right, then being a stupid picture results in the model being exploited in the name of art, and duped into listening to James and his antics. In conclusion, I would say that, if that is the case, James is doing this falsely in the name of art and is simply doing what most people I know would do; consider it a strange bit of titilation that didn't quite work.
If that is the case, and I'm not saying it is, the photo is best suited to a soft porn site where more people can at least gain some benefit.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Tom,

You are in the right room here and you have no need for any book of guidance; you do well on your own Darwinian way! Besides I have no "Book of Wisdom" for you only snippets and find those of others more helpful, anyway!

Whether or not a photograph of a woman propped in a window is exploitative, (done in the name of "Art" and failing in your estimation), or just a picture on the path of a photographer worth watching is debatable. I appreciate having your point of view as it allows another observer to be further challenged as to the art value of such "designed", "staged" or "contrived" poses and compositions.

Dave Butcher, as you appreciate, does entirely different work that is straightforward to identify as sampling a pulse of life, often of those we'd find unglamorous. That doesn't mean that staged works can't match or even surpass the human value of obviously empathetic human stories.

My job, is to make it possible for free expression of such a wide range of attempts to hold a lantern to ourselves and the world over which we have asserted dominion.


Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Retrospectively downgrading a photo shoot to "obvious" sexploitation!

Tom,

Here, in this thread, we are free to face the issues of sexploitation that you see. It allows some breathing space next to the posted nude pictures and yet allow unlimited debate on the practices involved in taking pictures you do not consider to reach a minimal level of artistic merit.

You do not need to be correct in your judgement, but your idea that "if the picture is not "art" then the woman has been exploited" has to be addressed.

The woman agreed to the photograph knowing the quality of the photographer's work, she is a photographer herself and agreed to the payment for her collaboration as being fair. What you are saying, then is that despite her approval, she is being exploited, since the "Art" failed as such!

If we agree to this, then retrospectively, many accepted social agreements would be similarly demolished. We are not that pure and perfect that there will always be flaws in our motivations that can be discovered! Are you setting a standard that would disqualify all of us?

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

Tom,
Are you setting a standard that would disqualify all of us?

Asher

I am asking a question that might disqualify some.

My standards are well known among my friends and within myself. I'm as lecherous as the next bloke. I exploit women intentionally and unintentionally.

I'm not wanting to be jury and judge here. I'd hang myself first.
I'm not afraid of asking the question, of myself or of others.
It's barely (and I use that word scantily) possible that someone will say to themselves "I never really considered it in that way before?"

I've done that a few times when the not so obvious is pointed out to me.
I don't care what the decision is of anyone here. This is a very small part of the planet; and shrinking slowly. Nevertheless, it's a place for me to practise.
Ask the question, wait for a retort, a moment of disgust, insult humiliation, a left jab and a right hook from an indignant opponent. Then battle on to test the strength of the argument, the fortitude of the forces.

Inevitably it matters not. I have no ground to gain or loose. Tomorrow I might change my mind or have it changed for me. What happens here is more about a conversation with myself, but if I do it at home I finish up talking to myself or Christine telling me to shut the **** up.
I might just be asking the questions I would ask myself out loud to OPF. At least I get a response, even if its denial, abuse or sarcastic.

Ultimately I might be just amusing myself at the expense of others. Now that's exploitation!
None of this is true, of course.

But if it were true, what harm does it do to have someone question the ethics, morals, politics, religion, intentions and values of another? If the issue is raised in the mind of the photographer or viewer, surely thats a valued subject to discuss?

Or is photography so bland that all we can do is to talk about cameras, lenses, pixels, printing, and artistic merit?

I'know! I can do that here but in the proper place and in the proper way.

Well, you know what? It's my proper.

When I do the housework with Christine she gives me instructions. When its all finished she asks be if I did it 'proper'. "My proper or your proper" I ask.

She's learnt to live with that.

xxx

 

[Asher Kelman]

Tom,

Sometimes, in a word or two, Jerome makes his point.........and never just frosting with pointless praise!.

I'm less succinct, and perhaps too tolerant.

But you are an outstanding wordsmith using logic as a blade. Also you dress well! Your own pictures secure my admiration, but good clothes is not enough for you to impress yourself. One cannot freely piss on the host's sandwiches or .................cut other guests' heads off, even deftly, as you are wont to demonstrate!

Sword moves, parrying, just in a mirror is not so much fun!

Here was a girl stuck in the window, labia parted!

"Needs a valiant rescuer!"

I could hear your shiny sword cutting the air! Impressive indeed!

Jerome or Doug could have easily matched or surpassed your show, but have self-restraint.

It becomes about you when taken to the nth in evisceration!

Remember what Indie did!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Exploitation of Women Modeling by at least Some Photographers is a major issue!

Tom has raised a valid question, making photography of women suspect.

Clearly, a confrontational picture or a anything else odd can be challenged here in OPF!

It's obvious to me that those cases where a dosed-up model dies in some photographer's studio or a girl wanting a career ends up buried in some shallow grave, that exploitation must occur and these are merely the few examples of the very worst cases of a larger problem.

So we can, perhaps, agree that a lot of such exploitation of women must be going on at varying degrees and the signs of this should merit out attention.

But let's take a case of photographing parted, shaved, glistening labia. Is that porn or exploitation, just because the work doesn't garner any following?

My judgement was that it was the photographer's art, the first in a series of sharing that would reveal what it was about.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Can we trust the photographer when he claims to photograph women for "art?

If we do not start with the assumption of trust, then societal association and cooperation is impaired and we lose some of the greatest tools of our society!

That doesn't mean we become completely tolerant of nonsense, incompetence or delusion. But we already accept that people can believe in fairy tales and even get tax exemptions for that! We already tolerate that when we celebrate in the oaths of fidelity at nuptials, ...........when we know that,. likely as not, they will be broken.

But why?

Society needs some slack of the ropes to get wind in its sails and travel to new places. Simple as that!

Otherwise, all our ideas, right or wrong get tied to the village totem pole and we are never enlightened by what's beyond our apparent boundaries.

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Society needs some slack of the ropes to get wind in its sails and travel to new places. Simple as that!

Very well said.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Jerome Marot]

It's obvious to me that those cases where a dosed-up model dies in some photographer's studio or a girl wanting a career ends up buried in some shallow grave, that exploitation must occur and these are merely the few examples of the very worst cases of a larger problem.

Obviously, yes, we all agree that sexually abusing your models, killing them sexually and disposing of the corpse in a shallow grave is not desirable photographic practice.

So we can, perhaps, agree that a lot of such exploitation of women must be going on at varying degrees and the signs of this should merit out attention.

But going directly from the grossest cases of murder to a nude model in a window frame is a bit of a stretch for me. You are simply not reasonable here.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Obviously, yes, we all agree that sexually abusing your models, killing them sexually and disposing of the corpse in a shallow grave is not desirable photographic practice.



But going directly from the grossest cases of murder to a nude model in a window frame is a bit of a stretch for me. You are simply not reasonable here.

Exactly, that was my point!

Tom has raised a valid question, making photography of women suspect.............



............But let's take a case of photographing parted, shaved, glistening labia. Is that porn or exploitation, just because the work doesn't garner any following?

My judgement was that it was the photographer's art, the first in a series of sharing that would reveal what it was about.

The picture of a nude perched even badly in a window isn't "obviously" any indication of abuse and certainly not justification for verbal evisceration!


Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

Jerome or Doug could have easily matched or surpassed your show, but have self-restraint.

It becomes about you when taken to the nth in evisceration!

Remember what Indie did!

Asher

It al ways takes me a while to work out your analogies and symbolism, Ash.
As I said before, ide prefer to leave the final decision to the results of an arm wrestle or a toad throw. The linguistic skills of Doug and Jerome are well known and respected. Their silence often speaks volumes; contempt mainly with a sprinkling of distain. But I don't fish for the ones that don't bite.
(N+1) if I choose.
My mentor, the great Chistine, took me on a walk yesterday and put my mind at rest. She adds a dimension to a conversation that could only be admired and respected.

My questions remain unresolved but I have learnt a lot.

Xxx

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Tom,

My mentor, the great Chistine, took me on a walk yesterday and put my mind at rest. She adds a dimension to a conversation that could only be admired and respected.

From what I know (and that's from you), you are a lucky fellow indeed to have that in your life.

Happy New Year.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Tom dinning]

Hi, Tom,



From what I know (and that's from you), you are a lucky fellow indeed to have that in your life.

Happy New Year.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug, you and I both know how fortunate we are to have such people in our life. For them to be women is a bonus. If I am to loose an argument I cannot think of a better way to loose.
May every day that follows be at least as good as today.

Xx
Tom

 

[Dave Butcher]

You've made a good point with your images, Dave.
One that strikes me is your presentation of two of my favorite: Burt and Marilyn.
Art or not, there was no doubt in my mind the purpose of each.
Burt became an icon for his levity and bravery for this shot. Many followed but none could repeat the impact this had.
Marilyn is also an icon. Her sensuality was displayed for all us blokes to stare at, enjoy the pleasure of and wonder if we had married the wrong woman.
And that's the discussion we would have about either photograph. Anyone who would deny the titilating effect of either photo is dead from the waste down and rage shoulders up.

Thank you Tom. You got my point, and that is basically what might be art to me is not art to somebody else. I happen to thing that a beautiful nude of a man or women is art. I also happen to like photos like this one as an example. CREDIT GOES TO THE ORIGINAL ARTIST.

To me this is a form of art that I would love one day to shoot. But what is Art to Me maybe Porn to another person. AS ARTISTS, and yes we are all artists, we should be more tolerant in our thoughts and interpretations of photos.

 

[Dave Butcher]

Tom,

I do not judge James' picture of a nude in a window on the basis of some goal he has reached. I am patient, looking for the future pictures that are shared and then I will try to figure out his path of adventure. Right now, I just accept what is shown and look for associations, like piled up sculptures in a vault at the Ecole de Beaux Art in Paris, where everyone starts making pale alabaster sculptures of nudes. I do not have to know what it means. However, eventually, the body of work will or won't explain everything. I am perfectly content to delay final opinions. I am not paying him a commission, he doesn't have my cash as a deposit. He is just sharing what he did that day.

I do not need the story to go with it.

There is room for work that we do not understand or which may prove to have zero traction with anyone else. Otherwise we suppress all attempts to develop.

However, you are free to express your mystery of what on earth is happening and in fact, that helps to qualify the work!

The moral basis debate, however, belongs in this thread!

Asher

I find that photo very alluring and very sensual. We have a young lady that works with us that is our housekeeper and I would love to photograph her nude in a pose similar to the one James made. When I can I save photos that I like onto my computer so that I can later study them and the one that James shared is one that I have saved.