Back to the question of nude modeling

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by scameter18

Not to deny your conclusions, but could someone explain to me specifically what makes the photo I linked pornographic/sexual? No genitalia is exposed, she is alone and doing nothing sexual in the photo. I would just really like to know the difference. I would also like to know whether nude photography is applicable as nude art, since what most call "good nude art" is painting or sculpture. Thanks and God bless.

Photography would definitely qualify, as it is art that involves the human body.

As to the photo, IMNAAHO: The way in which her limbs are crossed draws the eye to her "sexual zones" rather than along the natural lines of the body. This even though the body is NOT nude.

ICXC NIKA

[epan]

Originally Posted by GEddie

Photography would definitely qualify, as it is art that involves the human body.

As to the photo, IMNAAHO: The way in which her limbs are crossed draws the eye to her "sexual zones" rather than along the natural lines of the body. This even though the body is NOT nude.

ICXC NIKA

I don't see anything wrong with nudity in general, so my views might be off center here. But it is an interesting question... the art vs porn one. Many of the masterpieces of nude sculpture and painting do have erotic energy. The modeling itself is just work. Unless it is a sex shoot, i doubt that many models experience posing as anything other than work.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by scameter18

Not to deny your conclusions, but could someone explain to me specifically what makes the photo I linked pornographic/sexual? No genitalia is exposed, she is alone and doing nothing sexual in the photo. I would just really like to know the difference. I would also like to know whether nude photography is applicable as nude art, since what most call "good nude art" is painting or sculpture. Thanks and God bless.

Intention. Clear intention. What is the purpose of the model in the photo? As published/posted, she has only one clear purpose: sexual arousal.

Where would anyone present this type of photo as art? And once again, for what purpose?



Peace,
Ed

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by browser1

Check out these nude sculptures here, nothing sexual about 'em even though they are incredibly lifelike. I should qualify that they are explicit.

http://www.australianedge.net/cities...ith-sam-jinks/

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/g...3012568?page=1

I've seen similar, up close, myself. No excuses. What's the point of this?



Peace,
Ed

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Intention. Clear intention. What is the purpose of the model in the photo? As published/posted, she has only one clear purpose: sexual arousal.

Where would anyone present this type of photo as art? And once again, for what purpose?



Peace,
Ed

Can I get your opinion on something like this?

http://musetouch.net/wp-content/uplo...62fb242958.jpg

Or this?

http://differentphotographystyles.fi...msirreal_1.jpg

Would you personally consider these art or pornographic?

[fix]

Originally Posted by scameter18

Not to deny your conclusions, but could someone explain to me specifically what makes the photo I linked pornographic/sexual? No genitalia is exposed, she is alone and doing nothing sexual in the photo. I would just really like to know the difference. I would also like to know whether nude photography is applicable as nude art, since what most call "good nude art" is painting or sculpture. Thanks and God bless.

This is from JPII:

Another thing is the body as the model of the work of art, as in the plastic arts, sculpture or painting. Is it possible to also put films or the photographic art in a wide sense on the same level? It seems so, although from the point of view of the body as object-theme, a quite essential difference takes place in this case. In painting or sculpture the human body always remains a model, undergoing specific elaboration on the part of the artist. In the film, and even more in the photographic art, it is not the model that is transfigured, but the living man is reproduced. In this case man, the human body, is not a model for the work of art, but the object of a reproduction obtained by means of suitable techniques.

It should be added at once that when artistic reproduction becomes the content of representation and transmission (on television or in films), it loses, in a way, its fundamental contact with the human body, of which it is a reproduction. It often becomes an anonymous object, just like an anonymous photographic document published in illustrated magazines, or an image diffused on the screens of the whole world. This anonymity is the effect of the "propagation" of the image-reproduction of the human body, objectivized first with the help of the techniques of reproduction, which—as has been recalled above—seems to be essentially differentiated from the transfiguration of the model typical of the work of art, especially in the plastic arts. This anonymity (which, moreover, is a way of veiling or hiding the identity of the person reproduced) also constitutes a specific problem from the point of view of the ethos of the human body in works of culture, especially in the modern works of mass culture, as it is called.

and:

The artist who undertakes that theme in any sphere of art or through audiovisual media, must be aware of the full truth of the object, of the whole scale of values connected with it. He must not only take them into account in abstracto, but also live them correctly himself. This corresponds also to that principle of purity of heart, which in determined cases must be transferred from the existential sphere of attitudes and ways of behavior to the intentional sphere of creation or artistic reproduction.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by epan

I don't see anything wrong with nudity in general, so my views might be off center here. But it is an interesting question... the art vs porn one. Many of the masterpieces of nude sculpture and painting do have erotic energy. The modeling itself is just work. Unless it is a sex shoot, i doubt that many models experience posing as anything other than work.

Speaking from a purely commercial standpoint - it's not just work. The model is posed, dressed, even partly, and given props to use, sit or lay on in some cases, like the photo posted earlier. Where do you sell this? And models do get paid, right?

Masterpieces have clear boundaries and limits and standards that qualify them as such.




Peace,
Ed

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Debora123

Can I get your opinion on something like this?

http://musetouch.net/wp-content/uplo...62fb242958.jpg

Or this?

http://differentphotographystyles.fi...msirreal_1.jpg

Would you personally consider these art or pornographic?

Both are not art. The intention is just non-typical posing and lighting of the human form. Once again, for what purpose?




Peace,
Ed

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Both are not art. The intention is just non-typical posing and lighting of the human form. Once again, for what purpose?




Peace,
Ed

Well if I did a "typical posing," the private parts would show. So of course they are not in a pose that is just standing there with the arms to the sides.

Can you show us an example of what nude photography you would consider as being "art?"

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Debora123

Well if I did a "typical posing," the private parts would show. So of course they are not in a pose that is just standing there with the arms to the sides.

Can you show us an example of what nude photography you would consider as being "art?"

Art is not a label that is self-imposed. Art has standards. These standards are universal, especially as it regards the nude female form. Some here are fond of pointing out that a country or countries "allows" this or that. That's not the issue here.

Meaning no disrespect, but knowing how the world of art and art photography works, there are clear dividing lines. And they are modeled on a religious style hierarchy.

Art critics exist to not only evaluate and criticize art but also to give it direction, no matter how subtly. An example of what I mean comes from recent announcements from a small clique of elite fashion designers and elite publications. Vogue magazine has announced 'no more photos of skinny models.' Period. Another reputable publication has announced: "The Return of the Woman." In that case, a certain body type has been chosen by this priestly class as the "new" standard which all must follow. By the way, the "woman" in this case has a defined, small waist, and defined hips. As opposed to looking more like a stick or two by four.

Let's take a modern nude photo. Just a single figure. Who decides it is art? The priests of the art community, namely art critics and gallery owners. If your work and name gets the word "important" attached to it in some prestigious art publication, then you and your work are deemed important by others and worthy of showing in a gallery, but only if the gallery owner, another part of the priestly order, agrees. You have been elevated in status, and you now have a chance to be exhibited in one of the Cathedrals of Art - the Art Museum. Your mere appearance there elevates you again. You now have the ability to earn awards, have more gallery showings and even publication in a thick coffee table book with your work printed on the highest quality paper. And interviews, since, in many eyes, knowing your work is not enough. They must know you, your vision and what drives your vision.

To answer your question, there is no reason for nude photography as art anymore. Circa 1952, there were publications designed for art students with nude models. None of the poses were sexually provocative, and the lighting was meant to highlight form - nothing experimental. The expression on the model's face was either demure and detached or a slight smile. These publications were not meant to exist as pin-up art but as substitutes for a live model for learning the human form. By the way, pubic hair was brushed out.

My point is: at the time, no one knew what was coming. Sincerity and trust meant that some used these publications for the intended purpose, but some did not. Had it stopped at that point, one could make an argument that what was shown was art photography. But it didn't.

Girlie magazines appeared offering photos of beautiful nude or topless models posed in pleasant surroundings. Again, no pubic hair but "pasties" were added in some magazines, either real, or added to the photo later, to cover the breast nipples. These were mostly girl next door types, but all of these magazines were considered dirty and immoral, as it was obvious that they inspired lust and masturbation.

There was a period where "glamour photography" of nudes was promoted as an art form in the 1950s, and there were name glamour photographers who built elaborate to modest settings to pose their models, sometimes with props or just a bit of strategic covering. And I mean a little bit. They published books with elaborate instructions regarding lighting, f stops, and pushing the contrast in the final print, the effects of color and using single and multiple light sources, and other somewhat scholarly information.

That ended in the 1960s. New girlie magazines featured a lot of nudes and semi-nudes and dispensed with any artistic intent. You bought those for one reason - to masturbate.

Playboy wrapped its picture section of nude and semi-nude models in a "lifestyle" publication. You got articles about the classiest cars, the best in men's clothing and accessories, interviews with people like Fidel Castro, and art by name artists. It was considered dirty and immoral as well.

I remember how the local moms in the 1960s discovered a neighbor had thrown out a box of old playboys and they knew we boys would be tempted. So they took the box and disposed of it by means that were never revealed.

continued...

[edwest2]

So, by the 1970s, you were getting real, explicit hardcore porn. Nudes? Just nudes? Who needs that? So you got to see topless women wearing very little at topless bars and strip clubs, whose only purpose was sexual arousal. So what might have appeared in scholarly journals for gynecologists was now available at any of the nationwide Adult Bookstores. The intent - to create the new Opium Dens, and to begin the planned addiction pattern, and those magazines weren't cheap, with some being printed on high gloss, heavy, coated paper stock which is very expensive.

Nope, we're living in a time period where the nude as art is nothing. It doesn't matter. In the 1970s, the switch was made from getting the equivalent of marijuana and then going on heroin or cocaine.

And it all cost millions of dollars to put the whole thing together, and to keep it running all these years. It was legal, they said. Their high priced lawyers yelled "We have the First Amendment right... to free expression." Expression of what? Degradation of the dignity of the female, and male, person?




Peace,
Ed

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by Debora123

Can I get your opinion on something like this?

http://musetouch.net/wp-content/uplo...62fb242958.jpg

Or this?

http://differentphotographystyles.fi...msirreal_1.jpg

Would you personally consider these art or pornographic?

I'd say they are art. The visual attention is on the form, not anything sex related.

BTW, one can have clothed (or half-clothed) porn; the clothing can draw visual lines in the same way that the nude's limbs can. Nude <> porn; clothing <> innocence.

ICXC NIKA

[epan]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Speaking from a purely commercial standpoint - it's not just work. The model is posed, dressed, even partly, and given props to use, sit or lay on in some cases, like the photo posted earlier. Where do you sell this? And models do get paid, right?

Masterpieces have clear boundaries and limits and standards that qualify them as such.




Peace,
Ed

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes it is work to model. I speak from experience. Every job is different. Anyone in a play, a photo, a TV show, a movie... is going to be poses, dressed, surrounded by props. It is still work.

My point is that as such, it is not an erotic activity for the model, or the photographer or staff, if any for most professional modeling, some of which may require nudity or near nudity at one time or another.

I don't really know what you mean by a masterpiece having a boundary. Regardless of that, many of them are erotic in nature. What sort of boundary are you talking about, and how would that impact the subject matter.

If you mean that great art is easily distinguished, my response is that many people disagree on what great art is. Sometimes the definition is clear, at other times people vary in their opinions.

[Baelor]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Art is not a label that is self-imposed. Art has standards. These standards are universal, especially as it regards the nude female form.

I disagree totally with this premise. There is a reason that the definition of art is broad -- individuals respond differently to different forms and manifestations of art. This makes universal standards impossible. This is what makes art such an integral part of the human experience.

Let's take a modern nude photo. Just a single figure. Who decides it is art? The priests of the art community, namely art critics and gallery owners.

No, the consumer of the art. His own opinion is really the only one that matters to him.

To answer your question, there is no reason for nude photography as art anymore.

You are really not in a position to tell other people what elevates their souls and brings them closer to God, or what inspires them, or in which ways they may reach a greater understanding of the human experience.

[epan]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Both are not art. The intention is just non-typical posing and lighting of the human form. Once again, for what purpose?




Peace,
Ed

beauty