Well, I went running right away to my Farber text to see the soft porn, and I had to laugh; considering I have currently researched in the last couple months 100 plus books on the nude and documented 450 nudes in painting and photography for an upcoming college thesis on the topic, this discussion interests me very much so. And, yes, I have to agree with Judy--the images are maybe more what I would term stereotypical and trite. Most has to do with body language of the model, the standard convention of the turned away head, the typical positioning of the body on the drop cloth in the abandoned room...hey, I'm all for the nude and Jonathan, come to Bozeman and I'll gladly photograph you for my senior project! But Judy is right in pointing out that it's time to get past stereotypical poses of females. And I get sick of seeing buff naked men a la Herb Ritts, too! Give me Coplans any day.
I love all the alt process technical talk, but sometimes it is great to bring up subject matter theory, too. More power to you, Judy, for sticking your neck out there. And yes you are absolutely right: there is NO neutral nude. As Duane Michals points out, there is no innocent nude; we approach all with sexual curiosity.
OK, there you have it; we can go back to chemistry now....I'm ready for the flames... The comment of the cover image on Farbers book reminds me of how we all see
> differently. To one it is merely a figure study showing light and form. To
> another it is porn. To another it is about depression. To another it is
> about quiet light and introspection. etc..
>
> I take no offense at your comment Judy. On the contrary it reminds me of
> how different we all are. The way we see. The different thoughts images
> evoke.
Jonathan, I confess I opened your e-mail somewhat flinched, thinking oh
what have I done now.. and thank you for your good-natured reply. HOWEVER,
if I can't correct the entire world, I am nevertheless compelled to point
out that "naked lady" is NOT NOT NOT a neutral art convention.
Light and form can as easily be shown on a green pepper or a fat old naked
lady, and she has TEXTURE, too-- cellulite. When I was in art school we
always preferred the fat old women models -- much more interesting to
draw. That photographers do their "studies" on slender, shapely, sexually
desirable YOUNG naked ladies is more proof than any argument I could make.
That "nudes" nearly always mean "female nude" in photography and
that there are almost no male nudes by heterosexual men, etc. etc. also
speaks worlds. Very few male photographers of naked ladies deny the sexual
charge, incidentally.
If that's their pleasure, fine with me... I have nothing against porn
either... I just ask for truth in labelling -- don't call it art, or a
"neutral" art convention. It may be art, sometimes it is, but neutral it
isn't. It's an eroticized stereotype.
Of course stereotypes abound, especially in photography, but this one is
harmful to all women -- in the way that stereotypes of, say, dancing
barefoot minstrels, were harmful to African-Americans. Those minstrel
images are revisited now in the spirit of nostalgia, also become highly
prized collectors' items. Let's permit that evolution in naked lady
pics... (Your Farber should fetch a mint.)
Thanks for listening...
Judy
.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
.................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 12:10:48