From: Rod Fleming (rodfleming@sol.co.uk)
Date: 09/16/00-06:14:07 AM Z
Hi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Van Keuren" <svk@steuber.com>
>It occurs to me, .........that the idea of nude as subject/object isolated
> from setting is intrinsically bankrupt.
As far as photography of the nude is concerned, there have never been so
many talented people working in this subject area as now. Look at the bodies
of work that have been produced in the last two decades by major artists,
some whom I have mentioned elsewhere. Why would it be that the nude in
photography has never been healthier- and I do mean among serious artists-
yet there is still the impression of distaste from the academics?
I find it hard not to come to the conlusion that what is actually bankrupt
is the '70's hangover of political correctness which replaced
quasi-religious moralism as a means of suppressing the depiction of the
nude. The facts speak for themselves- there is more high-quality,
thought-provoking, stimulating and just plain old bloody good nude
photography out there today than ever before.
>I keep thinking of Bonnard's paintings of
> his wife at her bath and how embedded her figure is within a patterned
> atmospheric setting, how absorbed she is in stepping out of the tub or
> drying herself. ......... She inhabits her own domestic space and is
> a part of a larger figuration.
Within photography, as within the visual arts as a whole, there are
different strands, such as the painterly tradition and the sculptural
tradition. These terms do not necessarily refer to actual pieces of painting
or sculpture, but are ways for us to understand the nature of the work we
are looking at. There are sculptural paintingags and painterly sculptures,
and a host of shades between.
The same holds true of photography, as it is one of the independent visual
arts, like sculpture, drawing, and painting. A photograph can be
"sculptural"- witness Weston's studio nudes, or "painterly", for example his
later nudes. Again, I would suggest that Lynn Davis' work is sculptural,
while Jan Saudek is painterly.
Generally, within the painterly tradition, some narrative, relation of form
to space, some concern with the borders of the pictorial space and the
relationship of the pictorial space to the literal space which the viewer
inhabits is normal; the sculptural tradition is more concerned with the mass
as object, the notion of three-dimensional form, the relationship of form
mass and line, and a confusion or merging of the imagic space with the
viewer's space.
It is characteristic of the sculptural tradition to isolate the subject -
are we to suggest, therefore, that the whole tradition is "bankrupt"
because of this?
The notion of narrative has its place in photography too, perhaps more than
any visual art in the 20thC. However, because it has a role in photography
does not mean, as has been argued elsewhere, that it should dominate
photography. This was the argument used by Sontag to condemn Weston before
Atget, and is I hope seen today to be a result of the prevailing attitudes
of the period when she was writing rather than a valid basis for comparison
of the two artists.
I am fond of Bonnard too, not least for the intimacy of his work. His
paintings of which you speak are narrative in that they speak frankly to us
of the nature of the relationship between artist and model. He is certainly
one of the most painterly of painters and his relationship of subject to
pictorial space is direct and vital to the image. However none of this
condemns any of the other parallel strands that we see in contemporary art.
They are all valid.
Unfortunately I see underlying this thread- though this does not really
apply to Sarah's contribution, which I enjoyed reading - the deliberate and
ongoing attempt to suppress a particular form of artistic expression- the
depiction of the nude, particularly the young, female nude, for political
(or politically correct) reasons. It is up to all of us to argue as forcibly
as we can against the attempt to impose constraints like this, whether by
politicians, critics, academics, other artists, or particular groups in
society.
Otherwise we accept censorship. Once we accept censorship, we accept loss of
freedom and ultimately the control of others over the work that we make.
Once we accept that others have the right to do this, we all accept the
possibility that the authorities may seize our work and attempt to suppress
it, and to lock us up and remove our possessions, to obliterate us. If you
don't believe that's true, or could never happen today, ask Jock Sturges.
Rod
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT