From: Randall Webb (randall.webb@lineone.net)
Date: 09/18/00-06:35:33 PM Z
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Miller <gmphotos@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Tutti Nudi
> The main difference between photography and drawing/painting/sculpture,
and
> the acceptance or not or the nude form probably deals mainly with
> photography's mimetic quality>>>>>>
For some months I have been sitting in my leafy suburb by the River Thames
just down the road from King Henry the Eighth's deer park, enjoying the chat
on the list. I can even be in contact with the Cactus Cowboy who makes gum
prints in what I have always regarded as the largest open air film set in
the world. Magic!
Then it crept up on me! Nakedness otherwise known as nudity. Followed by a
flurry of discussion on its relevence to photography. Its a bit like the old
question "Is photography art?" How often does some smart-ass student come
up and ask if photography is art? There are two answers. a) " I know what
photography is, so you tell me what art is." and
b ) B***** off".
On nudity I am not being prudish. I enjoy looking through my Leica at a
girls tits for a few hours occasionally, I find it mildly therapeutic! What
I can't do is justify it or the result or dignify it with words such as art
or examining the human condition. It's voyeurism and always has been.
I think I'm on the same wavelength as Judy here. Lets get the labelling
right. ( If I'm not on her w/l she will no doubt let me know!) The quick
way out on justification is to say the Greeks and the Romans did it. Now
there's a role model. The Romans (seeJ.S.) killed people on Saturday
afternoons and the rest of the week as well.They also built prisons all over
the known world and produced extremely boring literature.
Classical art was intended to idealise the human figure - to make them look
like gods we assume. A bit like taking naked girls and "enhancing " with an
airbrush or Photoshop to publish them in Playboy magazine. Plus ca change!
But before I continue this pointless comment, I was puzzled to see the name
Newton. Was he the guy who discovered gravity and rings? No, it appears it
refers to poor old Helmut who discovered depravity. Why are we talking about
a sad old man who only differs from the huge army of anonymous girlie mag
photographers because he has a gift for self publicity. Nevertheless even an
old bore like HN can get a result by default. His photo called "They are
coming" is very striking and very sexy. (Can I use that word on the list?)
Kenneth Clark - one of our best art historians -in hs book " The Nude" said
that the depiction of the unclothed human form has to have some erotic or
sexual content. Anyone who denies this is deluded.
That would put paid to ideas such as nude as landscape, nude as still life,
nude as political statemen and other hogwash.
Nudes for centuries have been a public show of the fantasies of rich, upper
class patrons. Most of the best artists supplied porn to thier patrons to
increase their incomes.Look at the private shelves of any museum.
What would have been the role of photography if had existed in those times?
Even when art tended to be used for covering the cracks in the plaster in
churches there were still opportunities. Think of poor old Saint Sebastian
standing there with no clothes on and with arrows stuck in his body. Wow!!
Sado- masochism. Give us more!
What would a photog have done with Rubens's fat lumpy ladies? Publish them
in a fetish magazine no doubt.
The role of photography from the beginning. The earliest daguerrotypes -
apart from portraits of pompous bourgeoisie - were sold in respectable
establishments as "pictures for gentlemen".
Usually pictures of street girls posing as if for a gynaecology text book
and who may or may not have got a square meal for their pains. Then came
albumen prints. You could get a set of stereo prints small enough to get in
your pocket for your private pleasure.
The trouble with photography is its literalness. Pictures of the pyramids or
the Taj Mahal or the Holy Land were seen as real because taken with a
camera.
So what do you do with a photo of a street girl either under-nourished,drab
or ugly in a room full of old packing cases? Do what Mr. Durieu did. Sell it
to an artist like Delacroix who will turn it into a " classical" painting
which 100 years later will sell for $20m.
And finally the 20thC. Amuse yourselves by looking at the work of Salon and
Amateur and RPS figure studies. "Tasteful " nudes(contradiction in terms)
looking coyly across a woodland glade with titles such as Hamadryad. These
were taken in the 1930's to 1950's before the invention of pubic hair.
Now we have come full circle. Just as the rich noble patrons of the past we
too can enjoy nude persons of either sex at the click of a mouse in our own
living room . No need to go to a museum or buy an expensive book.
It's not all bad news though. There are half a dozen photographers who
,despite all the odds, have come to terms with the subject in a very
straightforward way.
No prizes for nominations.
Randall Webb.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT