Ender100@aol.com
Date: 08/24/02-10:08:13 PM Z
I have a friend who has used the landscape metaphor for figurative work.
She's a she. She does both males and females. She does people of different
ages. She's damn good at what she does. People like her work. She's also
fought hard to get her work shown in local galleries and museums...and broke
ground for other photographers.
Is it the fact that photography is capable of rendering the human figure so
realistically that people find offensive? I suppose a painter could do that
as well.... and a sculptor....
I understand the issue of "idealized female nudes" or "idealized male nudes."
Not everyone looks that way... and people shouldn't get the message that
they are only acceptable if they look that way. I'm tired of Pepsi
commercials with Britney Spears. I like to photograph flowers. Not all
flowers are perfect. I sometimes photograph imperfect flowers. I sometimes
photograph them after they have wilted or dried. I think that there is an
evolution of beauty that living things go through. I think people go through
similar stages of beauty.
I am having difficulty understanding the problem of "straight photographic
representation focusing on the feminine, softness and curves, etc., of the
female body." Would it be OK if the image was more abstract and fuzzy?
Double exposures? Certainly they shouldn't be done by the F64 crowd then.
Why can't any subject be "high art," whatever that is.
I think one of the differences between nudes in photography and say nudes in
painting or sculpting, is the model has to hold still longer....well, unless
you are using a pinhole camera.
I like eroticism in some work. I think some people like being erotic. I
think it is human. Maybe I don't understand the definition of eroticism. I
think I'll go look it up. Yeah, I understand it. I'd like to see the
Vatican's porno collection.
I don't care to humiliate or denigrate or berate or substrate anyone. I
wouldn't care for work that would encourage one human (the viewer) to degrade
another person.
Mark Nelson
In a message dated 8/24/02 9:16:45 PM, jeffbuck@swcp.com writes:
<< This posting provides no support for its basic assumption that, for
purposes of this discussion, there is an important distinction between
photography and other media. There isn't. If I and other people
commenting find it easier to think of classic nude sculptures, for example,
this is probably because artists have been producing sculpture for
thousands of years. Photographers have been producing photographs for 150
years. The distinction between males and females is irrelevant. -jb
At 04:53 PM 8/24/2002 -0700, Christopher Lovenguth wrote:
>I totally agree with you Judy. I also find it interesting in this discussion
>the defenders on "nudes" as high art bring up examples of drawings,
>sculpture, etc. especially when it comes to the male form. There is a huge
>difference between photographic nudes and other mediums using nudes in their
>work. Now I do believe that other mediums can be used for eroticism, but
>often it is about form. But there is something about photography and nudes
>that screams eroticism not form, especially when 90% of all photographic
>nudes are young idealized females and not impressionistic or abstract but
>straight photographic representation focusing on the feminine, softness and
>curves, etc. of the female body. Oh that's right I forgot, they're classy
>because they are black and white and use light well instead of color images
>with bad lighting like porno mags. The ones like the most are the ones that
>use the female for as landscape! Land to conquer right?
>
>On the other hand I have absolutely have no problems with nakedness being
>use in photography. Nakedness is used to promote an idea the photographer is
>trying to communicate with the viewer (back to the reason of why it's more
>important to have an idea for a photo then to just make one). >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:50 AM Z CST