From: Christopher Lovenguth (zantzant@hotmail.com)
Date: 08/26/02-10:57:08 AM Z
I guess I should explain this. Mostly when I see nakedness in photography it
is 90% of the time self portraits with "reasons" for the nakedness not just
a visual form for the viewer. I'm not saying that nakedness at times isn't
just nude dressed in an idea. But true nakedness (even when the person has
clothes on) is about exposing to the viewer. Again you are right that most
nakedness is bias to one gender. But most of what I have been seeing from a
younger (30 and younger, my age group) female photographer generation of up
and coming artist is a reclaiming of nude in the form of nakedness. The
problem that I am still seeing is the woman my age who are doing this and
getting shown tend to have idealized bodies of their own but are fighting
this stereotype at the same time. I'm a little confused about that and where
it will be going. So in reality I guess nothing has really changed except
that maybe this is opening the door enough for some other hands to get in
and pry the door down.
>From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: RE: Art vrs. Porno etc.
>Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 01:45:50 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>
>On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Christopher Lovenguth wrote:
>
> > ...On the other hand, I have absolutely no problems with
> > nakedness being
> > used in photography.
>
>Christopher, I agree exactly with your first paragraph, but not sure about
>sentence above. ON PRINCIPLE I don't object to nakedness in photography,
>but in practice -- the way it's given to one gender, one age group -- I
>do.
>
>J.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:50 AM Z CST