From: Christina Z. Anderson (zphoto@montana.net)
Date: 08/27/02-02:01:14 PM Z
It has been enjoyable to read all of this thread, as I have written a
book on this topic, as Judy has mentioned (Tutti Nudi), and worked
extensively with the nude photographically. In a month I will be giving a 3
hr lecture on it to a Women Artists class at Montana State U where I teach
photography--my first formal lecture about the subject since writing the
book 2 yr ago!! I'm a little slow. Thus the ideas brought up in this
thread have given me more fodder even tho I have not to date commented on
them.
I have approximately 650 documented nudes which I will have to whittle
down in order not to put the students to sleep--if the naked body can do
that. I plan on giving a crash course in the history of the nude first (25
words or less?) and then end with some of the current work being done that I
find really successful. Unfortunately seeing as it is a Women Artists class
I will weed out a bunch of men I find working well in this genre--John
Coplans, Manabu Yamanaka, Minnkinen (sp) etc. to concentrate on the women
they need to "watch" in the art world (check out Valadon--first woman to
portray her naked aging body in paint).
How I will conduct the class is to hand out a sheet of questions for
small group discussion before and after the slide show/lecture. I will ask
such questions as, Do men and women portray the nude differently (men doing
male nudes, men doing female nudes, women doing male nudes,women doing
female nudes, gay or lesbians doing same sex nudes?) Why are there so many
female nudes compared to male nudes? Why is the nude such a
controversial subject? What does the iconography of the nude say about the
culture within which it exists? Why was there no body hair portrayed on
women? Why is there a dif between photography and painting in relation to
the nude? Is the female nude truly damaging to women? And so on and so
forth. Plus the issues raised here ('polishing the wood' mags and such :)).
I am quite interested in today's students' opinions on this questions,
unrehearsed, off the cuff. Or if they even care.
I come into the classroom with no particular agenda, but a desire to
understand, observe, and make the students aware so that somewhere in the
back of their minds they'' think on these things, because it is discussions
such as these on this list, etc., that open eyes to the nude not being, to
quote Judy, a neutral subject. It always says something about the culture,
because the way we treat the body in representation, which is ourselves, has
to. I do not feel I am an authority on the subject, even having researched
literally hundreds of books on it...just a very intrigued observer who
happens to live in a body--and who happens to love the nude, too--even the
"sexist" ones such as Wesselmann's. Actually, at least Wesselmann was
honest about his endeavour; the nudes I personally cannot STAND are those
where the woman is placed buck naked and tritely posed in old abandoned
dirty Montana like buildings, complete with nails on floor, spider webs and
such. I ain't puttin' my.....ahem...down on some splintery floor! And I
bet most men would shy away from splinters in their "package" also...
I was joking to someone the other day that I should really give the
lecture in the nude, remembering back to when my friend was in Massage
School and they went to class ALL nude all the time to get used to the naked
body. Fascinating stuff. BUT...i think i might get fired...How interesting
if University nude drawing/painting classes would require all students to be
nude along with the model!
End of my rambling with no real concise point...
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: Art vrs. Porno etc. and women in power
>
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, epona wrote:
> > And there are also those photos of women who are clothed but still set
off
> > some sort of internal alarm. For Judy it was Charis straddling the
chair.
>
> It's actually a rather sweet picture, but it simply struck me that they,
> all those famous Weston females, had their legs spread -- as do most
> fashion photos of women these days -- also if you notice aimed at the
> crotch... It's a kind of tic, a reflex, like "say cheese," and by now a
> cliche -- albeit a crude one. In fact the point, so to speak, of the photo
> is the crotch... (Hard to understand how it sells dresses.) I don't admire
> it in either fashion or "art" photography.
>
> > You can't really *see* anything but her slip yet it disturbed Judy all
the
> > same.
>
> Doesn't matter if you "see anything" -- what's to see, she has a surprise
> up there? My point is it's pointing. These are times when everything is
> sexualized -- Calvin Klein underwear rides through the city on buses, et
> al... -- very much to the detriment of young people who lose their period
> of latency, which explains a lot if anyone cares, which they don't.
> However, I do believe in "the discourse of art," I do not believe "it's
> all in the work," never is (even John Berger knows that). It's in the
> culture...which is to say, comment is crucial.
> > There is a photograph by a photographer I know who usually does very
> > nice still lifes, but has a photograph of a woman in shorts and shirt
> > casually sitting with her leg crossed, ankle on her knee. The frame
covers
> > only about her waist to said knee, lens pointed squarely at her crotch.
> > These pictures make you wonder about the photographers' intent.
> What's to wonder?
> > I wonder if there are more female nudes than male because some find the
> > female figure more beautiful? Because there have historically been more
male
> > image makers than female, or should I say, more male image makers
> > *published*, who naturally find the female form more beautiful? This
can
> > also have little to do with desire - I would much rather look
at/photograph a
> > woman's body than a man's any day because I find the female form more
> > appealing, and last I checked I was straight but not narrow. No offense
> > gentlemen, I just find the female figure with her smooth organic curves
more
> > aesthetically pleasing. Though I have taken several nude photographs of
my
> > male friend - a few of them pretty good - but none of his crotch.
> OK, here's my psychoanalysis (from party of one) about why UNTIL LATELY
> we've seen few if any sexualized male photos not homosexual or aimed at
> homosexual market: that's the taboo of men looking at, even touching
> other men. Much has been said & written about that (the cost overrun is
> vicious hazing in all-male fraternities) -- but until lately, & probably
> still, the limit of touch between men is a punch in the arm.
> That's THIS culture in this day. If you look at photo relics of 19th
> century there were often affectionate poses male with male NOT homosexual.
> Women for various reasons have not experienced this taboo, so they can
> enjoy art of the female body as men can't of the male body -- tho that
> seems to be much more culturally sanctioned these days... so may even
> change.
> Why the greater taboo for men? I would guess greater fear of
> homosexuality (which accounts for gay bashing).... women accept
> affectionate physical contact with and looking at other women without such
> fear. Girls don't grow up in constant fear of being "dike-y." Tom boy is
> actually good. But guys who know how to mix a salad or dress neatly will
> get called "faggot." NY Times mag recently had poignant story of a
> highschool student tormented by his classmates as "faggot" & generally gay
> bashed (tho he was "straight") because he figure skated.
> > I am also curious as to hear Judy's opinion on Helmut Newton? I have
some
> > male photographer friends who say he takes pictures of women in power,
though
> > from what I have seen of his work I am not so sure I agree...
> Helmut Newton is fabulous... great... hilarious. Ditto his power babes.
> > There, I *think* I've organized all my thoughts.....
> If so, you've done better than I have... thanks.
> Judy
> > Cheers,
> > Christine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:50 AM Z CST