Is there a predjudice against erotica here? I have posted a couple of images that may be interpreted as erotica, and didn't get the kind of response that indicated any prejudice. I did get plenty of opinions and interpretations.

Some of the images recently posted here that were intended to be "erotic" were just too unappealing in too many ways to be personally attractive. The subject looked to be a sexual professional, which is anti-erotic to me. Additionally, I found them too flawed technically, to enjoy as a photographer.

My requirements for erotica include a certain amount of romance, and the impression of co-operative pleasure, rather than a business transaction that requires a large dose of suspended disbelief, hefty fees, a trip to the doctor and possible litigation... t

Is this photograph erotic? (give me a minute to link it up)

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), November 03, 2000

Answers

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), November 03, 2000.

Perhaps an illustrated guide to, and apologias concerning personal interpretations of erotic imagery would be of interest/use to other participants at this forum (perhaps not!). Personal images or links to specific URLs/ images at other sites? Am I asking for trouble?... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), November 03, 2000.

"The subject looked to be a sexual professional" I love these meyerisms :) (If I can be so bold to create an "ism") I think there is a prejudice for erotica but I don't believe it to be strong enough to deter strong images from being posted. The standard for erotica here is probably higher than your average T&A photo website. We want more, more feeling, more atmosphere, and god forbid more thought before clicking that shutter. I believe the distinction between erotica and your avg junk would be boredom. There is probably even a greater prejudice against male nudes than female. I think every photographer of merit has shot nudes at one point or another, however the ones of merit say something about themselves in the images they create. A good nude is not necessarily about the woman or man standing there, its usually about the man or woman that is invisible.

I think the key to imagery such as this is basically say something about you that you need people to see. Say something about someone you care about about what you see in them. It's the two rules I try to follow everytime I reach for my camera. Sit down with a pad and a piece of paper and figure out what you really are going to shoot, how you will set up your lights(if any) and what you really are going to try and portray. How would you want to be portrayed if you were on the other side of the camera, How would you want your wife etc... portrayed. After all that thinking the shoot will flow so easily and quickly you will hardly believe it.

If there's no passion in your mind, how do you ever expect there to be any in your images? If you want to shoot nude women/men for kicks goto a strip bar and you can shoot 20 of them cheap, if you want to create something of worth put some blood and thought into it. If your nude photography stinks try thinking with the other head.

BTW this isn't the AllKnowingOracleOnImagery by me, it is simply my particular take on photography. I hope the above post is taken in that context.

What do YOU want to photograph today?

-- Altaf Shaikh (bshaikh@nyc.rr.com), November 03, 2000.

Since I brought this up, I guess I ought to clarify it. I was really speaking to the idea that Altaf raises: "Say something about someone you care about about what you see in them." This board is big on images that have "depth" and "meaning" (however you want to define that). I see erotica in general as covering a spectrum, from sensual portraiture to blatant sexuality, but what I was actually referring to was photos that don't try to justify themselves by appealing to some greater artistic ideal or to communicate something about the subject (or anything else for that matter), but are primarily designed to arouse by portraying idealized images rather than individuals. (I see much fashion work as being very similar - though the effect desired is usually for the viewer to identify with a more complex fantasy.)

As I already mentioned, I think Tom Ruddock's www.bluenudes.com is a really extraordinary example of contemporary erotica - and one that doesn't try to position itself as anything else but that. Robb Debenport (www.debenport.com) is an example of someone who shoots beautiful but somewht formulaic erotica, and attempts to justify it by categorizing it as fine art (apparently just because most of it's grainy and high-contrast), while Howard Austin Feld, (www.hafdigital.com) is similar, but even more formulaic. (However, since he has a studio just off of South Beach, he must be on to something.)

I see the purpose of this board as being to provide constructive criticism (technical, formal, and interpretave) to photographers doing any form of people photography, so I was disappointed that more people didn't respond to Steve V's posts.

And given my definition, I would never consider classifying most of the other pictures that have been posted here (that contained some nudity) as erotica. This picture here, however, would fit my definition.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), November 03, 2000.

Steve posted his work as an attack of sorts, and thereby influenced the nature of many of the responses.

The observation that (erotic photographs) "are primarily designed to arouse by portraying idealized images" also well describes good advertising photography, a point not in conflict with the rest of Mr. Kantor's post.

I don't like to think of human erotic imagination in commercial terms. I'm happy to be paid for my erotic images, but this path of thinking again takes me to sexual professionalism and I don't create this sort of work with a market in mind, it really is "personal" work and those who buy it have often been of the same gender as those depicted.

I'd rather make images that evoke emotions than sensations, or realizations rather than fantasies.

The bluenudes images didn't really impress me. Genetically astounding women, and dedicated, polished applications, but the technique sort of overwhelms any ability or desire to place myself into any context with those girls. No hint of a woody. They looked as "created" as their environs... spandex, acrylic and megabytes ... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), November 03, 2000.

------------- I don't like to think of human erotic imagination in commercial terms. I'm happy to be paid for my erotic images, but this path of thinking again takes me to sexual professionalism and I don't create this sort of work with a market in mind, it really is "personal" work and those who buy it have often been of the same gender as those depicted. -------------

Perhaps sex (and erotica) should be left to the professionals! (After all we wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, now would we?)

--------------- The bluenudes images didn't really impress me. Genetically astounding women, and dedicated, polished applications, but the technique sort of overwhelms any ability or desire to place myself into any context with those girls. No hint of a woody. They looked as "created" as their environs... spandex, acrylic and megabytes ... ---------------

I'm not sure just what you can see now on BlueNudes, but I subscribed for a while just to look over his entire "oeuvre" (if you can call it that). His range, imagination, and technical skill are amazing.

But "erotica" as I define it is neither personal (as sensual portraiture is - Glamour Shots perhaps?) nor purely visceral (as pornography). Instead, it's iconic and semiotic.

Nudity per se is neither personal nor arousing. (Interest and arousal are specific sets of actions and interactions, both physical and social.) It's only when you add (or remove) the possibility of concealment that the body (as artifact) becomes sexualized. And that's what both erotica and fashion deal with - in effect being two sides of the same coin.

In a society which "suppresses" sexuality, both are forbidden - at least in public (as in Saudi Arabia, where I spent a year). In a society which "represses" sexuality (in both public and private), both are ubiquitous.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), November 03, 2000.

I've noticed that the partially clad body is more sexually provokative than completely nude, even if it's just shoes (from 5 inch spikes to unlaced Doc Martins).

I'll concur with your description of erotica as "iconic and semiotic", but balk at agreeing that "Nudity per se is neither personal nor arousing."... speak (of course) for yourself, as do I. The unadorned human form offers unlimited possible poses and responses. But the slinky negligee, the open buttoned jeans, or the slit thigh, little black dress cannot be misinterpreted.

And this I totally disagree with... "It's only when you add (or remove) the possibility of concealment that the body (as artifact) becomes sexualized." There's too much contradictory precedent in both genres (fine art/ pornography) to support this theory. Concealment, even slight, lends itself to coy presentation. Just an exposed ankle in Victorian times was sufficient to arouse... t

p.s. could you elaborate on "the body as artifact" if you don't mind, it could be very interesting...

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), November 03, 2000.

This subject is too complicated for me and makes my brain hurt when I think about it.

However, I agree completely with this statement:

I've noticed that the partially clad body is more sexually provokative than completely nude

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), November 04, 2000.

i think the issue t raises is very important in any forum that deals with pictures of people, for the obvious reason: nudity is the final characteristic that we all share, and the depiction of that condition is vital to our understanding of ourselves as both observers and image makers. furthermore, i think that the portrayals of "erotica" offered by steve v and by t meyer present excellent examples of the broad range of photographic philosophy at work in the genre. *as portrayed*, the women in steve's images are treated as part of a straightforward attempt to demonstrate the *power* of the female sexuality; whether that power elicits a positive erotic reaction or revulsion or simply mild displeasure is up to the viewer and his reaction to a very confrontational display. on the other hand, tom's treatment is much more subtle, but far more the result of the photographer's technical abilities. the most recent posting is a perfect example. the lighting is delicate, molding the lines of the body perfectly, making the presentation very provocative in a *pleasing* way. there is a certain romanticism underlying this effort, and the image is in praise of its subject. how far this is from steve's "this is for john, who wanted more body,etc."...far more pornographic, blatant: just look at those tits, boys! what a great piece of ass, doncha just know it! in the end, i suppose the choice of preference depends on what you are looking for as a participant in the photographic experience. there are times when one suits, the other doesn't, and vice versa. not a cop-out, just the truth, for me.

anyway, i see no possible way to conduct a meaningful forum which announces its status as "people" photography without having pictures of people without clothes on.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), November 04, 2000.

There are some deep and serious thoughts in this thread which I will not even attemt to comment on. Just two points:

1. There used to be a prejudice (as you know): see this post for the change.
2. I personally set much higher standards for nudes and erotic images. I think I'm not alone in this matter. This may give rise to a feeling that there is a prejudice against erotica.

So I don't think there is a prejudice againts erotica as such, but, for example, I would not consider your image in this thread to be of high enough standard. (You can't have an image of a beautiful woman end in an amorpheous (sp?) blob -- give us some detail! You also need something in that window -- try to plant (!) a nice autumn tree there: lots of colouts to contrast with the almost monochrome silhouette of the woman. Tidy up the composition a bit.) Needless to say, your images are better than anything I have ever done, but then I don't post erotica.

(No! I'm not prejudiced, honest!)

-- Allan Engelhardt (allane@cybaea.com), November 04, 2000.

I've been pretty hard on most of the erotic images posted here, but I don't consider myself prejudiced at all (yeah right! :) What I absolutely don't like is the "cheap" look - hard to define, I know, but probably something along the line of Toms "sexual professionals". I have plans for a series of male nudes, but I still havenB4t found the right model. Some of my favourite stuff is here - check it out.

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), November 04, 2000.

So - nothing to say about male erotica? You phobics ;) How do you think it feels for women to look at the kind you like? (half kidding now - but only half...)

Btw Tom, I forgot to mention that I do find your photo erotic - the art of suggestion is a finer art IMO than just throwing it all in the viewers face. And I don't agree with Allan about the "blob". SheB4s a mystery and thatB4s ok.

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), November 06, 2000.

If this forum is biased at all, it is towards images which treat their subject with sympathy. Departures from the rule are expected to be justified, preferably by something contained within the image itself.

Steve failed on all counts.

Like Allan, I demand more of a nude photograph, partly because I suspect the photographers motives, but also because so many seem to rely on the mere inclusion of bare skin to attract interest. I actively dislike beautifully-lit 'art' nudes where statuesque perfect bodies are twisted into pretzels in a coy effort to avoid showing any hint of genitalia. Shades of Ruskin on his wedding night.

Christel: to me Gunton's stuff looks as formulaic as Debenport's, and just as buried in its own self-referential, safe, closed world. Not cheap, but then, ocelot capes aren't cheap.

Tom: this one's definitely more erotic than the 'aftermath' image, but it's also much more conventional and much less interesting. I get more of a feeling that I'm being told what I should think, and I hate that.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), November 06, 2000.