nudes?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : People Photography : One Thread

I find much beauty in nude photography. And yes it is sexual and sensual. Unless you lie to yourself which many people do. So what is wrong with photographing a woman or man without clothes on? We are born this way. Are we ashamed? If you start drooling over nudes then you have a problem you might want to work on but if you just enjoy the senual nature of a nude, so what. I love smooth skin and pert little breasts. And nice legs. Pretty natural and healthy to like it. Pretty natural.

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), October 22, 2001

Answers

I'm convinced. I'll have two, please.

A large portion of our society just stops at the "sexual" aspect and never pregresses beyond and into the "art" aspect which takes some higher thinking. If everyone was a physician, we'd have a lot more appreciation of the Nude as art instead of the Nude as just sexual.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), October 22, 2001.


James...it sounds a bit like you're trying to convince yourself or get us to say it's ok. Hey, just go for it.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), October 22, 2001.

James, who said anything was wrong with it? Not here, I don't think.

However, I like photographing women with their clothes on. There's something about clothing that can say so much, at least for me. Too many nude shots look like they are way too posed (I was going to say "stiff" but thought better of it) and like the guy that was photographing was way too excited to think about the end result.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), October 23, 2001.


As far as "clothed" women and being just as sensual, sexual, I think this photograph by Lou Verruto is a stunning example.

And this photograph by Filipe Silva is another good example.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), October 23, 2001.


I think you're preaching to the choir here, but I'd go further and say that there's nothing wrong with enjoying the sexual nature of photos (whether nude or clothed). I find that most nude photos that treat the body as just a landscape are quite dull and, in some sense, actually diminish the subject. It's not just a lump of clay, or a mountain, or a bowl of apples, it's a body!! An actual living person! Yet some photographers seem to go out of their way to make a nude body seem as lifeless and sexless as possible, apparently out of some bizarre notion that if it's sexual, it's not Art.

I'd agree that the sensuality and sexuality evident in a photo have no direct relationship to the amount of skin showing, except perhaps as the state of undress reflects a context with sexual overtones. I propose that, in the photo below, the likely interpretation would be quite different if she were wearing pants.



-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), October 25, 2001.



I find that most nude photos that treat the body as just a landscape are quite dull and, in some sense, actually diminish the subject. It's not just a lump of clay, or a mountain, or a bowl of apples, it's a body!! An actual living person! Yet some photographers seem to go out of their way to make a nude body seem as lifeless and sexless as possible, apparently out of some bizarre notion that if it's sexual, it's not Art.

I sure agree to this, I guess you arepreaching to the choir. When I think "nude," that is usually what I think of. That or really cheesy pinup shots. But yours have a lot of character.

I find that Bravo's nudes are really interesting, definitely worth checking out.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), October 26, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ