nudity, art, and photography [Archive]

Bob S.

11-23-2003, 01:47 PM

What is it about photographs? We have heard all about the photo processing horror stories where someone takes an innocent picture of their child au naturel and gets in trouble for it. Why is it that taking a picture of something that is legal can suddenly be illegal? You are bathing your children, take their picture because they look so precious, and suddenly, that is illegal. Why?

Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, David Hamilton, etc. have all been labelled as controversial because of their use of naked children/teens in their pictures. But if you were walking past them as they were shooting their subjects, you would see nothing wrong. The prints, however, are something to wonder about.

The visual art medium that is most accepted is the drawing/painting. Balthus was a controversial artist when he painted naked adolescent girls, but the outrage wasn't on the level as if her were a photographer.

Bob S.

Bob S.

11-23-2003, 01:47 PM

NuTex

11-23-2003, 03:27 PM

Bob,
Good question. I've thought about this myself at times. In the area where I live there is a local art exhibit that has some bronze statues that includes nudes of both adults and children. Had those been photos very likely they would be labeled as kiddie porn and maybe illegal.

IMHO, I think it's has to do with how much a problem body shame is in our society. If one holds that all nudity equals sex then a healthy non-sexual photo of a nude child is then always viewed as kiddie porn. We see something similar recently when a mother got in trouble for allowing her toddler girl to go top free at a water park.

Finally, there is the current paranoia over kiddie porn and child molesting. While of course both are repulsive and must be prosecuted there seems to be an unrealistic panic that I believe is blowing this out of proportion compared to reality. Just as studies show that the public perception of child abductions is that they're up but crime reports show that in reality they're actually down I believe this same misperception, when combined with the before mentioned body shame, results in the bizarre accounts you mentioned.
Larry

aunaturelone

11-23-2003, 05:40 PM

As far as the "naked baby" photos that get people in trouble, they make such news because they are so exceptional. There are probably millions of them taken every year yet the rate of prosecutions on them is no more than you can count on one hand.

What happens is that in a "democracy" small but fanatical and well organized voting blocs can end up being critical to political power. This happens on both the left and the right on all kinds of issues. Don't ever think that one wing of political thought is more dangerous than another. The most dangerous wing is always the one in power at the moment.

In any election (except for president), 50%+1 of the popular vote gives you a victory. However in a partisan race you must first get the nomination. Very often several candidates will vie for the same slot. If, say, 20% of the GOP in a given area are fanatical and well organized cultural conservatives, not only will they vote for you but they'll walk precincts, make calls and hold mailing parties. They'll donate money and labor to make themselves powerful out of proportion to their numbers. They'll launch annonymous smear campaigns against yur opponents. That can be enough to get you the nomination. If the voting goes down along party lines and the Republicans have a majority of the registrations, you win the election.

How do you prove yourself to these cultural conservatives? If you are a prosecutor, you MIGHT pick an issue and make a high profile case out of it. Because of the intensely emotional reactions some people (on both the right and the left) have regarding child molestation and child pornography, it seems to some to be a good choice for a prosecution. (Losing the case doesn't seem to be a drawback to these folks if an effort was made.)

Case in point: the McMartin Preschool tial. We had two consecutive district attorneys who jumped into the McMartin prosecution as a way to get political support from a hand full of hysterical parents and public and private entities who depend on having lots of victims about for their livelihoods.

Fortunately the injustice of the persecution of innocent people ultimately caused both to fail in getting reelected. (Unfortunately by the time innocent verdicts were given all around, the defendent's lives were destroyed anyhow.) However in an area that was both more conservative and less sophisticated than LA, or if the trial hadn'r gotten such heavy press coverage, the tactic would probably have worked.

Sometimes something will tweak a prosecutor's nose for no apparent reason but his/her own idiosynchratic nature. If you are obsessed with something you tend to see it everywhere. If that happens to be molestation or pornography, then that's what you'll see around you.

However, I really do believe the majority of "naked baby" picture prosecutions are politically motivated and not done out of a belief the perpetrator was really doing anything wrong. We must be thankful that it is rare enough to generate publicity and protests when it happens.

aunaturelone

11-23-2003, 05:42 PM

This might be a good place to post books and artists dealing with the nude that we like the best.

blackrebel

11-24-2003, 07:57 AM

As a photographer who does about 50% nudes, I find some work of Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, David Hamilton quite disturbing, especially when you see the photos not of just nude youth, but more of photos of pre-teen girls in makeup and jewelry and such.

We better watch out who we defend. This is why nudism has problems, that is accepting the far reaching radicals of people who happen to be naked, but by accounts of most of the public, perverts.

11-24-2003, 08:43 AM

blackrebel...Interesting point...I wonder if any of the photographers you mention are naturists and what their thoughts are on the naturist movement..It seemed that Spencer Tunick was very uncomfortable with being nude himself in his doumentary....".Naked States"...It seems that someone who photographs nudes should be comfortable being nude also.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Odb

Jochanaan

11-24-2003, 09:00 AM

It should be asked: What was the relationship of the aforementioned artists to their subjects?

David Hamilton, by his own account, provided a lavish residence somewhere in France for his girls, none of whom seemed to be related to him; that's questionable at best. In one of his books he mentioned "traditional prudishness" in disparaging terms, suggesting that he wouldn't be averse to sex with his subjects. Sally Mann's subjects, on the other hand, were her relatives, and I've never heard any suggestion that she's ever behaved improperly toward them. And I seem to recall that Jock Sturges is comfortable with being naked while he photographs his nude or near-nude friends and children of friends in nudist settings.

As I've said in many contexts, it's mostly in the intent.

Buzzer

11-24-2003, 09:10 AM

I have been studying the drawings of Rubens. his art (some of it of nudes) is very interesting to me. I feel that he portrays the real figure, rather than today's idea of the "perfect" figure.

David77

11-24-2003, 10:21 AM

Please see the wonderful paintings of the master painter Joaquin Sorolla (y Bastida).
The St. Louis Art Museum had two special exhibits of his paintings, which were borrowed for the occasion from other museums. The first exhibit was in 1911 (before I was born - ha, ha) but the later exhibit I had the good fortune to view the massive great paintings and will never forget each painting.

You can view 46 of these great painting enlarged to full screen size at the following web site;

http://artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=1393&page=1

11-24-2003, 11:03 AM

David ...Thanks for the great website..very impressive...Odb /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NuTex

11-24-2003, 04:07 PM

David,
That indeed was a great link. Thanks!

I followed it further and found this.
http://artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Hockney_Refuted/hockney1.asp
The article at this link didn't interest me much but the art was great.
NuTex

Bob S.

11-24-2003, 06:11 PM

I am a very big fan of Sally Mann and her pictures of the living human subjects, mainly her family. Not so much so of her landscapes and definitely not of her latest body of work which is pictures of death.

As for whether they are comfortable in their skin, Sally Mann, in the introduction of her book, "Immediate Family" talks of her unusual childhood and her running around the five acres of her family's home naked. She seemed to have kept that kind of innocence in her pictures as well.

Jock Sturges takes his pictures on nude beaches. His subjects are familiar to him and if you look in his books, you will see some girls who literally grow up between hte pages.

I don't know much about David Hamilton and am not a really big fan.

"This is why nudism has problems, that is accepting the far reaching radicals of people who happen to be naked, but by accounts of most of the public, perverts."

There is another topic all together rebel. Separating the art from the artist. That is being done today with a marching band deciding not to perform "Thriller" during a parade march. Another photographer that has undergone a lot of posthumous debate is Lewis Carroll and his photos of girls. Was he or wasn't he a pedophile?

But when it comes to accepting people, nudists for the most part acknowledge behaviour more than anything else. And the problem is not that nudists accept them, it is that everyone else sees them naked and assumes that they must be nudists.

Bob S.

Doug H

11-24-2003, 07:12 PM

David Hamilton definitely plays with the line between sexual and nonsexual in most of his photos. I'm not saying that he isn't a good photographer. I'm saying that his photos are more designed for interpretation as opposed to being a portrayal of life, especially where the depiction of nudity is concerned.

Spencer Tunick is of another style altogher. While his photograph's are unquestionably of harmless nudity of normal people in nonsexual situations, I would not qualify them as nudist or naturist photographs. My basic reason for this is that they definitely don't qualify as showing people who are normally nude as they are in their normal life.

Sally Mann's pictures of her family are a marvelous depictions of how innocent childhood nudity most certainly is. I'm a big Jock Sturge's fan, owning all his books, and watching some of his subjects grow up before his camera was definitely a treat to see. In both cases, those who would see a change in level of sexuality in the photos were subjects normally clothed has the "nudity = sex" cliche firmly lodged in their psyche. These photos are of the style that would have the most effect in getting people to think about nudity being harmless and possibly healthy within a nonsexual context.

Also, there have been some great points made on the potential effects of nude photos in the spheres of electoral politics and mass media economics. The only way I see to remove the shock value is to put more photo books of the Mann and Sturge's styles and other similar media before the public. There might even be the small possibility that a young person may see them and be influenced into giving nude living a try. Why? Because they will be seeing someone like themselves in these pictures. Now wouldn't that help on a demographic shortcoming seen often in the nudist world.

Doug H.

Buzzer

11-25-2003, 08:05 AM

Bastida was a great artist, indeed. I'd not seen his work before. Thank you for introducing me.

Jochanaan

11-25-2003, 09:04 AM

Why haven't we heard of Sorolla y Bastida before? His work is wonderful! Great brushwork, plenty of light, and marvelous attention to telling details. Another proof that the Impressionist movement wasn't limited to France.

It's not quite true that Rubens painted "real women," as opposed to depicting an ideal. In his day the ideal woman was full-figured. Just look at Raphael's or Titian's work. It was a status thing: only rich women could afford enough food to make themselves fat. Rubens became so identified with this ideal that a word was coined: Rubenesque.

Jochanaan

11-25-2003, 09:17 AM

In my musical history studies I learned the sad truth that great composers were not necessarily good men. Many of them had legendary tempers. Johann Sebastian Bach is said to have torn off his wig and hurled it at an orchestra member, yelling, "You should have been a shoemaker!" And he was one of the most upright ones: a lifelong Lutheran who wrote on every work, "S.D.G," the initials for the Latin phrase Soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone).

Tchaikovsky had homosexual tendencies, and Benjamin Britten lived openly with his favorite tenor. Franz Schubert is said to have died of syphilis. And Richard Wagner not only had no sexual morals, he had no morals of any kind and was a pathological anti-Semite. There was a good reason he was Hitler's favorite composer. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

So if I allowed the morality of composers to determine whether I played their music or not, I would have almost nothing left! Bach, and Felix Mendelssohn (a Messianic Jew) and possibly Antonin Dvorak and earlier church composers (though many of them were also very colorful characters, like the Renaissance composer who killed his wife's lover).

Mostly, it's the work that matters, not the character of those who produced it.

tarsus

11-25-2003, 05:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by blackrebel:
As a photographer who does about 50% nudes, I find some work of Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, David Hamilton quite disturbing, especially when you see the photos not of just nude youth, but more of photos of pre-teen girls in makeup and jewelry and such.

We better watch out who we defend. This is why nudism has problems, that is accepting the far reaching radicals of people who happen to be naked, but by accounts of most of the public, perverts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>hello blackrebel: i am not really familar with david hamiltons work,but i am a fan of the other two,sometimes a picture has to be disturbing to
to get the point across. have you heard of a person named conikin?[sp?] i had his web site but it's lost. he records a hundred years of women,one of these is his mother,one of a young woman bound to a wheelchair,one a teen who was shot and killed shortly after the pic was taken.they show joy and sadness. you shoot more nudes then i do,i like natural setting,wild life etc.

Jochanaan

11-26-2003, 05:31 AM

Isn't that Frank Cordelle's "Century Project"? Beautiful pictures. Here's the url:

http://www.thecenturyproject.com/photos.htm

NuTex

11-26-2003, 06:55 AM

I have to admit I have some interest in this subject in that I have done a lot of art through the years and my daughter, who is about to go to high school, is planning a career in Communication Design (i.e. commercial art). So art is very much a part of our lives.

Joachanaan, I think you are right when you wrote, "Mostly, it's the work that matters, not the character of those who produced it." I agree completely with this statement. Though I don't find the homosexual aspects in and of itself of Tchaikovsky or Benjamin Britten as a moral problem (while I'm straight I don't believe homosexuality is a sin, but that is another topic) I would agree with your assessment of Wagner. But I still find their music wonderful.

I agree the Century Project is fantastic. Thanks for bringing it up. I had forgotten about that.

While Hamilton is a talented photographer, IMHO, I think much of his work boarders on what I call "glamour porn". That's what I call pornography that's attempts to pass itself off as art. I do find Sally Mann work to be very good though. I haven't seem much of Sturges work in the past and what little I have seen comes across to me like a Calvin Klein ad and leaves me a little cold. But that's just my initial impression and it may change as time goes along.

aunaturelone

11-26-2003, 08:37 AM

Funny how the conversation immediately turned to controversial photographers of children and teens.

I love Sturgis' work. I have "Last Day of Summer" and "Age of Innocence". Nothing done in the studio, all of it is on location at nude beaches or other clothing optional comminities. His ability to capture the humanity of his subjects and their growng physical and emotional maturity as they reach childhood's end is unequalled. He draws criticism, some of it justifiable, for having girls as 90% of his subject matter. Still, that is where his heart takes him. If you've read anything about how he does his photography, know any of the background, you know that not only is it not abusive in the slightest but rather a positive experience for all concerned.

Of all the photographers mentioned so far, Hamilton is the most controversial. There is a definite eroticism in his photgraphy but then, I don't think healthy eroticism is neccessarily a bad thing. What is important (to me) in whether the photography is "acceptable" is the relationship between photographer and model. To my knowledge it is not abusive.

All his nude work is of girls entering or in puberty which demostrates a stong heterosexual bias. By now he is an elderly man. (So is Jock Sturgis. And both men are married and their wives assist them.)

Hamilton sets up his models in a residence in order to create an evironment where his models forget about the world and do what comes "naturally". He finds them on the beaches of France and through parents who bring them for portraiture. (In France he's highly sought after.) Like Sturgis he has been known to photgraph successive generations in the same family but unlike Sturgis his style is romantic and impressionist and he does not shy away from the blossing sexuality of his models. With Sturgis it's there but he doesn't pay any attention to it.

Sturgis is more of a reporter with an artistic flair. Hamilton is a painter with a lens.

I can see how his work would have a great deal of appeal to pedophiles and ephebophiles but IMHO that alone isn't enough to merit restriction. I haven't heard of any history of complaints against him by models or their parents. What I have seen (Dreams of a Young Girl) aren't "dirty" pictures or even high quality cheesecake, they are heartbreakingly beautiful. Some of his models have gone on to careers in cinema; Maud Adams is one.

Hamilton also have movies that stray over into soft core sexual themes. I've never seen one so I won't make a judgement.

If he were in America, though, he'd almost certainly get busted for child porn. Sturgis got busted for it by a grandstanding prosecutor. After having his practice almost destroyed by the prosecutors tactics (forced a lab worker to cop to a plea bargain, tried to intimidate the models and their parents into perjuring themselves, destroyed most of Sturgis' equipment, negatives and records) the grand jury exhonerated Sturgis and severely criticized the prosecutor for even bringing the case. That's quite unheard of.

Sally Mann's photos are simply family photos taken by a superb artist who brings all her considerable talents as well as the love of a wise mother to her art. Since she's not hung up on clothing, there naturally happen to be quite a few nudes interspersed in the collection.

Another controversial photographer is Will McBride. Most of his nudes were done in the 60s and 70s in Europe documenting the counterculture and the anti-war movement. His photo-essay Sidhartha is consdered a classic. I have two of his books, I, Will McBride and Coming of Age. Nothing particularly erotic about either of them. If he hadn't included teen age boys in his nudes I suspect the West Germans would never had censored him.

Jochanaan

11-26-2003, 11:30 AM

Great post, aunaturelone. I was glad to hear that Mr. Hamilton's relationship with his models is not abusive or exploitative.

But tell me, what is ephebophilia? I confess it's a word I've never heard or read.

NuTex

11-26-2003, 11:39 AM

If memory serves it's one who is sexually attracted primarily with early teen and teenagers and usually not to adults. As opposed to pedophiles who are sexually attracted to pre-teens and usually not to adults. I may be wrong but that's how I understand the term.

NuTex

11-26-2003, 11:46 AM

BTW, I also want to say that I agree with Jochanaan on being glad to hear about Hamilton. I'm still not sure about his work though. And I'll try to keep an open mind about Sturges. I wasn't aware 'Last Day of Summer' was his work, which I think is well made.

tarsus

11-26-2003, 02:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
Isn't that Frank Cordelle's "Century Project"? Beautiful pictures. Here's the url:

http://www.thecenturyproject.com/photos.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>jochanaan: thank you for being able to pick up on my lack of recall. site was lost to me. anyone who has not viewed it should. these are the kind of pics. that stir the soul.i wish i could have such an effect,with my attempts to convey joy,and saddness;-- life. if only the lens where so kind to me,if only i pocessed the skill.

Bob S.

11-26-2003, 08:39 PM

"Funny how the conversation immediately turned to controversial photographers of children and teens."

aunaturelone, it's not funny. I introduced them in my original message because I was wondering why the nude photography of children is so taboo in our society. It is funny, a five-year-old girl can go outside topless, but if you capture it on film, people could see it as child porn. An adult woman cannot go outside topless in most places, but capture it on film, and everything is fine. No crime. And thank you for your wonderful analysis.

And NuTex (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Mark Twain) was right. Ephebophilia is the sexual attraction to teenagers.

Bob S.

NuTex

11-27-2003, 01:15 AM

Bob S wrote <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> NuTex (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Mark Twain) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's because it is. I chose it from the list when I signed up for the forum. Mark Twain is one of my personal heroes.

Doug H

11-27-2003, 07:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
I was wondering why the nude photography of children is so taboo in our society. It is funny, a five-year-old girl can go outside topless, but if you capture it on film, people could see it as child porn. An adult woman cannot go outside topless in most places, but capture it on film, and everything is fine. No crime. And thank you for your wonderful analysis.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, American soceity is downright wierd, and on this one, the wierdness couldn't be more baseless.

I think the distinction here is not the photographs themselves but the potential use of those photographs as money-making or blackmailing instruments. Seen in that light, the question becomes everyday life versus business life.

In everyday life, a nude child is reasonably harmless, but a nude adult is often view as sexual. "And we must prevent our children from being exposed to anything sexual" cries the moral's police. And it's difficult to restrict a child's access to a public place, so it's simply not allowed there.

In the business world, an child is most often seen as something vulnerable to exploitation for pocket-lining ends, while an adult is most often seen as a willing participant in the transaction. It's also more possible, and considered most advantageous, in the business world to segregate such displays to adults-only paying venues or media from which children can be restricted.

Welcome to the clash of morals and economics in 20th Century USA. Two groups of people with opposing, overreaching agendas making life difficult for the moderate people in the middle to let reason be a reasonable guide.

Doug H.

oilsmooth

11-27-2003, 09:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Doug H:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
I was wondering why the nude photography of children is so taboo in our society. It is funny, a five-year-old girl can go outside topless, but if you capture it on film, people could see it as child porn. An adult woman cannot go outside topless in most places, but capture it on film, and everything is fine. No crime. And thank you for your wonderful analysis.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, American soceity is downright wierd, and on this one, the wierdness couldn't be more baseless.

I think the distinction here is not the photographs themselves but the potential use of those photographs as money-making or blackmailing instruments. Seen in that light, the question becomes everyday life versus business life.

In everyday life, a nude child is reasonably harmless, but a nude adult is often view as sexual. "And we must prevent our children from being exposed to anything sexual" cries the moral's police. And it's difficult to restrict a child's access to a public place, so it's simply not allowed there.

In the business world, an child is most often seen as something vulnerable to exploitation for pocket-lining ends, while an adult is most often seen as a willing participant in the transaction. It's also more possible, and considered most advantageous, in the business world to segregate such displays to adults-only paying venues or media from which children can be restricted.

Welcome to the clash of morals and economics in 20th Century USA. Two groups of people with opposing, overreaching agendas making life difficult for the moderate people in the middle to let reason be a reasonable guide.

Doug H. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oilsmooth

11-27-2003, 09:49 AM

A few have ruined it for many. Although we see it okey to shoot photos, others have become, rightly so, protective of the underaged.
But that's okey, I would rather have it that way than to have the action of photo shooting go rampant.

Trailscout

11-27-2003, 10:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by oilsmooth:
A few have ruined it for many. Although we see it okey to shoot photos, others have become, rightly so, protective of the underaged.
But that's okey, I would rather have it that way than to have the action of photo shooting go rampant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What's to protect? If I publish a non-sexual picture of a person who was a child 10 or 20 years ago, who are you protecting by forbidding me to publish it?

Why do think that there is no harm done to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of speech if we allow the government to forbid platonic photography if it doesn't meet their list of approved subject matter?

By your reasoning, we would be better off shutting down nudist resorts and shutting down all Internet discussion about nudism, just to be safe.

Doug H

11-27-2003, 10:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by oilsmooth:
I would rather have it that way than to have the action of photo shooting go rampant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then those protection efforts are missing their mark. Why? Thanks to technology, surreptitious and improper use of miniture cameras and cameraphones are making it easier to get the pics without getting caught. It's time to quit concentrating on the fact that the photos exist and start zeroing in on the people misusing technology for prurient ends.

And if those are the only photos of nude people to make headlines, then all nude photos will be considered "bad". Put a shelf or two of books and magazines filled with more innocent photos in major bookstores and I think you'll see a perception change.

BTW, I think that is true of all media; photos, internet, film, and books. The more of it out there, the more of a lessening of the "wierd" perception will take place. It will take time, but it'll happen.

Doug H.

Trailscout

11-27-2003, 11:15 AM

Doug, good point!

Judicious use of the graphic arts is one way to help NORMALIZE nudity.

I have run into too many people who are shocked by the sight of humanity in its normal nude state.

I keep hearing comments that genitals in particular are strange looking. It is only because we are not used to seeing them.

I remember stories about the first time Europeans met Asians, Africans, etc. how the two peoples marvelled at each other, not just the bodies, but the clothing and accessories each saw in the other.

I would like to see more nude statuary, frequent use of nonsexual nudity in advertising, television, billboards, books and art.

I am also strongly in favor of positive textile encounters with actual nude people as well. Through repeated exposure, eventually someone will reach a threshold and nudity will become normal for him/her.

11-27-2003, 11:55 AM

"I am also strongly in favor of positive textile encounters with actual nude people as well."

YOU might be in favour, but what if the textiles don't want to encounter nude people?

Stu

Rik

11-27-2003, 12:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"I am also strongly in favor of positive textile encounters with actual nude people as well."

YOU might be in favour, but what if the textiles don't want to encounter nude people? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read what he said again Stu. If the people who encounter it don't want it then it's not a positive encounter and therefore not what Trailscout is in favour of. Duh! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

NuTex

11-27-2003, 02:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> YOU might be in favour, but what if the textiles don't want to encounter nude people? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu,
Let me start by quoting the American Thomas Jefferson:
?The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.?

While Jefferson was speaking of religious freedom I think the same applies to this topic. A nude person in public does not injure anyone. The observer may find offense in the viewing of the nude person but that is not the same as being injured.

Are you of the opinion that the State should limit another person's nudity because a group of textiles in power don't want to encounter it? Even if the textiles are the majority there is a concept that the rights of the minority must be protected and the power of the majority must be restricted.

Not too long ago on this side of the pond the US Attorney General purchased several expensive drapes to cover some partially nude statues in the Justice Department. The reason being that he had been offended by their nudity. And not long ago there was a case where a group of citizens who didn't want to see a public nude statue climbed it and attempted to clothe it.

Would say both were right because they didn't want to encounter the nude people as shown in the statues?

aunaturelone

11-27-2003, 10:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Ephebophilia is the sexual attraction to teenagers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Strictly speaking, this definition makes almost everyone an ephebophile for fairly significant periods of their life. Of course if you are a teenager yourself, ephebophilia would seem entirely approriate. And the infamous girl who is "16 going on 22" can be quite a temptation to the average heterosexual male throughout much of his lifespan. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've always heard an ephebophile described as "one who is primarily sexually attracted to adolescents over an inapproriate age differential". Whereas pedophilia is sexual attraction to children who have not yet entered puberty.

aunaturelone

11-27-2003, 10:49 PM

There is a series of three books, all quite good, by Charles R. Collum: Dallas Nude, New York Nude and Los Angeles Nude. The illustrations are simple nudes of ordinary people of all ages and from all walks of life, usually against a simple grey background.

He doesn't mention nudism or naturism but the sense of honesty and body acceptance incorporated into the work is quite powerful.

The Victorian Era has a reputation for being powerfully sexually repressed. During the latter half of that period and into the Edwardian Era the nude child was a quite common subject. The nude child was considered emblematic of innocence and purity, so the sexual taboos that kept men and women covered from head to toe didn't apply to children in Victorian art. This is the environment in which Lewis Carrol did his nude photography of Alice Liddel.

Kari P

11-28-2003, 12:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
The Victorian Era has a reputation for being powerfully sexually repressed. During the latter half of that period and into the Edwardian Era the nude child was a quite common subject. The nude child was considered emblematic of innocence and purity, so the sexual taboos that kept men and women covered from head to toe didn't apply to children in Victoran art. This is the environment in which Lewis Carrol did his nude photography of Alice Liddel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This means that the depiction of a nude child has been earlier more acceptable than it is in our days. This is sad. The attitude comes partly from pedophilia hysteria.

If a pedophile gets pervert stimulation from an innocent picture of a naked child, whis was shot causing no harm to the child and with his/her parents' permission, should we care? Isn't the only thing that matters that the pedophile does no harm to real children?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
I would like to see more nude statuary, frequent use of nonsexual nudity in advertising, television, billboards, books and art.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe nonsexual nudity, especially of children, in advertising and television is more common in Europe than in America. I have seen children's programs with nude children (not many, but yet) and primetime programs with non-warned nudity in Finnish tv. Nudity in advertising is not unusual, it is common e.g. in advertisements of sauna products.

This week a customer magazine of an electricity company contained a full page picture of a naked family (man, woman and two preteen girls) in sauna. The characters were partly behind fog, their breasts nor genitals weren't visible. This was a beautiful and artistic picture. I am sure here virtually no one would complain about this nude picture nor keep the magazine non-accessible to children because of it.

Kari P

Bob S.

11-28-2003, 09:12 PM

Hey NuTex, you can't go wrong with Mark Twain. He wrote a book where two of the main characters were naked for most of their journey down the Mississippi.

"Although we see it okey to shoot photos, others have become, rightly so, protective of the underaged.
But that's okey, I would rather have it that way than to have the action of photo shooting go rampant."

Actually oil, we have gone past the protectiveness of children and into the overprotectiveness of them. And while I agree that those who take the pictures should be considerate and not just crazied, there is such thing as going overboard with the laws.

"If a pedophile gets pervert stimulation from an innocent picture of a naked child, whis was shot causing no harm to the child and with his/her parents' permission, should we care? Isn't the only thing that matters that the pedophile does no harm to real children?"

Stop talking nonsense, Kari, it may catch on. It seems that in the US society, if there is a possibility that someone can do something evil with a picture of a child, it is better if that picture is not seen. I'm sure that pervs have bought the Saly Mann and Jock Sturges books for their own pleasure. But does that mean that the books should not be sold? No.

And it is sad that the naked prepubescent form has gone from innocence and purity to sick and disturbed. But you are right Kari, the fault lies soley with society willing to look at everything through the eyes of the pedophile.

Bob S.

Artie

11-28-2003, 11:36 PM

I have a story on this topic that has a bit of an odd twist. A friend of mine from college who was a fine art photo student took a trip to another artists studio. She was a photo professor at the university. While in her studio he shot some pictures of her art. on eof the pictures which he later processed and put up for critique in class was a detail of one of her piece whic he changed a little in the darkroom. The picture was of a young topless girl about 6 or 7 years old standing next to a doll torso that had nails in it. When the class hung up their work for critique he included this picture. As it came time to address his photo, many people in class (especially the women) saw it as a power image about childhood and gender roles. Whe it was learned that the photo was by my friend (who was a male) the women in class instantly thought of it as an indecent and perverted image. When he explained that the image came from his intrepretation of another womans photograph, they were still angry with him. This from a group of female photography students who week after week put up nude self-portraits. They all thought he was a eprvert for taking this picture. I have a copy of this photo. There is nothing perverted about it. I always thought this story was intresting because ofthe change in opinion of the photo anly when the photographer was a man and not a woman.
Just a thought.
By the way Lewis Carroll the author of Alice in Wonderlan used to photograph young girls nude. Many of these photos still survive. He did it for years until he (very abruptly) stopped.
As for me, I have always made sure my models were over 18 just to be on the safe side. There have been many cases in the US ( but I don't know of any recently) where parents have ahd there children taken away by Protective Child Services for innocent photos of kids nude in the tub or backyard. Its a tragedy.

Peace
Artie

NuTex

11-30-2003, 03:43 AM

Hey Artie,
I like the choice of Van Gough as your avatar. Great artist.

Artie

12-11-2003, 03:59 PM

I'm kind of supprised this topic died. Not many new posts recently. As an artist I have never had much of a problem with nudity in art. I am distressed with the artists who create work in order to push the line between art and pornography. I think this demeans the work of other figurative artists who work with the nude. really, does this kind of art really need to be made? I think not, there are better themes for artists to explore.
Just my $0.02 worth.

Artie

David77

12-11-2003, 05:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Artie:
I'm kind of supprised this topic died. Not many new posts recently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK, then here is a post;
I strongly suggest that any aspiring artist diligently concentrate on memorizing the standard human body proportions and faithfully apply this knowledge on his drawing or sculpture thru careful visual measurement.

Here is a web site that will help, and especially concentrate on the page that is entitled "Standard Human Body Proportions". One can not be too careful in this area of drawing or sculpting the human form. If the proportions are not right, the art piece will eventually haunt you (in my opinion).
http://www2.evansville.edu/drawinglab/LAB.html

Artie

12-11-2003, 07:37 PM

I guess you are not a fan of abstract art.

Artie

David77

12-11-2003, 08:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Artie:
I guess you are not a fan of abstract art.
Artie <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No,not generally! Realistic human figures with an abstract background is ok.

namedun

12-11-2003, 08:28 PM

namedun likes the cube-art

FLslimguy

12-12-2003, 07:19 AM

The wonderful thing about art is that everyone has a different concept of what they like.

Regarding David77's link...I think it's good for a student to KNOW the proper proportions to be able to realistically understand how everything goes together. (You can't ABSTRACT unless you know how it looks without abstration.) But after many years of getting proportions correct, I feel that I get more enjoyment and satisfaction out of exaggerating the unique proportional differences in my subjects. If someone is skinny and has long legs...I exaggerate that. If the subject is rotund and Rubenesque...I love to play that up. That's what art is: an interpretation. Otherwise, we might as well do some nice tasteful photos.

I continually try to find the uniqueness that a model has and while I don't consider myself an abstract artist in anyway, I spend my time searching for "artistic license".

I see nothing wrong with any photography of the nude, regardless of the age, but do take issue with photos taken without permission..of anyone. If a photographer is taking underage pix without parental consent, that steps way over the line. I think it exemplifys the definition of perversion. I see a similarity with that and obscene gawkers.

I enjoy doing art of the nude because of its complexity and variety and difficulty of its personality...all challenges. I also find that art of the nude is typically accepted in more circles than photography. And I find female subjects to be more accepted than male (for probably individual personal reasons).

I think the reality of actual photography has the potential to be more shocking. It's an immediate glance and is interpreted by the viewer directly. Art requires interpretation BEFORE the viewer sees it. Maybe a good question to ask is whether nudists prefer nude photography or nude art. As a nudist and naturist my whole life, I find that nude photography or nudes in person are meerly subject matter for my art, so that makes me incapable of answering that question. But do other nudists prefer to see the reality of the nude in realistic art or photography OR do they prefer a "rendition" of the nude as a work of art?

David77

12-12-2003, 08:18 AM

I think all painting is an "interpretation", whether you call it abstraction or not. Abstractionist art is a far greater (exaggerated)degree in that direction.

In one of my groups there are many professional level artists and it is very interesting, during the group painting session, to view each artist's rendition of the nude or clothed form.
It is seen that each has his own personal, inner view and interpretation of the subject. Sometimes he does not realize the communication of his own emotion in his painting, until days later, perhaps, when he looks at the painting with more objectiveity.
(Sometimes a psychologists can analyse or know more about the artist, somewhat, by looking at his painting.)

This may not be a purposeful abstrastion by the artist, but it has to be an individual interpretation by each artist.

aunaturelone

12-12-2003, 11:20 AM

When I posed as an art model in college, I remember the teacher asking the artists why they'd done detailed faces and fingers but only a "symbolic" penis. I guess that's nearly universal among beginners but he'd broken them of the habit by the end of the semester.

Ben_m

12-12-2003, 12:40 PM

FLslimguy:

I agree with your assessment of relative acceptance of nude images by the public at large. Not that I agree that the public's perception is justified, just that you correctly stated what it tends to be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>But do other nudists prefer to see the reality of the nude in realistic art or photography OR do they prefer a "rendition" of the nude as a work of art? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you'd asked me this a year ago, I probably couldn't have answered. Amazing what all has changed for me in a realitively short time. In any case.....

Personally, I like both. I think both are good and can stand on their own merits. I particularly appreciate an image that very effectively portrays simplicity, sincerity, and innocence in the human form. I do tend to think that often a work of art tends to have an advantage in communicating this.