Forums > General Industry > Fine Art Nude vs Artistic Nude vs Glamour Nude

Model

nicolla

Posts: 40

Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

the fine-art genre: is just detail oriented shots ...

Oct 07 07 11:01 pm Link

Photographer

Garry k

Posts: 27254

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

For most shooters Fine Art Nude is an oxymoron

Oct 07 07 11:25 pm Link

Photographer

PBVincent

Posts: 14

Nashville, Tennessee, US

This is a subject I have had to articulate to models - often!  We live in a society in which sexuality is regarded as the primary function of the naked body...  (Lewis Grizzard:  Nude means you ain't got no clothes on... Nekkid means you ain't got no clothes on and you're up to something...")   Unfortunately, that seems to be the range of purpose when dealing with the nude in art. 

Personally, I think digital photography is less to blame for the poisoning of the nude in art than our nation's puritanical roots, false morality, and the killing of art education in our schools - along with a media presence drenched in commercial sexuality.

OK - enough of that.  For me, the difference between fine art nude and glam/commercial/fashion nudes has to do with intent and respect for classical conventions in the artistic tradition. One of the challenges for photographers is that when a viewer looks at a painting of a nude, he sees a nude.  When he looks at a photograph of a nude, he sees a person. The camera is a machine that captures, not creates.  The photographer must supply the creativity and to the extent he does or does not, a final photograph is either an expression of beauty, or a recording of what the optic nerve set in the frame. 

Kenneth Clark, in his book "The Nude" wrote that the nude is not a subject of art but a form of art" - invented by the Greeks in the 5th century BC.  Try as we might to get away from it, if we are to talk about the nude as art, that is our touchstone.  Not that we have to all our photos look like Venus of Urbino, but the conventions, practices, and "rules" that they set down are what we have to work with. 

Here's another way to look at it - It's like asking the difference between classical music and pop music...  Rooted in the same basic rules (scales, harmonies, rhythms, etc.) - it is intent that makes the difference between, say, Mozart and Madonna...  the notes are the same.  And it's tough to learn Mozart by studying Madonna.

All of this is to say, if you really want to understand the difference between glam nudes and fine art nudes, dive into a study of art.  It's fascinating, and a great place to begin is with Kenneth Clark's book "The Nude."   Hope this helps.

Jul 10 13 06:55 pm Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 28000

Dearborn, Michigan, US

Zombie thread!

Jul 10 13 06:58 pm Link

Photographer

Miss Photog

Posts: 287

VALLEY VILLAGE, California, US

Candy Poses wrote:
The difference between fine art nudes, artistic nudes, and glamour nudes is, in my eyes, the following: fine art nudes are focused on the composition of the image(it's about shapes), artistic nudes are focused on the nude person(s)(it's about the subject), and glamour nudes are focused on the (usually idealized) sexuality of the nude person(s)(it's about the sex).

Of course, they all overlap, and even with specific definitions such as this, disagreements about what fits where are inevitable.

Here are some examples from my portfolio of the three (all 18+):

A fine art nude.
An artistic nude.
A glamour nude.

That's just my opinion, but keep in mind that I'm always correct.  Always.

I would say that's a pretty good description.
I generally interchange fine art nude and art nude. Glamour nude I consider more Playboy style nude which fits into the description given above.

The following are pictures of me as the model and would fit them into these categories:
fine art nude:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pi … 7#29614717  (omg, it's not b/w! lol)
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pi … 1#30968521
art nude:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/19084642 (omg, this one IS b/w!)
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/24066750
glamour nude:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/23807610
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/23807589

hope that helps~! smile

Jul 10 13 07:10 pm Link

Photographer

cinema photography

Posts: 4418

Mission Viejo, California, US

Chaya Phally wrote:
Fine Art Nude
There is more than just a picture.

Artistic Nude
Color shit. Paint shit.

Glamour Nude
Boobs and pussy. Makeup included.

Sorry if I made anyone feel offended. I attempted to humor at least one user. tongue

That about sums it up. A++ would quote again.

Jul 10 13 07:21 pm Link

Photographer

Cherrystone

Posts: 36718

Columbus, Ohio, US

PBVincent wrote:
This is a subject I have had to articulate to models - often!  .

Why didn't you articulate this in a thread of your own rather than one from SIX years ago?

Holy shit, on your about me writing. Why are you even articulating on MM at all?

Btw, you need another 3 images to remain active  here.

Jul 10 13 07:29 pm Link

Photographer

PBVincent

Posts: 14

Nashville, Tennessee, US

Why start a new thread?  You read it, didn't you? smile 

I wrote it on MM because I found it and wanted to add my 2 cents.

I'll add more pix when I'm ready.  Had several, didn't like the crude responses to some of the models, so I took them all down till I can get some new ones up. And you?

Jul 10 13 07:59 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Cherrystone wrote:
Why didn't you articulate this in a thread of your own rather than one from SIX years ago?

Holy shit, on your about me writing. Why are you even articulating on MM at all?

Btw, you need another 3 images to remain active  here.

There are six images in the portfolio.  MM now requires more than that?

Jul 10 13 08:27 pm Link

Photographer

Light Writer

Posts: 18387

Oakland, California, US

Though Clark's book is dated now, I think.

What's lacking these days is the balance between male and female nudes. I think that the prudery and prurience of US culture which sexualizes them. Perhaps an overabundance of self-consciousness and a deficit of self-awareness. Even this website disallows priapic images, which were certainly accepted in Classical times. Yet priapic images are inherently sexual, whereas female nudes need not be, yet flaccidity is a requirement of "acceptable" male nudes, thus they are specifically de-sexualized. This seems a contradiction enforcing de-sexualized male nudes, yet assuming female nudes are sexual.

Twisted, ain't it?

Jul 10 13 09:23 pm Link

Photographer

Christopher Carter

Posts: 7692

Indianapolis, Indiana, US

I was here.

Jul 10 13 09:39 pm Link

Photographer

J O H N A L L A N

Posts: 10328

Santa Ana, California, US

One's in black and white (only half kidding).

Jul 10 13 09:46 pm Link

Photographer

Art Silva

Posts: 9457

Santa Barbara, California, US

Fine Art Nude
- Naked women you study into the scene and compose before you hit the shutter.

Artistic Nude
- Naked women with stuff and props and in color half the time.

Glamour Nude
- Naked women with make-up, nice hair, glitter, T&A and heals selling sex and sensuality, a stepping stone to Playboy [and so on] and always shot in color.

Got it? Good!

Jul 10 13 10:35 pm Link

Model

CRIMSON REIGN

Posts: 813

Baltimore, Maryland, US

|ris wrote:
I'd love to hear some definitions describing the difference between each.  These are different descriptions used to categorize nude images on some modeling sites, and I was never really clear on what excactly establishes the difference between "fine art nude" and "artistic nude".  I'd love to hear some opinions and thoughts on this.  Thanks.

Great question! I think that I may have a bit of all of the above, but IMO fine art and artistic depends on who's looking. Glamour nudes spruces the model up a  bit with make up and props. Then there are fashion nudes, which I get confused with the glam nudes. UUUUgh, so many boxes and categories.

Jul 10 13 10:45 pm Link

Photographer

Cherrystone

Posts: 36718

Columbus, Ohio, US

Art of the nude wrote:

There are six images in the portfolio.  MM now requires more than that?

Nice assumption....but you're late.

Jul 10 13 10:47 pm Link

Photographer

Kevin Connery

Posts: 16928

El Segundo, California, US

Moderator Warning!

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Zombie thread!

The topic contains a still-legitimate question, whether it's 60 minutes old or 6 years old, unlike interjections such as "zombie thread!", which help nobody.

You may have noticed that the person who bumped this thread has (currently) 14 posts. From that you might guess that he used the search function, as is often recommended. Instead of responding with something--anything--on-topic OR positive, you made it less likely that he would respond in the future.

Cherrystone  wrote:
Holy shit, on your about me writing. Why are you even articulating on MM at all?

See above. Also note that the poster didn't request a critique.

You've been here long enough to know the site rules:

Respond to the ideas being expressed, not the person expressing them.

Everyone starts from somewhere. Be nice and help the newbies, not bash them.

We ask that everyone play nice and contribute rather than be disruptive.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
I was here.

The industry forum rules note: "Positive contributions are welcomed and encouraged. Nonsense and attempts at misinformation are not."

Jul 10 13 10:50 pm Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4344

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Clark's book is a classic, a must read for people interested in the nude in art and certainly worthy of some consideration and study. I would caution however that interpreting Clark's thesis to mean that we must import Greco-Roman allusions and styles into current photographic efforts is not likely to correct some perceived degradation of the nude but rather shade over into a sort of kitsch, pseudo classicism. Which is fertile territory for both cultural commentary and humor but is unlikely, if pursued uncritically, to raise the nude to some exalted level beyond the purview of mere glamour or T & A.

Jul 11 13 05:48 am Link

Photographer

Eyesso

Posts: 784

Ormond Beach, Florida, US

I think it is the nature of the evocation that matters.....

Fine Art Nude
"Man, that's kind of profound, deep, I think I'm crying inside"

Artistic Nude
"Nice, very tasteful, I like the way the light curves, good photography"

Glamour Nude
"I didn't know 'Glamour Shots' was still in business??"

Jul 11 13 01:05 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Art of the nude wrote:
There are six images in the portfolio.  MM now requires more than that?

Cherrystone wrote:
Nice assumption....but you're late.

Assumption?  I counted to six. And, apparently, they've all been around more than a few hours.

Uploaded:     Aug 15, 2012
Uploaded:    Feb 23, 2013
Uploaded:    Dec 22, 2012
Uploaded:    Oct 09, 2012
Uploaded:    Dec 11, 2011
Uploaded:    Nov 30, 2008

Jul 11 13 01:26 pm Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

Kevin Connery wrote:
The topic contains a still-legitimate question, whether it's 60 minutes old or 6 years old

In that case I think we need to update it to include:-

Fashion Nude = nude or partly nude in a fashionable context, appealing to women rather than men.

lol




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jul 12 13 12:57 am Link

Photographer

RKD Photographic

Posts: 3265

Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

That Italian Guy wrote:

In that case I think we need to update it to include:-

Fashion Nude = nude or partly nude in a fashionable context, appealing to women rather than men.

lol




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I thought Fashion-Nude was: "Nude, wearing Jimmy Choo's"... ? big_smile

Jul 12 13 01:01 am Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

RKD Photographic wrote:
I thought Fashion-Nude was: "Nude, wearing Jimmy Choo's"... ? big_smile

Come on now... the model doesn't actually have to be wearing them! wink




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jul 12 13 01:30 am Link

Photographer

DBIphotography Toronto

Posts: 3228

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Chaya Phally wrote:
Fine Art Nude
There is more than just a picture.

Artistic Nude
Color shit. Paint shit.

Glamour Nude
Boobs and pussy. Makeup included.

Sorry if I made anyone feel offended. I attempted to humor at least one user. tongue

And succeeded, rest assured tongue

Jul 12 13 01:40 am Link

Photographer

mphunt

Posts: 901

Missouri City, Texas, US

Leroy Dickson wrote:
The difference between artistic nude and fine art nude is who likes the image. If a rich person likes it, it's fine art. If a major gallery likes it, it's fine art. If it's undiscovered or undesirable by the aristocracy then it's just artistic.

In other words, fine art is only a class distinction, not an artistic distinction.

^^this^^

Jul 12 13 04:08 am Link

Photographer

Z_Photo

Posts: 6957

Huntsville, Alabama, US

in the order of your title: hype and marketing; artistic; titillation

that pretty much sums up my interpretation.

Jul 12 13 05:06 am Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15543

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

That Italian Guy wrote:
Fashion Nude = nude or partly nude in a fashionable context, appealing to women rather than men.

lol




Just my $0.02

Ciao

Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Naturist's wearing trainers.

Kinda line some photographer may spin to some naive model...Fashion nude.

Jul 12 13 12:28 pm Link

Photographer

Marin Photography NYC

Posts: 7249

New York, New York, US

Artistic nude and fine art nude - same to me, I don't try to separate the two.

Glamour nude is just sexy without sex.

Jul 12 13 12:50 pm Link

Photographer

Terrell Gates

Posts: 1042

Santa Fe, New Mexico, US

I am often told that my nudes are museum quality. I guess that means they are "Fine Art," nudes... and they are NOT black and white...

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/111127/15/4ed2c8153dd1c.jpg

Jul 12 13 12:53 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

Rays Fine Art

Posts: 6319

New York, New York, US

Let's see how many rocks get thrown at me for these definitions--Remember they're just my opinion, not in any way definitions used by the industry.

FINE ART NUDE: A nude shot or painted in a style or treatment reminiscent of the "Fine Artists" whether classic or modern.  The goal is to express an emotion, a social statement, to study the human anatomy and/or the interplay of color, light, shadow, posture, etc.  The purpose is not to titillate.  Although the work may in itself be valuable, the purpose is not commercial in the sense that an illustration in a catalog would be.

ARTISTIC NUDE (Two possible definitions depending on the work in question):
A-      Similar to Fine Art Nude but without the similarity to Fine Art works.  Likely to be more concerned with the interaction of other objects or locations with the subject or to present a narrative or story that can be implied from the picture rather than the study of either anatomy or light and shadow.  Steam Punk, for example, Digital
Art, Body Paint, all might fall into this class.  Again, the purpose is neither commercial nor sexual.  Or possibly
B-      A description applied to a glamour, pornographic or merely bland nude by a photographer who doesn't quite grasp the meaning of "Art" or "Glamour" but doesn't want to define his work as pornographic or bland.  For obvious reasons, I won't offer examples that I think fit this category. wink

GLAMOUR NUDE:  Nudes that make no pretense of being fine art, but stop this side of pornography.  They may or may not be more explicit than other nudes, and the best contain at least a touch of actual glamour in terms of posing, lighting, surroundings, but they differ from art nudes in that they are unabashedly sexual in theme and message.  Playboy, MET and Classic Pin Up would be examples but outright Pornography would not.  Nor would "Biker Chick", Burlesque or most Fetish or Tattoo, in my opinion, but depending on treatment both Fetish and Tattoo might well fit here as well as in both Fine Art and Artistic.

The thing to remember in defining any form of art as art is that the definition is dependent on the judgement of both the creator and the observer.  There are no hard and fast rules, only generalities.

All IMHO as always, of course.

Jul 12 13 01:07 pm Link

Photographer

K E E L I N G

Posts: 39820

Peoria, Illinois, US

This thread has been a gathering spot of people seeking to prove how little they know about what they don't do.

Jul 12 13 01:22 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

Rays Fine Art

Posts: 6319

New York, New York, US

Kevin Connery wrote:

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Zombie thread!

The topic contains a still-legitimate question, whether it's 60 minutes old or 6 years old, unlike interjections such as "zombie thread!", which help nobody.

You may have noticed that the person who bumped this thread has (currently) 14 posts. From that you might guess that he used the search function, as is often recommended. Instead of responding with something--anything--on-topic OR positive, you made it less likely that he would respond in the future.

Cherrystone  wrote:
Holy shit, on your about me writing. Why are you even articulating on MM at all?

See above. Also note that the poster didn't request a critique.

You've been here long enough to know the site rules:

Respond to the ideas being expressed, not the person expressing them.

Everyone starts from somewhere. Be nice and help the newbies, not bash them.

We ask that everyone play nice and contribute rather than be disruptive.

The industry forum rules note: "Positive contributions are welcomed and encouraged. Nonsense and attempts at misinformation are not."

And relative to "you made it less likely that he would respond in the future."  I note that the OP has only 89 posts to date.  I think she deserves a round of applause for hanging around after some of the treatment here.

If it's not too off-topic here, may I comment that some (but by no means all) of the more boorish respondents were among the most skilled among us.  While there may be places where that behavior is acceptable, I, for one, wish they'd leave both their bad manners and their ignorance at the door.

All IMHO as always of course.

Jul 12 13 01:34 pm Link

Photographer

sidney_k

Posts: 874

Paris, Île-de-France, France

|ris wrote:
I'd love to hear some definitions describing the difference between each.  These are different descriptions used to categorize nude images on some modeling sites, and I was never really clear on what excactly establishes the difference between "fine art nude" and "artistic nude".  I'd love to hear some opinions and thoughts on this.  Thanks.

I just keep it simple and describe some of my work as 'nudes', nothing more, nothing less.

Peoples view and interpretation of attributes change over time anyway, the simple noun 'nudes' doesn't.

Jul 12 13 01:59 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Carioca wrote:
I just keep it simple and describe some of my work as 'nudes', nothing more, nothing less.

Peoples view and interpretation of attributes change over time anyway, the simple noun 'nudes' doesn't.

I tend to say "art nudes", because it's the phrase that comes closest to giving the potential model / viewer an idea of what I do, or intend to do.

Jul 12 13 02:37 pm Link

Photographer

JenniferMaria

Posts: 1771

Miami Beach, Florida, US

|ris wrote:
I'd love to hear some definitions describing the difference between each.  These are different descriptions used to categorize nude images on some modeling sites, and I was never really clear on what excactly establishes the difference between "fine art nude" and "artistic nude".  I'd love to hear some opinions and thoughts on this.  Thanks.

What comes to my mind with each of those terms-

Fine art nudes- classic, more about form than sexuality, natural beauty

Artistic nudes- on the classic side, may be mixed with fashion or beauty, may have some sexuality

Glamour nudes- much more focus on sex, the subject appears to be catering to an audience, usually the model is made up, lit up & edited to "perfection" (e.g., Playboy)

Jul 12 13 02:53 pm Link

Model

DivaEroticus

Posts: 14720

Fayetteville, Arkansas, US

PBVincent wrote:
Why start a new thread?  You read it, didn't you? smile 

I wrote it on MM because I found it and wanted to add my 2 cents.

I'll add more pix when I'm ready.  Had several, didn't like the crude responses to some of the models, so I took them all down till I can get some new ones up. And you?

Holy shit, I love your stuff.

/threadjack

Jul 12 13 02:57 pm Link

Photographer

The Aperture Studio

Posts: 95

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote:
Fine art nudes have to taken in color and be converted to gray scale or no one will take you seriously. tongue

They can also be taken in black and white.

Jul 13 13 09:50 am Link

Photographer

Richard Tallent

Posts: 7092

Beaumont, Texas, US

Explaining the differences between these is like explaining the difference between English and Japanese.

As with spoken languages, most people can distinguish among them without knowing a lick of anything but their own language.

Someone familiar with a language can understand traits of the language, or themes, or patterns of speech and idioms without knowing the language itself. For example, I know that in Japanese, you wouldn't say the word "cousin" per se, you'd use a term that might include their gender, age in relation to yourself, and how you are related.

But without knowing the actual languages, you can't really grok how they are different, and any "rules of thumb" made by someone who does know them will just draw ire from someone who can point to an exception of that rule.

You can imitate a language without knowing it. I can make some decent Japanese-like sounds. A Japanese-speaking person would find my imitation at best idiotic and at worst terribly offensive, but people who only speak English might not be able to tell that I'm just imitating the language, or even if they know I'm doing so, can't technically point out how to tell the difference between my blabber and actual Japanese.

Likewise, someone can imitate traits commonly found in fine art photography, such as use of B&W, high contrast lighting, demure nudity, etc. without actually understanding the genre. And most people won't be able to tell the difference, or at least won't be able to nail it down to specifics. But the end result, to someone who actually speaks the genre fluently, will be as incomprehensible and infantile as my Japanese-sounding gibberish.

The same goes for glamour... I can't shoot glamour to save my life. Many years ago, I tried. I made glamour-like images, with the same wardrobe, the same models, the same lighting ratios, but since I haven't really studied the history of the genre, the great masters of it, etc., I was flying blind. I could  make the sounds, but anyone who knows the genre well enough to tell the difference between a David Mecey and a Scott Windiz could tell I was out of my league. My pin-up attempts were even more god-awful.

Some photographers and models are "multilingual" to some extent, and some really great ones are fully fluent in multiple genres, and can even blend them to bend each genre's definitions. I think that's why some photographers like Helmut Newton are revered by so many -- they were virtuosos in multiple genres and could create something that was simultaneously pure fashion, pure glamour, pure fetish, and damned good art. But if you try to follow suit without knowing those languages fluently, it ends up being like really bad Engrish.

Jul 13 13 11:37 pm Link

Photographer

David J Martin

Posts: 458

Amberg, Bavaria, Germany

EL Perdido wrote:
Color is a fad which will go away soon...

Funny.  I wonder how many people did say that when it first came around.

Jul 14 13 12:43 am Link

Photographer

WildEye Studio

Posts: 654

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

Jul 14 13 01:08 am Link

Photographer

WildEye Studio

Posts: 654

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

EL Perdido wrote:
I don't consider mine glamour nudes if that helps.

I don't even consider your photos nude, glamour or otherwise.

Jul 14 13 01:13 am Link