Photographer
DG at studio47
Posts: 2365
East Ridge, Tennessee, US
jeez, a thread from 2008 about the definition of a word that is all screwed up in most minds. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nude implied [ɪmˈplaɪd]adj hinted at or suggested; not directly expressed an implied criticism par·tial (pärshl)adj. 1. Of, relating to, being, or affecting only a part; not total; incomplete: the following is an true implied nude [albeit it a simple example]. bare skin with no direct evidence of clothing. the scarf leaves the implication that the model may possibly be nude. or she could have on underwear, or a swimsuit? https://picasaweb.google.com/1083030118 … 7925395970 a nude image with hands over the 'bits' may be 'site safe' or accepted, but unless the 'bits' are covered by clothing under the models hands, the model is partially nude, demure, fine art, limited nude, etc., but the image is not 'implied'. In an implied nude, you are left with a reasonable question as to whether the model is clothed. another great example which I have seen is a model standing behind a towel hanging vertically on a clothes line. her hips, legs, arms, shoulders, neck, are 'exposed' with no direct evidence of clothing, yet with the towel down he center of her body she could have on a strapless bra and panties or swimsuit.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Gary Melton wrote:
The term (or at least the concept) came about thousands of years before the Hayes Commission. I don't disagree. The term, however, not the concept, did originate in the late 50's / early 60's because of the Hayes commission. The name came about for a reason, marketing. It allowed them to suggest films, as being risque'. By today's standards, of course, they were incredibly tame.
Implied nudity, though, has indeed been around for thousands of years. They just didn't have a name for it. Beyond that, I don't think it is the concept we are discussing but the meaning of a phrase that probably should have been retired long ago.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Why don't we just call it "almost nudity"... 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 16713
Orlando, Florida, US
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Nothing is implied? The nudity is implied. That's pretty much everything.
Look at my avatar. It's the exact situation you described. You would describe that image as a nude image? No.
How do you know whether she has clothing on that isn't showing or not? You don't. Only myself and the model and those involved know that. You, as the viewer, are seeing an Implied Nude. exactly.
Another example.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21567109 (18+, cuz I felt like it)
This model is clearly topless. She's covering her breasts with her arms.
You THINK this model is bottomless as well. You can't know. In fact, she was wearing small panties pushed down and the shot is cropped right to the last pixel before you see them.
This is a topless shot.
This is an implied bottomless shot.
Why is this such a difficult concept?
I'll reiterate my position. None of this matters. Don't set up shoots with people based on words like "implied" or "partial". Use adult words and explanations as to exactly the kinds of shots you want to do and the model will either agree to them or not.
Why would you waste your time and the model's time saying "implied nudes" if no one can agree what that means and there's a problem at the shoot and you don't get what you both want???
Dumb thread is dumb.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
GPS Studio Services wrote:
I don't disagree. The term, however, not the concept, did originate in the late 50's / early 60's because of the Hayes commission... I don't know Alan...this topic pushes a button for me, because it's so GD silly! As an artist and a student of linguistics, I can never seem to stop myself from jumping into these silly frays about the definition of "implied nudity".
For that reason, I've actually done extensive research - trying to find the actual origin of the specific term "implied nudity" and I've had virtually no luck whatsoever. And in all my research, I don't recall ever seeing any connections between the Hays Commission and the origin of the term "implied nudity."
From my personal memory however, I know that it's a term that's been around for at least 35-40 years, and has always been unambiguously understood to mean a subject being portrayed as nude (whether they actually are or not), but without any of the most intimate body parts exposed. There remains no confusion or ambiguity to this day in discussions that take place in the actual art world...but as I mentioned in an earlier post - today's confusion appears to be coming from the world of the internet, where a lot of art dilettantes and dabblers might be found.
Disclaimer: My last remark above should not be construed to mean that I think everyone (or anyone) with a different viewpoint on this subject than mine is necessarily an "...art dilettante..." or "...dabbler..."
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
DG at studio47 wrote:
the following is an true implied nude [albeit it a simple example]. bare skin with no direct evidence of clothing. the scarf leaves the implication that the llama may possibly be nude. or she could have on underwear, or a swimsuit?
https://picasaweb.google.com/1083030118 … 7925395970 That's a lot of implying. She could have a full wedding gown back there lol.
Photographer
robert b mitchell
Posts: 2218
Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
Why is it naughty? 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
I often wonder if the chasm in definitions of implied nudity has to do with a shift in who the perceived viewer actually is when the work is performed.
A lot of photographers and models in the days of the internet, and moreso with the accessibility of digital cameras, are creating the work for each other and not any audience.
If you're creating and performing the work for each other, then the photographer and model become viewers and not just the creators with a singular vision on how they want the image perceived.
Nevermind...I'm confusing myself.
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 16713
Orlando, Florida, US
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
I often wonder if the chasm in definitions of implied nudity has to do with a shift in who the perceived viewer actually is when the work is performed.
A lot of photographers and models in the days of the internet, and moreso with the accessibility of digital cameras, are creating the work for each other and not any audience.
If you're creating and performing the work for each other, then the photographer and model become viewers and not just the creators with a singular vision on how they want the image perceived.
Nevermind...I'm confusing myself. So.... the model is putting on a nude performance for me, the photographer, to create an implied nude image for you, the viewer, to look at since I get to see the bits and you don't?
I can accept that.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
GPS Studio Services wrote:
I don't disagree. The term, however, not the concept, did originate in the late 50's / early 60's because of the Hayes commission... Gary Melton wrote:
I don't know Alan...this topic pushes a button for me, because it's so GD silly! As an artist and a student of linguistics, I can never seem to stop myself from jumping into these silly frays about the definition of "implied nudity".
For that reason, I've actually done extensive research - trying to find the actual origin of the specific term "implied nudity" and I've had virtually no luck whatsoever. And in all my research, I don't recall ever seeing any connections between the Hays Commission and the origin of the term "implied nudity."
From my personal memory however, I know that it's a term that's been around for at least 35-40 years, and has always been unambiguously understood to mean a subject being portrayed as nude (whether they actually are or not), but without any of the most intimate body parts exposed. There remains no confusion or ambiguity to this day in discussions that place in the actual art world...but as I mentioned in an earlier post - today's confusion appears to be coming from the world of the internet, where a lot of art dilettantes and dabblers might be found.
Disclaimer: My last remark above should not be construed to mean that I think everyone (or anyone) with a different viewpoint on this subject than mine is necessarily an "...art dilettante..." or "...dabbler..." Well, think about it for a second, you are right in the target range for when we were at the end of the censorship board. I actually did some snooping today and looked at some of the old articles about Marilyn Monroe and Bridget Bardot. I found a number of references to "implied nudity," but if I went back further, I did not.
I think I am a little bit older than you but I remember the hoopla surrounding things like Marilyn's pool shot with Dean Martin. The press talked all about her "implied nudity" at the time (although today we know that a breast actually showed in side view, we didn't have VCR's back then).
I don't think that, at the time, somebody said "wow, let's call it implied nudity to stump the Hayes Commission." What I think was that the press and the critics of the day started talking about how racey films were getting and how they were pushing the envelope. I suspect that someone in one of those articles just called it "implied nudity" since, outside of Europe, nudity wasn't being allowed. The phrase popped up in an article and it stuck. I have no idea who said it. All I know is that the term came about, prior to '67. I have heard it many times since, particularly when we had an actress who wanted to do something very sexy but wanted to pretend that she wasn't really nude.
So I understand your point, but I think we are saying the same thing. We are both at the same time period. I just remember more of the hoopla surrounding it and the reason for the time period. My family background may have had something to do with my fresher recollections, I dunno.
I don't think you will ever find out who coined it. It is just a matter of why it came about.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
GPS Studio Services wrote:
...I don't think that, at the time, somebody said "wow, let's call it implied nudity to stump the Hayes Commission." What I think was that the press and the critics of the day started talking about how racey films were getting and how they were pushing the envelope. I suspect that someone in one of those articles just called it "implied nudity" since, outside of Europe, nudity wasn't being allowed. The phrase popped up in an article and it stuck. I have no idea who said it. All I know is that the term came about, prior to '67. I have heard it many times since, particularly when we had an actress who wanted to do something very sexy but wanted to pretend that she wasn't really nude.
So I understand your point, but I think we are saying the same thing. We are both at the same time period. I just remember more of the hoopla surrounding it and the reason for the time period. My family background may have had something to do with my fresher recollections, I dunno.
I don't think you will ever find out who coined it. It is just a matter of why it came about. There are paintings done many centuries ago that reflect the same realities as we see today...some people are okay with posing totally nude for art, some are not okay in any way with it...and some are okay with "almost nude".
I don't know when people first started calling it "implied nudity", but the concept - the issue - (getting someone to pose "almost nude" if they are not comfortable with "completely nude") existed centuries ago and they must have called it something. My feeling is that if not for that reality - there would be no need for any sort of term for "something less than full nudity".
I guess what I'm saying is, IMHO, the term "implied nudity" (and/or it's predecessors) was probably coined by some artist trying to get some woman to pose "almost nude" for him, since she wouldn't pose "completely nude" for him.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Gary Melton wrote:
I guess what I'm saying is, IMHO, the term "implied nudity" (and/or it's predecessors) was probably coined by some artist trying to get some woman to pose "almost nude" for him, since she wouldn't pose "completely nude" for him.
You may be right, I may be crazy ... gosh I love Billy Joel.
and I agree with you. The concept has been around since the ancients started painting nudes on stone tablets.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
"...people sometimes accuse me of having too great a love for a good argument, but if they would just agree with my point of view to begin with - there'd be no need for argument!"
- Gary Melton photographer, artist, author, 21st Century Renaissance Man and bon vivant
[from a 2008 interview]
Model
Allison Kerr
Posts: 4
Los Angeles, California, US
Thank you all so much for trying to enlighten me on this topic! I can see that there is a great controversy on the meaning of the phrase. I really didn't think this was that much of an issue but u can all forgive the newbie . Given all the information provided, there seems to be a group of Photographers who plainly say, "I want to shoot you in the nude ...meaning you're going to be naked in front of me and the crew (MUA, whatever). As for your pictures, we can show you completely naked, naughty bits showing or not, your call. Or we can just show you "as-if" you are naked. But make no mistake, you will be naked in front of me." The other camp seems to have more creativity in their communication. The "shoot" or the "shot" will be "implied nude" or "implied". As you can see, there simply is not enough info in these terms to determine whether you, as model will be naked at the shoot or that the shot will be such that you just "seem" naked. I have learned a lot from all of you in the past couple of days. One of the responders said "if you are going to be a model..." Well, I am kind of dabbling in the arts, as they say. And as a model, I think the question to ask is "will I be naked at the shoot, if so, will you be showing me as naked in the pics". And a photographer should be able to say, yes you will be naked, and your pic will show that you are naked or no, you wont be naked but your pic will look like you are. You wouldn't want to waste the photographer's time, Let alone test his patience when you get to the shoot and he expects you naked and you're insisting on the pulling up the definition of "implied" on your iphone... LOL Again, thanks for all the insight! A
Photographer
Doug Jantz
Posts: 4025
Tulsa, Oklahoma, US
Leslee Lane wrote:
If the model is nude but their hands and legs are positioned to where you don't see any naughty parts?
I'm assuming implied? I just want to be sure.... Most will say implied, which is a stupid term. Just because I cover my crotch when my clothes are off doesn't mean I am not nude LOL
Model
Allison Kerr
Posts: 4
Los Angeles, California, US
Doug Jantz wrote:
Most will say implied, which is a stupid term. Just because I cover my crotch when my clothes are off doesn't mean I am not nude LOL Sorry my response, didn't show...IMHO, I agree.
No clothes = naked
some clothes (i don't care how small) = not naked
hands = body part
body part = not clothes
Photographer
Top Level Studio
Posts: 3254
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
DG at studio47 wrote:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nude
implied [ɪmˈplaɪd]adj
hinted at or suggested; not directly expressed an implied criticism Does "plaid" imply she's wearing a kilt?
Model
Allison Kerr
Posts: 4
Los Angeles, California, US
Top Level Studio wrote:
Does "plaid" imply she's wearing a kilt? Plaid
NOUN:
A rectangular woolen scarf of a tartan pattern worn over the left shoulder by Scottish Highlanders.
Cloth with a tartan or checked pattern.
A pattern of this kind.
--------
Kilt
NOUN:
A knee-length skirt with deep pleats, usually of a tartan wool, worn as part of the dress for men in the Scottish Highlands.
A similar skirt worn by women, girls, and boys.
So, no LOL
Photographer
EdwardKristopher
Posts: 3409
Tempe, Arizona, US
Leslee Lane wrote:
If the model is nude but their hands and legs are positioned to where you don't see any naughty parts?
I'm assuming implied? I just want to be sure.... Implied... :-)
Model
Tesni WIinield
Posts: 1
Southampton, England, United Kingdom
Way Beyond Productions wrote:
Perfectly stated! I agree!
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10747
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
the first time this 5 year old zombie thread was revived it was a full revival. this latest revival is only 4 months since the last one. does that make it an implied revival or a full one?
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 12327
Baltimore, Maryland, US
AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
the first time this 5 year old zombie thread was revived it was a full revival. this latest revival is only 4 months since the last one. does that make it an implied revival or a full one? Since this is in the General Industry forum, im assuming that all the naughty prose of the thread would be implied. If this thread were Soapbox or SF2 we could have full frontal naughtyness in the discussion.
Photographer
ms-photo
Posts: 538
Portland, Oregon, US
Anyone else notice the original poster of this thread is long gone already?
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 39248
Portland, Oregon, US
ms-photo wrote:
Anyone else notice the original poster of this thread is long gone already? For a 4.5 year old thread, not that unusual...
yet, hopefully we can finally get her a good answer to the question.
Photographer
Innovative Imagery
Posts: 2841
Los Angeles, California, US
I think that there are three viewpoints here and one is being ignored.
1. What the model expects.
2. What the Photographer expects.
3. What the viewer of the images sees.
As such, take the standard commercial image of a woman shampooing her hair, framed from the shoulders up. It appears she is in a shower and it is implied she is nude, even though she could be wearing a swim suit or other drape.
For me, this is an implied shot. Ditto, woman on bed with covers up to her arm pits or strategically draping along her legs.
Every thing else is nude and may have additional qualifiers applied, such as only topless, demure, covered, no spreads, etc.
However, as applied to Model Mayhem or other model source sites, if I am looking for a model to pose nude, then she should expect to be naked an OK with the images showing that OR SHE SHOULD NOT CHECK "YES" TO NUDES.
This is not a game. We aren't here to convince someone to be more or less naked.
Anything else is a negotiation of specifics between both parties.
Photographer: Would you pose with a layer of silk over your bare breasts?
Model: Hell no ! or OK that would be so classy.
Verses
Photographer: Take off your clothes and sit here.
Model: OK
Photographer: Let's try a few with this silk draped over your breasts.
Model OK
And so on.
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
ms-photo wrote:
Anyone else notice the original poster of this thread is long gone already? DougBPhoto wrote:
For a 4.5 year old thread, not that unusual...
yet, hopefully we can finally get her a good answer to the question. We could have this thread locked. Then, when the topic comes up again in, oh, two or three days, the person who starts it can be told to "do a search."
This is one of those topics that's never going away.
Photographer
Ivan123
Posts: 1037
Arlington, Virginia, US
DougBPhoto wrote:
For a 4.5 year old thread, not that unusual...
yet, hopefully we can finally get her a good answer to the question. Since every question that can be asked has been asked, a hundred times, we could lock ALL the threads and just treat the forums as an archive of all possible knowledge.
And let's be honest, the forums are not funny any more. 4 1/2 years ago, they were hilarious. So we would be much better off if we read ONLY the old posts.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Art of the nude wrote:
This is one of those topics that's never going away. Never is a long time.
Photographer
JOEL McDONALD
Posts: 608
Portland, Oregon, US
There should be a delineation date on zombie threads. The OP isn't even on MM any longer.
Photographer
Flex Photography
Posts: 6471
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
JOEL McDONALD wrote:
There should be a delineation date on zombie threads. The OP isn't even on MM any longer. They should be locked after a reasonable time!
|
