|
Forums >
General Industry >
Fine Art Nude vs Artistic Nude vs Glamour Nude
the fine-art genre: is just detail oriented shots ... Oct 07 07 11:01 pm Link For most shooters Fine Art Nude is an oxymoron Oct 07 07 11:25 pm Link 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 Zombie thread! Jul 10 13 06:58 pm Link Candy Poses wrote: I would say that's a pretty good description. Jul 10 13 07:10 pm Link Chaya Phally wrote: That about sums it up. A++ would quote again. Jul 10 13 07:21 pm Link PBVincent wrote: Why didn't you articulate this in a thread of your own rather than one from SIX years ago? Jul 10 13 07:29 pm Link Why start a new thread? You read it, didn't you?  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 Cherrystone wrote: There are six images in the portfolio. MM now requires more than that? Jul 10 13 08:27 pm Link 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 I was here. Jul 10 13 09:39 pm Link One's in black and white (only half kidding). Jul 10 13 09:46 pm Link 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 |ris wrote: 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 Art of the nude wrote: Nice assumption....but you're late. Jul 10 13 10:47 pm Link  Moderator Warning!Jerry Nemeth wrote: 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. Cherrystone wrote: See above. Also note that the poster didn't request a critique. Respond to the ideas being expressed, not the person expressing them. Mnemosyne Photography wrote: 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 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 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 Art of the nude wrote: Cherrystone wrote: Assumption? I counted to six. And, apparently, they've all been around more than a few hours. Uploaded: Aug 15, 2012 Jul 11 13 01:26 pm Link Kevin Connery wrote: In that case I think we need to update it to include:- Jul 12 13 12:57 am Link That Italian Guy wrote: I thought Fashion-Nude was: "Nude, wearing Jimmy Choo's"... ? Jul 12 13 01:01 am Link RKD Photographic wrote: Come on now... the model doesn't actually have to be wearing them! Jul 12 13 01:30 am Link Chaya Phally wrote: And succeeded, rest assured Jul 12 13 01:40 am Link Leroy Dickson wrote: ^^this^^ Jul 12 13 04:08 am Link 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 That Italian Guy wrote: Naturist's wearing trainers. Jul 12 13 12:28 pm Link 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 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...  Jul 12 13 12:53 pm Link 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.  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 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 Kevin Connery wrote: Jerry Nemeth wrote: 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. Cherrystone wrote: See above. Also note that the poster didn't request a critique. Respond to the ideas being expressed, not the person expressing them. 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. Jul 12 13 01:34 pm Link |ris wrote: I just keep it simple and describe some of my work as 'nudes', nothing more, nothing less. Jul 12 13 01:59 pm Link Carioca wrote: 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 |ris wrote: What comes to my mind with each of those terms- Jul 12 13 02:53 pm Link PBVincent wrote: Holy shit, I love your stuff. Jul 12 13 02:57 pm Link MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote: They can also be taken in black and white. Jul 13 13 09:50 am Link 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 EL Perdido wrote: Funny. I wonder how many people did say that when it first came around. Jul 14 13 12:43 am Link Jul 14 13 01:08 am Link EL Perdido wrote: I don't even consider your photos nude, glamour or otherwise. Jul 14 13 01:13 am Link |
