|
Forums >
General Industry >
Is it ART, or are we all just PERVERTS?!!
I enjoy doing nude photography (the model that is....not me). To me it is capturing the beauty of the human body. Granted some are more beautiful that others, but that is mainly in the eye of the beholder. All too often when people find out I do nude photography they think I am some kind or super perv. They laugh at the thought of it being art......such as the statue of David and the like. I don't get any sexual excitement out of nude photos. I can enjoy them for the beauty, the art, and the skill of the model, photographer, makeup artist, and whoever else may have contributed. Those days of seeing a body as just a sexual object are long gone with age......and I hope a bit of wisdom. So where do you come down on this. Is it art? Are we just perves? Or is there some blend of the two, and where is the line? Mar 08 14 11:25 am Link I think it's art, as long as you don't cross the line into being vulgar or worse. The problem is, there are so many different opinions of where that line should be drawn. Unfortunately there are always a few perverts around that have other ideas and intentions, and who would probably get really excited by looking through a medical book. Mar 08 14 11:33 am Link You you get the exact same pleasure looking at male nudes? If yes then you're an artist - if not then it's still sexual for you and that may or may not make you a perv depending on your personal moral compass. Easy. Mar 08 14 11:34 am Link Sure it can be art just as much any non nude work can be art, I don't think it has anything to do with it one way or the other. That said I do not believe the majority of photographers who shoot nudes are working on artistic expression. The lower barrier of entry has created an entire GWC/Perv "hobby" these days. Mar 08 14 11:35 am Link It's not either/or, there's a spectrum. And it applies not just to nudes but to other photography here on MM - some is artistic, some perverse, a lot is somewhere along the spectrum. I've been working with figure models in drawings, paintings and photos for decades. I've never thought of myself as a perv, and am not ashamed of my work. Here's the thing; The human body has been celebrated through artistic depictions for millenia. Some of the nudity is directly in connection with fertility and sexuality, some of it is far more detached, and meant to express some other aspect or interest from beauty to joy to suffering. So I say, never be ashamed of posing nude! Humans and their bodies are an endless source for artistic expression, whether sexual or not. Our fascination is multi-faceted, as is our art. Mar 08 14 11:47 am Link Virtual Studio wrote: I do male nudes and I think they can be beautiful as well. Just a different kind of beauty. Mar 08 14 11:52 am Link Peach Jones wrote: Sexual excitement can happen without perversion. But I know you meant "pervs" as in people just taking photos of nude women for pleasure not art, which there is nothing wrong with also. Mar 08 14 11:59 am Link Do you ask the same question of Sculptors, Painters ? Are Doctors perves ? Mar 08 14 12:03 pm Link Virtual Studio wrote: +100. People only shooting female nudes does make me wonder. Mar 08 14 12:07 pm Link Miss_Bee wrote: I do it all the time. They contact me for shoots. Mar 08 14 12:10 pm Link Virtual Studio wrote: Miss_Bee wrote: People who wonder about people shooting only female nudes (and not male nudes) make me wonder about those people. Mar 08 14 12:11 pm Link Virtual Studio wrote: wrong, what if one is a bisexual perv Mar 08 14 12:16 pm Link Virtual Studio wrote: I have to disagree with the above statement. I'm a heterosexual female, and I enjoy looking at female nudes more than male nudes, and in a completely nonsexual way. For sex, I like men, for nudes, I like the lines of the female body better. That's it. Mar 08 14 12:16 pm Link I think it's a really fine line between something artistic and something smutty. The problem though is that everyone has a different definition of where that line is. I had someone comment one time on a pin up image in my port, just a girl sitting on a beach holding an umbrella, and he called it porn. I guess to him it was smutty art but certainly not to other people (at least I hope not cause they hung it up in my high school for a month :p) On the other side some people can see a naked, oiled up girl's legs spread with her hand on her junk and define that as art. It's all boils down to just opinion. Some opinions are going to be more popular than others but that doesn't necessarily mean that opinion is right either....long story short, it's complicated lol. Mar 08 14 12:17 pm Link If I like it . . . it's art If you like it . . . you're a pervert Mar 08 14 12:18 pm Link I don't think a nude photo that gets you to think erotically is not art. Eroticism is a legit artistic forum. After all, Titan's contemporaries gave him a lot off slack for Venus of Urbino because it was too erotic at the time... What one said above, do you see the same beauty in a male nude is a decent point, yet, from a naturalistic view point I don't think that's an exact standard. As one who is completely heterosexual, I do not find the female form as alluring as the male form, yet, as an artist I enjoy drawing and presentation of both. While intent can be suggested, I find reception just as important. After all, r mutt may well just be a urinal, but the interpretation is intriguing. I would say what makes one a pervert has less to do with subject, presentation, intent, reception and really more how you carry yourself. Touching a model, trying to coerce her to do things against her comfort level, bringing up inappropriate topics, pleasing yourself in the middle of a shoot, we could come up with a long list of throngs that make some photos perverts. Taking nude and erotic images, IMO, is not one of them Mar 08 14 12:19 pm Link MelissaAnn wrote: Ditto, I'm a girl and I'm 99.9% sure I'm straight and I really don't like male nudes. I love naked women though, I find them beautiful to look at rather than something that's gonna get me all worked up. Obviously the images from hustler are a different story but artist nudes do nothing for me other than make me go 'oooo pretty!' Mar 08 14 12:22 pm Link The answer is that there is no line. It is purely based on peoples own life experiences subjectively if they judge it as art or porn. For example if you do a simple figure nude study of a standing figure (male or female) and show it to someone who is extremely biased due to the fact that they have been raised to view nudity as "wrong" or only for "significant others"..etc..etc..etc. you will get an adverse reaction. However, if you show the same portrait to someone who is trained as an artist and shares your values with nudity as art, you will get a completely different and more supportive reaction. The line in this sense, is all purely subjective depending on who you approach, and even how you approach them. For example if you take the same portrait and run up to the individual that views nudity as "wrong" going "hahahahha, this is porn and you're going to look at it whether you like it or not!" in their face, they will flat out reject you and reinforce their belief all the more that nudity is so very wrong. However, if you approach this individual with the premise that you are an artist, remain humble, and state that you would love to show them some of your figure studies, they will react less adversely. Sometimes you will still hear no, but most of the time you will hear "that is cool, I would love to see some of your work". The same goes for the artist approach. If you approach someone that is an artist saying that you'd like to show them porn, some might still look anyways, but more often than not due to the human psyche of fear of judgement being they don't really know you on a personal level, they will turn down the offer to see your work. However, if you approach them with the key words "fine art nudes", a fellow artist rarely turns down viewing others work and sharing constructive criticism. so again, there is no line, there is only approach on a subjective experience of others as to how they may interpret something. There is never any clear line with anything in life really for that matter. There is a constant flux or grey area. Sometimes things are more clear cut than others, but most often not. good luck in your journey! Mar 08 14 12:26 pm Link I'm sure it goes both ways, as do many things and people in life. Mar 08 14 12:26 pm Link Labeling how one's mind takes pleasure from an image as either 'art' or 'sexual' is to suggest that the human mind is a black and white, all or nothing, yes or no kind of arrangement. We're more complicated than 'art' or 'sex'. And it's perfectly fair game for it to be a mixture of both, plus a dash of: - lust - jealousy - anger - happiness - whimsy - fantasy - awe - contempt - etc ad nauseum Mar 08 14 12:27 pm Link A well known photographer told me that the main reason he shoots some male nudes is to make himself look more professional. I understand that... But since I am not at all attracted to men, I don't feel I can do a good job of making them look sexy in nude images. Mar 08 14 12:27 pm Link RacerXPhoto wrote: I know many Doctors Mar 08 14 12:34 pm Link MelissaAnn wrote: I agree. Mar 08 14 12:35 pm Link MelissaAnn wrote: I have to slightly agree on this Melissa. The reason being is that going back in art history, we have been subliminally engrained that the female nude is always beautiful for non-artists. There are not many in art history that have tackled a lot of male nudity for the sake of beauty as it is done with females. Mar 08 14 12:36 pm Link Virtual Studio wrote: Miss_Bee wrote: If a professional basketball player (athlete) only played basketball and not other sports, would that make him any less of an athlete, passionate about the game? Mar 08 14 12:45 pm Link DougBPhoto wrote: +100 Mar 08 14 12:46 pm Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: +1 Mar 08 14 12:47 pm Link Mar 08 14 12:52 pm Link Miss_Bee wrote: Obviously straight males are going to find pictures of females more appealing, clothed or nude. Mar 08 14 12:57 pm Link RacerXPhoto wrote: Why not? You see time makes things fuzzy, like how we assume older works of art were not done by pervs; despite many examples and stories of some great old world painters who were notorious for sleeping with their models. Mar 08 14 01:03 pm Link When I'm out with my camera I'm an artist. The rest of the time I'm just a good old fashioned, red blooded, American perv. Mar 08 14 01:14 pm Link Hey, there's a little perv in all of us... and soon as I find the little bastard I'm going to kick his ass out. You know, there are different kinds of pervs..some sexual some not. And a little perv isn't a bad thing as long as you keep it in check or in most states it becomes a second degree felony. Mar 08 14 01:21 pm Link Why is it that as soon as some sexual element is perceived to be involved the 'pervert' label comes out? We think about sex all the time. Every time you look at a good looking woman and lock on it's a sexual impulse at work. It's about as natural as the grass growing, and it is absurd to pretend that somehow, miraculously, it's not at work when photographing the female nude. It may be that you don't feel anything when you are concentrating on the photograph, but that's because you are concentrating on something else. Would be exactly the same if you were doing a mathematical calculation or thinking hard about anything, or absorbed in making a piece of furniture. Outside of that focus you're going to be just as susceptible as anyone else, and that is bound to play into your motivation for photographing naked women. You're drawn to them, and that draw is sexual. The problem is that the sexual element is seen as something wrong - somehow impure. Like you should be walking around with a camera in one hand and a bell in the other so you can call out: "unclean....unclean' in order for pure people not to have to breath the same air as you. Wanting to fuck a pig dressed in a tutu and stilettos is perverted, not having a healthy interest in the opposite sex and being at ease with that as part of - part of - your motivation. Mar 08 14 01:25 pm Link Peach Jones wrote:
Mar 08 14 01:28 pm Link CHAD ALAN wrote: Virtual Studio wrote: If a professional basketball player (athlete) only played basketball and not other sports, would that make him any less of an athlete, passionate about the game? It may not always be the case. But it's a pretty good starting assumption. Mar 08 14 01:29 pm Link yes Mar 08 14 01:38 pm Link AJScalzitti wrote: That doesnt make them pervs in my book Mar 08 14 01:41 pm Link Tim Griffiths wrote: Would the pig be wearing these or the perv? Mar 08 14 01:41 pm Link Why do I keep seeing perversion set up as the antithesis of art? Why am I asked "...artist or pervert?" Why can't I choose both? Mar 08 14 01:45 pm Link Faces2Die4 Photography wrote: Either way I'm almost certain it's wrong. Mar 08 14 01:45 pm Link |
