Photo Nude Art ?
Steve
I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". But is the same
photo is done in color it is not then it is just a nude picture.
Did the masters of old (in paint) not use color and light to
enhance the human form. I am just so tired of seeing all
the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
I.
Thank you so very much for your consideration in this matter.
Stephen Campbell
Frederic Goudal
adven...@bigfoot.com (Steve) writes:
>
> I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
> is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". But is the same
> photo is done in color it is not then it is just a nude picture.
> Did the masters of old (in paint) not use color and light to
> enhance the human form. I am just so tired of seeing all
> the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
>
> Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
> opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
> I.
>
There are two things that must be considered.
At the begining, the black and white allows some distance from the
crude reallity. Black and white is more abstract. It allows to
concentrate on the geometry of bodies. If you look at some of my
photographs, there are some sexual organs, and the black and white
reduce the sexual impact.
The second thing is that considering such point maybe some people who
have no active brain have done the connection nude art must be in
b&w. This is completly stupid. You may consider a book like NewYork
Dolls, which is both in b&w and colour.
After that I should explain why do I do b&w : for many reasons
first I can work the prints, second I have no money to get some decent
lightning for colour, third I have not tryed colour in landscape, and
I'm not satisfied with the result, and I have too much to do with b&w
and no time enough to spend working in color.
f.g.
--
Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that
meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your
own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial
photograph.
Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of Photography
1923, p 613
Frederic Goudal - gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr - http://www.insat.com/~filh -
Jason Wesch
Don't worry about it. Go grab a beer and a nudie magazine and enjoy it.
Steve wrote:
>
> I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
> is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". But is the same
> photo is done in color it is not then it is just a nude picture.
> Did the masters of old (in paint) not use color and light to
> enhance the human form. I am just so tired of seeing all
> the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
>
> Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
> opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
> I.
>
Mike Hammer
adven...@bigfoot.com (Steve) wrote:
>I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
>is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". But is the same
>photo is done in color it is not then it is just a nude picture.
>Did the masters of old (in paint) not use color and light to
>enhance the human form. I am just so tired of seeing all
>the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
IMHO anyone that thinks they can tell
art from trash has there head up there
ass...now tastless thats easy but again
welcome to America and guess what your
allowed to be tastless and proud
I have a good friend who works for a
very famous artist she tells me this
teacup or that blob of metal slag is
worth tens of thousands of
dollars..guess what most 15 year old
kids would mix paint in that teacup or
toss out that metal blob as trash but if
they came across a nude picture watch as
they stare at it and hide it in there
pocket for carefull study later and if
they really like it they will share it
with a friend...hmm, what does this all
mean?
back to your point..art what the hell is
art? Art is a guy I knew in school he
was not all that impressive. Art in my
opinion is anything I would look at more
than twice and would like to be able to
look at it many times cause it stirs
some reaction in MY brain...the key is
MY.
I've seen expencive art and found it
utterly stupid, I've seen dime store
posters and framed them and hung them in
my house. I also have seen nude
pictures some are called art, some
called obsence I keep only the ones I
like and the others pass along into
history
Darrell A. Larose
Steve (adven...@bigfoot.com) writes:
> I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
> is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". But is the same
> photo is done in color it is not then it is just a nude picture.
> Did the masters of old (in paint) not use color and light to
> enhance the human form. I am just so tired of seeing all
> the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
>
> Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
> opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
> I.
>
> Thank you so very much for your consideration in this matter.
>
I don't know, Robert Farber, Jeff Dunas and others do "fine-art" work
in colour. IMHO, it is the skilled use of posing and lighting that is
the difference. It can be just as "artistic" in dye transfer or as a
cibachrome. Normal type C prints are not archival like fibre based B&W
prints. I would suggest that RC based B&W prints wouldn't be accepted
by the "fine-arts" types.
² Darrell Larose ± http://livewire.newforce.ca/darrell ²
² Photo Technician ± ²
² Ottawa, Canada ± dar...@livewire.newforce.ca ²
Scott Hortop
Stephen
What you are saying just a bit simplistic but can be very true. My
earliest experience of the nude in photography was with colour material,
and yes some of the results were 'art' (perhaps) but most were just photos
of a nude body. I later took the same images and printed onto normal B&W
paper (for grainy effect) or Kodak Panalure (for more natural fine grain)
and, lo and behold, the 'art' factor had increased dramatically!
Why? Well, firstly B&W introduces an immediate abstraction compared with
real life. Secondly all porn and H&E type beach photos are in colour. The
mind is moved by association.
There are plenty of rather crap B&W nudes on the 'net to contradict this
theory and one only has to look at the quality content of some contemporary
colour nudes (not glamour...) to see the skill involved in producing such
work.
Scott
Steve <adven...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article <ECMIH...@iglou.com>...
> I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
> is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". But is the same
> photo is done in color it is not then it is just a nude picture.
> Did the masters of old (in paint) not use color and light to
> enhance the human form. I am just so tired of seeing all
> the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
>
> Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
> opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
> I.
>
> Thank you so very much for your consideration in this matter.
>
> Stephen Campbell
>
>
>
Lonnie Juli
I have to say that these discussions of what materials and techniques
qualify any piece of work as fine art are at best an execise in
futility. It wasn't very long ago when any _serious_ collector would
never think of a painting done in acrylics as a _real_ artwork. It's the
image, the experience and the intent of the artist and the viewer(s)
that determine whether something is art or not. It's that subjective.
This is where art and craft differ. Craft attempts to meet standards,
art attempts to create standards.
That's my opinion. It's also quite subjective.
Lonnie Juli
lon...@idt.net
Frederic Goudal
Lonnie Juli <lon...@idt.net> writes:
>
> I have to say that these discussions of what materials and techniques
> qualify any piece of work as fine art are at best an execise in
> futility. It wasn't very long ago when any _serious_ collector would
> never think of a painting done in acrylics as a _real_ artwork. It's the
> image, the experience and the intent of the artist and the viewer(s)
> that determine whether something is art or not. It's that subjective.
> This is where art and craft differ. Craft attempts to meet standards,
> art attempts to create standards.
> That's my opinion. It's also quite subjective.
Considering materials, collector (and museum) must have some assurance
considering the lifetime of what they buy. And new materials in
painting has led to painting very fragile. About photo, it should be
considered too. (And we come back the the same old archival
discussion).
sailbad the sinner
Steve wrote:
>
> I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
> is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". But is the same
> photo is done in color it is not then it is just a nude picture.
> Did the masters of old (in paint) not use color and light to
> enhance the human form. I am just so tired of seeing all
> the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
>
> Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
> opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
> I.
>
> Thank you so very much for your consideration in this matter.
>
> Stephen Campbell
Many people I talk with seem to think that B&W defines art in
photography. That of course is very limited thinking. For me
personally B&W is much more of a challange than color because in color,
mood is easily created by the selection of color scheme, and I find
color distracting in many cases. I am contradicting myself, as usual,
because this means that more effort must be used in selecting lighting,
filters, film etc., in color than B&W! In B&W mood and texture must be
created with contrast, shadow, highlight placement, composition.
Finally, B&W is elementally abstract - it rarely occurrs in nature and
it almost never represents an acurate reproduction of nature.
I filmed a nude when I was 18, a LONG time ago. I have tinkered with
the exotic and some erotic with limited clothing or otherwise disguised
and I may do some again. To me the human form forms an almost extreme
contrast with the forms and texures in nature. Observing a photograph
done “right”, can be a most rewarding experience, sensual, and emotional
(fill in your own meaning here). I’ll bet no artist creating a nude
image has done it totally without sex in mind - and that’s ok. Face it
- sex is the most primitive and significant human emotion, and “art”
(again my opinion) is the representing of emotion, feeling, mood. many
other abstract entities.
dr bob.
bethbethbeth
The body is sinful, in thishere culture. Look at how breasts and penises
are hidden from television viewers (for the children, of COURSE.
Wouldn't want to ruin their minds with reality).
From this perspective, bw is considered an acceptable medium for the
nude form because it makes the viewer feel more removed from the image.
Color is more lifelike, and, since for most of us Real Life is in color,
nudes in color suggest Real Life. Now the viewer is presented with a
Real Life image of the sinfulsinful body, lacking the distance offered
by bw, and, IS THEREFORE FACE TO FACE WITH SATAN, MY CHILDREN. So you
see, color brings us closer to the lord of the underworld, and we can't
have that, now can we?
Geary Ritter
Beth, I completely agree with all of your statements, concerning our
prudish amerikan culture. I believe them and I'm glad to hear someone
standing up. You don't find this bias in many parts of Europe, or other
parts of the world. But, although I agree whole-heartedly with your
statements, I'm not sure they are well aimed at your point.
B&w is divorced from the reality, the real-lifeness of color. That's a
given. The question is...is the artist/photographer using b&w because
he's afraid of the stark realism of a naked body in color (read
sinfulness), or because the artist isn't interested in conveying realism.
Painters don't feel that they work MUST be visibly realistic to be
"art", so why should photographers feel any differently. So much depends
on what the artist is trying to convey. Color or the lack of, is just
one of the many tools to be use to make the statement.
Plus, on a personal level, I've seen b&w nude photographs that invoked a
stronger erotic response in me than a more "true-to-life" color shot.
That probably has to do with my upbringing and the fact that my first
exposure to a naked woman (other than my mother) as a young boy involved
finding a b&w "girlie" magazine at a neighbor's house. BTW, I'm drawn to
garter belts and seamless stockings, probably for the same reason.
gary gaugler
On 2 Jul 1997 17:35:27 GMT, ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A.
Larose) wrote:
>
>Steve (adven...@bigfoot.com) writes:
>> I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
>> is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". But is the same
>> photo is done in color it is not then it is just a nude picture.
>> Did the masters of old (in paint) not use color and light to
>> enhance the human form. I am just so tired of seeing all
>> the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
>>
>> Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
>> opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
>> I.
>>
>> Thank you so very much for your consideration in this matter.
>>
Perhaps it is a subliminal reaction to the onslaught of glamour and
boudoir photography that is always (?) done in color.
I've shot the same "fine art nude" shots in b/w and then in color and
the color will not move....the b/w is selected 100% of the time.
Gary Gaugler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern surfers use PC boards. You can too at
e-mail: gaugler @ calweb dot com (foils bulk e-mailers)
Note: all prodigy.com domains are filtered out by mail reader
.
Mark Edmondson
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 00:07:51 GMT, gau...@calweb.com (gary gaugler)
wrote:
>>> I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
>>> is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". I am just so tired of seeing all
>>> the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
>>>
>>> Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
>>> opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
>>> I.
>
>
>Perhaps it is a subliminal reaction to the onslaught of glamour and
>boudoir photography that is always (?) done in color.
>
>I've shot the same "fine art nude" shots in b/w and then in color and
>the color will not move....the b/w is selected 100% of the time.
>
>
>
That could possibly be true but I have an alternative theory:
The majority of "fine art nudes" cater for a audience looking for
something other than mere titilation. Hence the use of B&W which
concentrates the eye on the interplay of lighting, texture and
graphical form rather than the physical stature of the model, leading
to a detatchment from the sexual aspect of the nude.
As for the few colour art "nudes" I've seen, these tend to be
photographs of models, though obviously nude, who are covered up by
some article or other (bed sheet, lace / chiffon etc).
It would be interesting to see some colour fine art nudes that doesn't
fall into this catagory, however, I feel that it could then be too
easy to fall into the trap of becoming merely glamour / boudoir work
Mark Edmondson
Matt Denton
I think it has to do with audience expectation regarding the nature of art
itself.
Since a photograph is a representation of something that passed in front
of an "objective" piece of machinery rather than through the subjective
brush of a painter, it is typically thought of as a direct representation
of reality unless there are cues to the contrary. While any photographer
knows that photographs and their subject matter are as malleable as any
art form, I suspect that the average viewer is probably less perceptive of
these usually more subtle cues (subtle as opposed to painting techniques,
for instance, where it is the paint and its application that is directly
perceived). The viewer will tend instead to look to the subject for these
cues.
Because we view the world in color, we perceive black and white images as
objects first, then as subjects, much as we perceive paintings. Even in a
photorealistic painting there is a level of abstraction present that
leaves no question that what you see is a representation of an object, and
so through its abstraction you infer meaning that is not present in either
paint by itself or subject by itself. Similiarly, because we see black and
white images first as objects, they automatically fall into the category
of łart˛ since there is an implied creator and therefore an implied
message.
Color photographs, on the other hand, are typically perceived as subject
first, and object second, because this corresponds with our natural view
of reality. Without obvious cues to indicate the photographer's presence
as creator, we see first the subject as a representation of reality (at
least primarily) and not 'art' since we tend to view art in the context of
a creator and an audience. An obvious cue may be something as basic as
presentation; the presence of a color photograph in a coffee-table book of
photographs is much more likely to be perceived as art because of its
context than the same picture in a newspaper or magazine.
I shoot b/w exclusively for figure work, although I am interested in
experimenting with color. Some of the most beautiful color figure studies
I've seen are polaroid transfers, which are very painterly and leave no
question that they are intended to be art.
In article <33d54aa2...@news.calweb.com>, see.signature.block wrote:
> On 2 Jul 1997 17:35:27 GMT, ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A.
> Larose) wrote:
>
> >
> >Steve (adven...@bigfoot.com) writes:
> >> I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
> >> is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". But is the same
> >> photo is done in color it is not then it is just a nude picture.
> >> Did the masters of old (in paint) not use color and light to
> >> enhance the human form. I am just so tired of seeing all
> >> the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
> >>
> >> Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
> >> opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
> >> I.
> >>
> >> Thank you so very much for your consideration in this matter.
> >>
>
>
>
> Perhaps it is a subliminal reaction to the onslaught of glamour and
> boudoir photography that is always (?) done in color.
>
> I've shot the same "fine art nude" shots in b/w and then in color and
> the color will not move....the b/w is selected 100% of the time.
>
>
>
> Gary Gaugler
bethbethbeth
JGWStudios wrote:
>
> Another thought, that has been touched on but not stated directly is that
> B&W images of nudes or anyother subject are more abstract than color,
> which we all see as more realistic.
>
> John W.
And reality is pornographic, you realize. So save the poor innocent
children from SATAN and THE BEAST'S EVIL WAYS and keep your kids in the
house! NEver let them see a (gasp!) naked body.
JGWStudios
Unfortunately, too many think this is so. Thank your god that there are a
few of us out there that know the truth.
John W.
Jean-David Beyer
we would have been born that way!
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
LJ Powell
>On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 00:07:51 GMT, gau...@calweb.com (gary gaugler)
>wrote:
>>>> I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
>>>> is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". I am just so tired of seeing all
>>>> the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
>>>>
>>>> Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
>>>> opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
>>>> I.
Seems to me that a photographof a nude person tends to be more
titillating if it is literal, and the presence of color makes the
image appear more real. Conversely, black/white images are inherantly
abstractions - we live in a color world and skin has a color - and
when a nude person is depicted in monochrome, there is an automatic
translation to the world of imagination.
Having said that, I find that black and white photographs of nude
subjects are actually more "simulating" - in fact, I find that black
and white images of clothed persons can come across as more erotic
than color photographs. Frankly, Playboy and Penthouse are a bit too
clinical for my taste.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Louie Powell
<LJPo...@ix.netcom.com>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
JGWStudios
>Remember, if the Good Lord had meant us to run around naked,
>we would have been born that way!
>--
>Jean-David Beyer
No Way!!!! I came out fully clothed.
John W.
bethbethbeth
> >And reality is pornographic, you realize. So save the poor innocent
> >children from SATAN and THE BEAST'S EVIL WAYS and keep your kids in the
> >house! NEver let them see a (gasp!) naked body.
>
> Unfortunately, too many think this is so. Thank your god that there are a
> few of us out there that know the truth.
>
I think this whole topic is getting silly. We shouldn't try to find the
line where people determine pornography, because 1) it is a highly
personal decision. One of the justices of the supreme court defined
pornography as "I'll know it when I see it". 2) Because social mores are
in a state of flux right now (for the better, I would hope) and trying
to define pornography according to personal views of pornography isn's
going to really get us anyway. What we should be discussing is why the
nude body /is/ considered pornography, and what we as artists can do
about it.
Peter Eddy
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------9CEBE9CFAA674B29F37A766E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
That's the first time I've heard Playboy and Penthouse potography
described as "clinical." I believe those images are heavily retouched.
Peter
LJ Powell wrote:
>
> Seems to me that a photographof a nude person tends to be more
> titillating if it is literal, and the presence of color makes the
> image appear more real. Conversely, black/white images are inherantly
> abstractions - we live in a color world and skin has a color - and
> when a nude person is depicted in monochrome, there is an automatic
> translation to the world of imagination.
>
> Having said that, I find that black and white photographs of nude
> subjects are actually more "simulating" - in fact, I find that black
> and white images of clothed persons can come across as more erotic
> than color photographs. Frankly, Playboy and Penthouse are a bit too
> clinical for my taste.
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Louie Powell
> <LJPo...@ix.netcom.com>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
Peter Eddy
Folding Chair Software
Columbus Ave.
Boston, MA
http://www.ziplink.net/~petere/fcs.html
pet...@bigfoot.com
--------------9CEBE9CFAA674B29F37A766E
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Peter Eddy
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Peter Eddy
n: Eddy;Peter
org: Folding Chair Software
email;internet: pet...@bigfoot.com
title: Contractor
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------9CEBE9CFAA674B29F37A766E--
JGWStudios
>I think this whole topic is getting silly. We shouldn't try to find the
>line where people determine pornography, because 1) it is a highly
>personal decision. One of the justices of the supreme court defined
>pornography as "I'll know it when I see it". 2) Because social mores are
>in a state of flux right now (for the better, I would hope) and trying
>to define pornography according to personal views of pornography isn's
>going to really get us anyway. What we should be discussing is why the
>nude body /is/ considered pornography, and what we as artists can do
>about it.
Ok, lets get a little more serious then.
What we as artist can do is stop trying to shock people with the graphic
nature of our work (this goes for painting and sculpture too). We've
pushed the envelope as far as current social mores will accept. We need
to find a way to bring our vision to the public in a non-threatening way.
While somethings may be common place in NY or LA, the majority of the
country is stuck between those cities and the 19th century. Just my
opinion, but we can get away with a lot as long as we do it a little at a
time.
John W.
Matt Denton
I met a graphic designer not long ago who got her break doing time in the
art department at Playboy in the 70's, and she said she was completely
amazed at how heavily those photos were retouched. (Of course, then it was
literally airbrush and spotting...none of this Photoshop stuff that
practically anyone can do on their desktop.) I too would be curious to
see just how heavily they are retouched. Anyone out there actually do this
for a living?
In article <33dda971...@news.supernews.com>, noone wrote:
>
> They are VERY heavily retouched. I once heard Jenny McCarthy (a blonde U.S.
> bimbo, for International viewers) telling how extensively her layout had been
> retouched. She even showed some of the flaws on her seemingly perfect
body that
> were retouched. I'd sure like to see a 'before' and 'after' image from one of
> those mags.
>
> and so it goes ...
>
> Ron
Gary Gaugler
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 07:31:16 -0400, Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com>
wrote:
>JGWStudios wrote:
>>
>> bethbethbeth <lia...@netwave.net> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 wrote:
>>
>> >JGWStudios wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Another thought, that has been touched on but not stated directly is
>> that
>> >> B&W images of nudes or anyother subject are more abstract than color,
>> >> which we all see as more realistic.
>> >>
>> >> John W.
>> >
>> >And reality is pornographic, you realize. So save the poor innocent
>> >children from SATAN and THE BEAST'S EVIL WAYS and keep your kids in the
>> >house! NEver let them see a (gasp!) naked body.
>>
>> Unfortunately, too many think this is so. Thank your god that there are a
>> few of us out there that know the truth.
>>
>Remember, if the Good Lord had meant us to run around naked,
>we would have been born that way!
Not. Unless the whole Earth or the localities of man were of such temperature
that clothing was not *necessary*. Assuming that the climatic conditions of the
Earth are essentially the same as eons ago, I strongly doubt that any humans
would be naked in Siberia in Winter for more than a few minutes. Or Greenland,
or Iceland or Canada, or.....
Look at the crap that Gallileo endured from the Catholic holier-then-thou dorks
that thought that the Earth was Heaven and they were God incarnate. Shit.
Man's knowledge of the extense of the Earth and the Universe is amazingly small.
What the religious fringes and mainliners adhere to is simply faith. There is a
dearth of facts. This is what I consider the basis for condemdation of natural
art. According to history as it is, Adam and Eve were naked. To bad there
where no potogs to document that. Not only would it have recorded that event
for time but proven the existence of these figures.
Read Levinson, Erickson, Freud, Machiavelli, et. al. for alternate views. who
really knows what is the truth--the facts? Not us mortals. But we are very
good at speculating.
Mark Edmondson
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:33:25 GMT, ma...@wavenet.co.uk (Mark Edmondson)
wrote in reply to gary gaugler:
I am just so tired of seeing all
>>>> the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
>>>>
>>>> Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
>>>> opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
>>>> I.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps it is a subliminal reaction to the onslaught of glamour and
>>boudoir photography that is always (?) done in color.
>>
>That could possibly be true but I have an alternative theory:
>
>The majority of "fine art nudes" cater for a audience looking for
>something other than mere titilation. Hence the use of B&W which
>concentrates the eye on the interplay of lighting, texture and
>graphical form rather than the physical stature of the model, leading
>to a detatchment from the sexual aspect of the nude.
>
>As for the few colour art "nudes" I've seen, these tend to be
>photographs of models, though obviously nude, who are covered up by
>some article or other (bed sheet, lace / chiffon etc).
>
>It would be interesting to see some colour fine art nudes that doesn't
>fall into this catagory, however, I feel that it could then be too
>easy to fall into the trap of becoming merely glamour / boudoir work
>
I've since discovered one site the deosn't fall into the trap by using
the "painting with light" technique, and some surreal colours. Go to
http://www.dunas.com and look at the nudes section.
Mark Edmondson
Niklas (nio. noll. sju)
bethbethbeth wrote:
>
> JGWStudios wrote:
> >
> > Another thought, that has been touched on but not stated directly is that
> > B&W images of nudes or anyother subject are more abstract than color,
> > which we all see as more realistic.
> >
> > John W.
>
> And reality is pornographic, you realize. So save the poor innocent
> children from SATAN and THE BEAST'S EVIL WAYS and keep your kids in the
> house! NEver let them see a (gasp!) naked body.
The different between a porno image and a 'art' image i think is what
message
you send the the beholder. If i take a picture of a model who is placed
in
a studio with studio light all over her, making sure all her genital
parts is
exposed, i would say this is porno.
If i show a naked body in a surrounding where i for e.g. make a
statement of
my picture. Apply a naked body in a landscape of steel, the image is
art.
But still if i keep the same light as in the studio, makes the model a
object.
Its still a porno pic or ?
Hm, did i ever say anything at all ?
--
_________________________________________________
Niklas Nilsson
- nio. noll. sju. -
Reportage och Propaganda Bild
Adress: Hallasvängen 11 a
231 65 Trelleborg
Tel: 0410 405 78 Fax: 0410 184 81
Gsm: 0707 640 73 ICQ: 2316218
_________________________________________________
Dennis Swanson
Who would have guessed that on Mon, 28 Jul 1997 at 03:11:54 GMT
Gary Gaugler (see.signature.block) would say:
~ On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 07:31:16 -0400, Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com>
~ wrote:
~ >Remember, if the Good Lord had meant us to run around naked,
~ >we would have been born that way!
~
~
~ Not. Unless the whole Earth or the localities of man were of such temperature
[snip bizarre rant of indeterminate topic(s)]
And this is a good example of the terrible price that must be paid when
someone forgets to add a smiley! :-)
Den
--
Dennis M. Swanson <>< C/Win32 API programmer UNIX hobbyist
"I became a journalist because I wanted to change the world."
-- Carole Simpson, ABC News
Michael James Morehouse
Might it be because the colour shots try to mimic life ... and life is not
as inherently abstract as either B&W or the nude form?
In other words ... get creative with your colour ... because a simple
chrome without something vibrant and truly artistic attached to it really
is pretty boring.
I would suggest cross processing, pushing three stops, posing the model in
new places. I can't remember the artists name, but some of the best
fine-art nudes I have ever seen were colour shots of woman body-painted to
blend in with her environment. It can be done ... but you have to try
something new.
M.
gary gaugler (gau...@calweb.com) wrote:
: On 2 Jul 1997 17:35:27 GMT, ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A.
: Larose) wrote:
: >
: >Steve (adven...@bigfoot.com) writes:
: >> I am hoping that someone can explain to me why if a photo
: >> is in B & W then it is considered as "ART". But is the same
: >> photo is done in color it is not then it is just a nude picture.
: >> Did the masters of old (in paint) not use color and light to
: >> enhance the human form. I am just so tired of seeing all
: >> the "ART NUDES" only accepted in B & W.
: >>
: >> Am I alone in my thinking. I would really like to hear the
: >> opinions of those of you with much more experiance then
: >> I.
: >>
: >> Thank you so very much for your consideration in this matter.
: >>
: Perhaps it is a subliminal reaction to the onslaught of glamour and
: boudoir photography that is always (?) done in color.
: I've shot the same "fine art nude" shots in b/w and then in color and
: the color will not move....the b/w is selected 100% of the time.
: Gary Gaugler
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: Modern surfers use PC boards. You can too at
: e-mail: gaugler @ calweb dot com (foils bulk e-mailers)
: Note: all prodigy.com domains are filtered out by mail reader
: .
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweet dreams are made of these, who am I to disagree, travel the world and
the seven seas, everybody's looking for something ...
Some of them want to use you, some of them wanna be used by you, some of
them want to abuse you, some of them want to be abused ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bethbethbeth
Gary Gaugler wrote:
> >Remember, if the Good Lord had meant us to run around naked,
> >we would have been born that way!
>
> Not. Unless the whole Earth or the localities of man were of such temperature
> that clothing was not *necessary*. Assuming that the climatic conditions of the
> Earth are essentially the same as eons ago, I strongly doubt that any humans
> would be naked in Siberia in Winter for more than a few minutes. Or Greenland,
> or Iceland or Canada, or.....
Humans use tools and are renowned for their adaptablity. What is your
point?
>
> Look at the crap that Gallileo endured from the Catholic holier-then-thou dorks
> that thought that the Earth was Heaven and they were God incarnate. Shit.
What does this have to do with anything?
> Man's knowledge of the extense of the Earth and the Universe is amazingly small.
How do you know? You're a human.
> What the religious fringes and mainliners adhere to is simply faith.
Duh.
> There is a
> dearth of facts.
Facts? What facts? What are we discussing here?
This is what I consider the basis for condemdation of natural
> art.
WHAT? What is the "basis for condemnation of natural art"? The intention
of the original post was, to my understanding, to evoke a discussion
about why our society apparently considers color photography to be
higher on the Porno Scale than blacknwhite fotos. What the hell are you
condemming?
>
According to history as it is, Adam and Eve were naked.
Accoring to /mythology/, not history. The bible was (is) a political
tool, a re-writing of ancient mythology to suit the needs of the new
rulers. You have to deal with the here and now to make your point; you
can't argue with people who refer to the bible, it's anti-intellectual.
"Stay on target ... STAY ON TARGET..."
>To bad there
> where no potogs to document that. Not only would it have recorded that event
> for time but proven the existence of these figures.
See above.
>
> Read Levinson, Erickson, Freud, Machiavelli, et. al. for alternate views.
oooh, you are SO INTELLIGENT, so very well-read. NEVERMIND! I revoke all
my previous statements and crown you SMART.
who
> really knows what is the truth--the facts? Not us mortals. But we are very
> good at speculating.
Blah, blah, blah.
Wonders of the Unseen World
Darrell:
The original posting seems to have slipped off my server, so I'll have
to put my 2-cents worth in somewhere else. Why not here, then?
You have a very elaborate explanation, but has anyone considered the
explanation (as to why b&w nudes are regarded as "artier" than color
nudes) may be for the simple reason (and this is something few
photographers are willing to admit - and are thus not too likely to want
to talk about) that it's a lot HARDER to make a good color photograph
than a good b&w.
So, in the interest of doing what's easier, we photogs do a lot more
black & white when we want the results to be really good. Plus, most
photographers develop their own work which can mean either further
expressing their artistic inclinations OR saving otherwise uninspired
photos from the trash bin.
Of course, there's another reason: The permanency and archival value of
b&W. I've heard this mentioned often, though impermanency doesn't lessen
the real value of a Native American's sand painting or or a Tibetan's
mandala in an ultimate sense, though it might be worthless to a London
or New York art collector.
--
*******************************************************************
Afterglow Erotic Photography | http://www.teleport.com/~afterglo
Home of fine erotic photography and booklets for budding nude &
erotic photographers. (503) 274-7131 / afte...@teleport.com
Sample nudes: http://www.unseenworld.com/aglow/goodpics.html
Wonders of the Unseen World
sailbad the sinner wrote:
>
> Many people I talk with seem to think that B&W defines art in
> photography. That of course is very limited thinking. For me
> personally B&W is much more of a challange than color because in color,
> mood is easily created by the selection of color scheme, and I find
> color distracting in many cases. I am contradicting myself, as usual,
> because this means that more effort must be used in selecting lighting,
> filters, film etc., in color than B&W! In B&W mood and texture must be
> created with contrast, shadow, highlight placement, composition.
> Finally, B&W is elementally abstract - it rarely occurrs in nature and
> it almost never represents an acurate reproduction of nature.
>
> I filmed a nude when I was 18, a LONG time ago. I have tinkered with
> the exotic and some erotic with limited clothing or otherwise disguised
> and I may do some again. To me the human form forms an almost extreme
> contrast with the forms and texures in nature. Observing a photograph
> done “right”, can be a most rewarding experience, sensual, and emotional
> (fill in your own meaning here). I’ll bet no artist creating a nude
> image has done it totally without sex in mind - and that’s ok. Face it
> - sex is the most primitive and significant human emotion, and “art”
> (again my opinion) is the representing of emotion, feeling, mood. many
> other abstract entities.
>
> dr bob.
My thinking is much the opposite of yours. I feel (and I have checked
this with photographer friends) that it is MUCH more difficult to create
an outstanding and artistic image in color than in b&w. B&w is more
abstract, and thus lends itself to artistic interpretation. This is, in
fact, one of the reasons why color is more difficult.
On the other hand - and my chosen specialty, in fact, being erotic
photography (midlife crisis thing) - I agree that it is impossible to
separate the nude from sexual response. In fact, one of my tests for
people who are dishonest with me or are not really in touch with their
own feelings is if they try to tell me that they think erotic nudes
aren't really nudes. (So, what kind of nude ISN'T erotic?)
It is evidence of our culture's total discomfort with the human body and
the association of sexuality with <<<SIN>>> that we even have to be
having this discussion. In some other societies, the question wouldn't
even come up.
Wonders of the Unseen World
Geary Ritter wrote:
>
> Plus, on a personal level, I've seen b&w nude photographs that invoked a
> stronger erotic response in me than a more "true-to-life" color shot.
> That probably has to do with my upbringing and the fact that my first
> exposure to a naked woman (other than my mother) as a young boy involved
> finding a b&w "girlie" magazine at a neighbor's house. BTW, I'm drawn to
> garter belts and seamless stockings, probably for the same reason.
My reply is:
I create erotic images for a living, and I've always been mystified at
the resistance to black and white images among those who are looking for
really nasty stuff. I find monochrome photos to be a major turn on, and
I've always wondered why. Now I believe it's because the first "dirty
pictures" I got my hands on as a kid were in magazines that were all
black and white. Also, I would think you were seeing stockings WITH
seams back then. I suppose "seamless" was just a typo(?).
Wonders of the Unseen World
Niklas (nio. noll. sju) wrote:
>
> The different between a porno image and a 'art' image i think is what
> message
> you send the the beholder. If i take a picture of a model who is placed
> in
> a studio with studio light all over her, making sure all her genital
> parts is
> exposed, i would say this is porno.
>
> If i show a naked body in a surrounding where i for e.g. make a
> statement of
> my picture. Apply a naked body in a landscape of steel, the image is
> art.
> But still if i keep the same light as in the studio, makes the model a
> object.
> Its still a porno pic or ?
>
> Hm, did i ever say anything at all ?
My engagingly crazy response is:
I would refer you to my essay, "Open Poses, Pornography, and Art" which
is on my site (URL below). In short, I disagree. I would post the whole
essay here, but I'd have to bowdlerize it quite a bit first (in case any
kiddies are reading), and I haven't time for that.
The old Western uncomfortability with the genitalia just refuses to die.
--
*******************************************************************
Afterglow Erotic Photography | http://www.teleport.com/~afterglo
Home of fine erotic photography and booklets for budding nude &
erotic photographers. (503) 274-7131 / afte...@teleport.com
Smple nude pics: http://www.unseenworld.com/aglow/goodpics.html
Wonders of the Unseen World
Wonders of the Unseen World
JGWStudios wrote:
>
> What we as artist can do is stop trying to shock people with the graphic
> nature of our work (this goes for painting and sculpture too). We've
> pushed the envelope as far as current social mores will accept. We need
> to find a way to bring our vision to the public in a non-threatening way.
> While somethings may be common place in NY or LA, the majority of the
> country is stuck between those cities and the 19th century. Just my
> opinion, but we can get away with a lot as long as we do it a little at a
> time.
>
> John W.
My reply is:
In *The Shock of the New*, the world's foremost art critic, Robert
Hughes, argues that (I paraphrase) "When an art loses the ability to
shock, it is dead." Thus, painting (while still practiced) is
essentially dead and video and photography are the vital arts of the
day.
I don't live in NYC, but I don't live in Chicken Neck, either. I live
(and work) in Portland, OR, which is poised somewhere between the two.
We have 50 (count 'em) nude dancer bars (they show absolutely every inch
of the body), countless escort services (sex behind closed doors),
several dozen sex shops (video and sex toy sales), and two
sexually-oriented local publications.
Of course, Oregon has a *very* liberal constitution when it comes to
freedom of expression, but all recent attempts to repeal it have lost
handily. I thus don't see much evidence that the public is anywhere near
being fed up.
The only way to know you have a freedom is to exercise it in an area
where people would like you to stop exercising it. As long as I am in
business, you are truly free. Otherwise, you can just wonder.
You talk about finding ways of presenting our work in a non-threatening
way. There already exists an analogy in music for what you want: it's
called New Age.
--
*******************************************************************
Afterglow Erotic Photography | http://www.teleport.com/~afterglo
Home of fine erotic photography and booklets for budding nude &
erotic photographers. (503) 274-7131 / afte...@teleport.com
Sample nudes: http://www.unseenworld.com/aglow/goodpics.html
Wonders of the Unseen World
JGWStudios wrote:
>
> >The only way to know you have a freedom is to exercise it in an area
> >where people would like you to stop exercising it. As long as I am in
> >business, you are truly free. Otherwise, you can just wonder.
>
> by doing the work I do and maintaining contact with my representatives.
> In fact, you harm the freedoms of legitimate artist by proclaiming what
> you do is art.
My reply is:
I did not use the word "ensure," I used the word "know" and that
distinction makes a difference here. If no on is doing anything people
would like to stop, where, then, is the limit of freedom. It may be well
short of where you thought it was. Without the extremist, you don't
*know* where the limits are.
As for proclaiming what I do as art, that is simply stating a fact. Even
if you think what I do is "bad art," it follows that you think it is
art, even if you won't admit it. Now, I'm an absolutist when it comes to
value theory. That means that I believe statements like "X is good" or
"Y is bad" are factually true or false and not just matters for opinion.
At the same time, I don't believe it's possible for human beings to know
when such statements are true or false. Quite a conundrum. Absent a good
(and provable) standard, such matters - while matters of truth and
falsity - remain matters for dispute and disagreement.
As I've pointed out many times, just because something is pornographic
(and I use the term "erotic"), it doesn't follow that it can't be art.
To shock, disgust, dismay, and otherwise challenge popular notions has
long been a valid function of art. Only Philistines and unsophisticated
people think that the only function of art is to lay there being
beautiful. It may be hard to believe, but impressionism, expressionism,
cubism, dadaism, and surrealism were all at one time revolutionary and
extremely shocking. I mean, shocking to the point where the public
talked about *banning* them and/or ostracizing the artists.
You wrote:
> While it may not be legally pornography or obscene, your
> work is aimed at the lowest denominator, designed only to tittilate and
> provoke a lustfull response. It certainly isn't art, its jerk off
> material and that's best left for your privacy. But yes, there is even a
> place for that, and some people will buy anything.
My reply is:
Well, I think you're factually wrong. First of all, the "lowest common
denominator" (unless I misunderstand what you mean by it) would be
largely composed of uneducated, unemployed losers. Trouble is, that
crowd, as a rule, doesn't own or use a computer, whereas my sales are
nearly 100% via computer.
In fact, my clients are usually professional people...software
designers, hardware engineers, and so on. It is said that *Hustler*
magazine has a weird audience composed of truck drivers and attorneys.
(Now, don't take that literally. I think you know what I'm getting at:
the relatively uneducated and the relatively overeducated.)
Secondly, by saying that my work is aimed at provoking titillation and a
lustful response, you simply reveal your own values to be those of the
old Judeo-Christian tradition (and let's throw in the Islamic tradition,
too, while we're at it). Now, I'm not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim...I'm
an atheistic agnostic (which means that I'm an agnostic who feels that
current evidence does not imply the existence of a supreme being). Given
the fact that we don't start from the same foundation beliefs, there is
absolutely no chance you and I will ever agree in this area.
You also seem to think there's something wrong with masturbation (a
position almost all psychologists would disagree with totally). Or, if
you don't disagree with the psychologists, why take such a dim view of
someone who provides masturbation aids? If masturbation is not a bad or
immoral thing, then supplying masturbation materials is not a bad or
immoral thing.
You wrote:
>
> >You talk about finding ways of presenting our work in a non-threatening
> >way. There already exists an analogy in music for what you want: it's
> >called New Age.
>
> New Age isn't all that non-threatening. Listen to the music and
> read the writings of the late Sun Ra. He makes a whole lot of challenging
> statements (I presonally think he was a bit nuts though.).
My reply is:
Well, I'm not sure Sun Ra is a very typical "New Age" artist. Most
typically, he is categorized as a (very oddball, to be sure) jazz
artist.
In closing, while we disagree deeply, I find it refreshing to hold a
discussion with someone who really can think.
--
*******************************************************************
Afterglow Erotic Photography | http://www.teleport.com/~afterglo
Home of fine erotic photography and booklets for budding nude &
erotic photographers. Feel free to call me at (503) 274-7131.
Visit http://www.unseenworld.com/aglow/goodpics.html for pics.
JGWStudios
If you've followed this section of the thread, you will remember someone
asking for some serious discourse. OK, there it was. Very serious and
very PC (I hate it when I do that), but not necessarilly my true feelings.
It is unfortunate but true that much of this country is stuck in the 19th
century or even earlier with regard to nudity. What do we do about them?
They have as much right not to be bombarded with nudity as we have to
view, photograph, and partake of nudity. In a free society, I must
respect those people's rights as much as I ask them to respect mine.
>The only way to know you have a freedom is to exercise it in an area
>where people would like you to stop exercising it. As long as I am in
>business, you are truly free. Otherwise, you can just wonder.
By the way, you do nothing to ensure my freedom. I ensure my own freedom
by doing the work I do and maintaining contact with my representatives.
In fact, you harm the freedoms of legitimate artist by proclaiming what
you do is art. While it may not be legally pornography or obscene, your
work is aimed at the lowest denominator, designed only to tittilate and
provoke a lustfull response. It certainly isn't art, its jerk off
material and that's best left for your privacy. But yes, there is even a
place for that, and some people will buy anything.
>You talk about finding ways of presenting our work in a non-threatening
>way. There already exists an analogy in music for what you want: it's
>called New Age.
Finally, New Age isn't all that non-threatening. Listen to the music and
read the writings of the late Sun Ra. He makes a whole lot of challenging
statements (I presonally think he was a bit nuts though.).
John W.
JGWStudios
>I did not use the word "ensure," I used the word "know" and that
>distinction makes a difference here. If no on is doing anything people
>would like to stop, where, then, is the limit of freedom. It may be well
>short of where you thought it was. Without the extremist, you don't
>*know* where the limits are.
You are right, you did not use the word ensure. To quote you directly,
"As long as I am in business, you are truly free." The implication is
that your being in business somehow guarantees my freedom, ergo "ensures"
my freedom. It does not, I work hard to ensure myown and others freedoms,
even yours.
>As for proclaiming what I do as art, that is simply stating a fact. Even
>if you think what I do is "bad art," it follows that you think it is
>art, even if you won't admit it.
You say its art, I don't. I believe I refered to it as jerk off material.
>First of all, the "lowest common
>denominator" (unless I misunderstand what you mean by it) would be
>largely composed of uneducated, unemployed losers. Trouble is, that
>crowd, as a rule, doesn't own or use a computer, whereas my sales are
>nearly 100% via computer.
I made a bad choice of words with "the lowest denominator" (my actual
words). What I should have said was baser instincts.
>Secondly, by saying that my work is aimed at provoking titillation and a
>lustful response, you simply reveal your own values to be those of the
>old Judeo-Christian tradition (and let's throw in the Islamic tradition,
>too, while we're at it). Now, I'm not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim...I'm
>an atheistic agnostic (which means that I'm an agnostic who feels that
>current evidence does not imply the existence of a supreme being). Given
>the fact that we don't start from the same foundation beliefs, there is
>absolutely no chance you and I will ever agree in this area.
Your work is aimed at those baser instincts, even by your own admission
(from other threads). So be it, I support your right to produce the work
you do and my religious backround has nothing to do with it. Personally I
ascribe to Pascal's wager and paganism.
But you are probably right, we will never agree on what your work is, but
not on religious grounds.
>You also seem to think there's something wrong with masturbation (a
>position almost all psychologists would disagree with totally). Or, if
>you don't disagree with the psychologists, why take such a dim view of
>someone who provides masturbation aids? If masturbation is not a bad or
>immoral thing, then supplying masturbation materials is not a bad or
>immoral thing.
Now where do you get that idea? I never alluded to that belief.
Masturbation is a perfectly natural activity, its only when it is
demonized that psychological problems can occure.
The only dim view I take is with your assertation that your work is art,
but we've already settled that we probably won't agree on that anyway, so
why belabor the point.
>In closing, while we disagree deeply, I find it refreshing to hold a
>discussion with someone who really can think.
Thank you. I also find it refreshing when discussions can be intelligent.
John W.
bethbethbeth
Do my intentions as an artist affect the decision whether my stuff will
be put into the art catagory? (ie, "I MEANT for it to be pornographic")
Or do I have absolutely no control over my art once I let it go into the
public?
Capt. Jack
bethbethbeth <*ver...@netwave.net> wrote in article
<33E5FE...@netwave.net>...
I think you have a great deal of control...so long as you choose the
"correct" category. By that I mean if it really is porno, you will have a
much better chance of it's being accepted if YOU indeed call it porno.
People like labels. If it fits well within a particular one then everybody
seems to be happy. It works in all areas of art, but especially
photography. Just look at the near riots a heavily manipulated print gets
when someone dares to call it wildlife art. Yikes. A lot of it also has to
do with your acceptance BY the public and the image that creates. Take
Mapplethorpe for example. Much of his work could easily be considered
pornographic, and indeed probably is. BUT he was ALREADY accepted as an
artist and therefore he was somehow above pornographer. If the "right"
people accept your work as art you can bet it will sell. The general
public may hate it and you but it will sell nonetheless because it has been
deemed worthy by an "expert." While challenging bounderies can be healthy
it can also bring down the house. It also depends on where your market is.
Some have a thin line between art and pornography, while others it seems
have a wall. I general though, I think most people can tell the difference
without too much help.
--
Cheers,
Gary
Happiness is being a hedonist!!
ecophoto_ix-netcom-com
Sorry 'bout that fake reply address but I hate spam-mail...
Real address above, just replace the _ w/ @ and the dash w/ a dot.
And for you automated email spammers out there,
here's the email addresses of the current board of
the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
Pete Bergstrom
>>>>> Wonders of the Unseen World <afte...@teleport.com> writes:
> to talk about) that it's a lot HARDER to make a good color photograph
> than a good b&w.
Harder, no. Different, yes. As a generic statement, I don't believe your
assertion is terribly useful. *You* may think color is harder, but there
are many completely different elements of a good color photograph vs a good
monochrome photograph.
Pete
Wonders of the Unseen World
bethbethbeth wrote:
>
> Do my intentions as an artist affect the decision whether my stuff will
> be put into the art catagory? (ie, "I MEANT for it to be pornographic")
> Or do I have absolutely no control over my art once I let it go into the
> public?
My reply is:
Gustav Klimt is an established great artist, and so is the less
well-known artist Egon Schiele. Some of their best-known images are
pornographic nudes (showing the female sex parts). In literature,
artists ranging from Aristoophanes to Anais Nin have consciously created
pornographic work. Robert Mapplethorpe, and enormously talented
photographer (if for nothing else than his images of flowers) created
incredibly shocking gay porn.
Clearly, 1) there is nothing preventing a great artist from being a
pornographer and 2) there is nothing preventing pornography from being
great art.
Believe me, this kind of discussion goes on much more among amateurs
than it does among truly talented artists.
Wonders of the Unseen World
JGWStudios wrote:
>
> My opinion is, you have the choice of what *you* want to call it. We like
> to believe that we artist make art, but in reality it is the public and
> the critics that make what we do art. If you take pictures, and noone is
> interested in them, are they art or are they just nice pictures? Once you
> are accepted as an artist and that what you do is art, then anything you
> produce will be called art, even your vacation snaps of Disneyland.
>
> John W.
My reply is:
I think in this case it is noteworthy that the word "art" is defined by
the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "the conscious use of skill and
creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects;
also : works so produced."
Using that definition as the standard, there is not much room for the
public and critic as decision-makers in this area. The word "art" really
is another word for "skill" or "technique."
Take a thought problem: Suppose there was a kingdom consisting of 240
million aesthetic morons plus a reincarnation of Michelangelo...Now,
suppose he sculpted The Pieta or David.
JGWStudios
>> be put into the art catagory? (ie, "I MEANT for it to be pornographic")
>> Or do I have absolutely no control over my art once I let it go into
the
>> public?
My opinion is, you have the choice of what *you* want to call it. We like
Matt Denton
> Do my intentions as an artist affect the decision whether my stuff will
> be put into the art catagory? (ie, "I MEANT for it to be pornographic")
> Or do I have absolutely no control over my art once I let it go into the
> public?
The nature of art is that an artist creates a work and an audience views
it. The artist brings his/her own experience to the artwork when creating
it, and the viewer brings his/her own experience to the artwork when
viewing it. My experience with art/photography/writing is that when the
artist is not present, the audience provides its own interpretation of the
work that is by definition independent of the artist's intentions. It may
be the interpretation that the artist intended; it often is not. Much of
art therefore requires an interpreter - a guide that provides contextual
meaning to the piece, be this a bio of the artist, a history of the piece,
an explanation of the series from which it comes, etc. However, the
availability of such information is often out of control of the artist
once the work enters the public. It seems to me that the most enduring
pieces of art work on many levels and are successful despite (or due to)
differing audience interpretations. I try to take this into account in my
writing, art, and photography and realize that no matter what I do,
someone will always see my work as something other than what I intended.
Often, it seems, that's a good thing. Multiple interpretations enrich a
piece.
Wonders of the Unseen World
Matt Denton wrote:
>
> The nature of art is that an artist creates a work and an audience views
> it. The artist brings his/her own experience to the artwork when creating
> it, and the viewer brings his/her own experience to the artwork when
> viewing it. My experience with art/photography/writing is that when the
> artist is not present, the audience provides its own interpretation of the
> work that is by definition independent of the artist's intentions.
My reply is:
If the essence of good art lies not in "interpretation" but in
"composition" (to choose one possibility), then the value of art may be
objective, not subjective. This would have the function of making
statements like "Michelangelo's Pieta is a great sculpture" a statement
which is objectively true or false, and not just a matter for opinion.
(People would still have opinions, obviously, but those opinions would
be true or false based on the objective reality of the work itself.)
You wrote:
> It may
> be the interpretation that the artist intended; it often is not. Much of
> art therefore requires an interpreter - a guide that provides contextual
> meaning to the piece, be this a bio of the artist, a history of the piece,
> an explanation of the series from which it comes, etc. However, the
> availability of such information is often out of control of the artist
> once the work enters the public.
My reply is:
I contend that the aspect of art which requires "interpretation" is
non-aesthetic. A truly aesthetic reaction is a direct response (an
effect upon the viewer by the artwork), not an intellectualized
"interpretation" of the work. The aesthetic response is like the feeling
one gets when seeing an attractive member of the opposite sex: it has
nothing to do with interpretation.
You wrote:
> It seems to me that the most enduring
> pieces of art work on many levels and are successful despite (or due to)
> differing audience interpretations. I try to take this into account in my
> writing, art, and photography and realize that no matter what I do,
> someone will always see my work as something other than what I intended.
> Often, it seems, that's a good thing. Multiple interpretations enrich a
> piece.
My reply is:
If statements about art are based on an objective aesthetic reality and
statements about art are objectively true or false, it is entirely
possible for everyone to be wrong about an object of art. In fact, this
appears to be the case. How else to explain art that is thought of as
really important in one era being thought of as Kitsch in another...and
vice versa?
Paul Johnson
In article <33E5FE...@netwave.net>, bethbethbeth
<*ver...@netwave.net> writes
>Do my intentions as an artist affect the decision whether my stuff will
>be put into the art catagory?
> (ie, "I MEANT for it to be pornographic")
It depends what you mean by "catagory".
At one level, it affects where your work is placed on bookshelves. Does
it go in the "art photography" section or the "men's entertainment"
section? Those are definitely catagories, and the placement is affected
by your intentions because of the way that those intentions are
communicated to the people who actually place books on shelves.
>Or do I have absolutely no control over my art once I let it go into the
>public?
At another level, when a particular individual looks at your work and
makes a judgement, your intentions matter not one whit. If you succeed
in communicating your ideas or feelings through an image, then you have
produced a work of art.
Paul.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------
Paul Johnson | You are lost in a maze of twisty
Email: Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk | little standards, all different.
paul.j...@gecm.com |
bethbethbeth
>
> My reply is:
>
> I think in this case it is noteworthy that the word "art" is defined by
> the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "the conscious use of skill and
> creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects;
> also : works so produced."
Well, then, what does your handy little book say about "Fine Art"?
>
> Using that definition as the standard, there is not much room for the
> public and critic as decision-makers in this area. The word "art" really
> is another word for "skill" or "technique."
So, then someone who makes tacky little popsicle-stick boxes and
decorates them with stenciled glitter bunnies is an ARTIST because they
have technical skill? HMM?
>
> Take a thought problem: Suppose there was a kingdom consisting of 240
> million aesthetic morons plus a reincarnation of Michelangelo...Now,
> suppose he sculpted The Pieta or David.
So your point is, "art" is relative to your culture, correct?
JGWStudios
>> You are right, you did not use the word ensure. To quote you directly,
>> "As long as I am in business, you are truly free." The implication is
>> that your being in business somehow guarantees my freedom, ergo
"ensures"
>> my freedom. It does not, I work hard to ensure myown and others
freedoms,
>> even yours.
>
>
>
>And I thank you for that, but if someday you start to fear that what you
>do may get you in trouble, you'll wish some dogs had barked before the
>hobnail boots got anywhere near YOUR door, won't you?
I don't fear. Fear is for fools who don't have the courage to take a
stand and call a spade a spade.
>You wrote:
>>
>> You say its art, I don't. I believe I refered to it as jerk off
material.
>>
>
>My reply is:
>
>Why can't art be jerk-off material?
I'm sure there's been a lot of art that's been jerked off to. But there
is an intrinsic beauty to art, unfortunately I'm not seeing the beauty in
your work.
>You wrote:
>
>> I made a bad choice of words with "the lowest denominator" (my actual
>> words). What I should have said was baser instincts.
>
>
>My reply is:
>
>Okay, then, you meant "baser instincts." Given that masturbation is
>healthy (see below), what are the more elevated things someone like you
>might be thinking about while trying to get his rocks off?
>
>
>You wrote:
>>
>> Your work is aimed at those baser instincts, even by your own admission
>> (from other threads). So be it, I support your right to produce the
work
>> you do and my religious backround has nothing to do with it.
Personally I
>> ascribe to Pascal's wager and paganism.
>> But you are probably right, we will never agree on what your work is,
but
>> not on religious grounds.
>
>
>My reply is:
>
>Hmm. I don't associate baseness with masturbation. You do, apparently.
>Unfortunately, you seem somewhat schizophrenically commited to two
>incompatible beliefs: 1) that masturbation is good and 2) that
>masturbation is base (at least if one uses a masturbation aid in the
>form of a photograph). I wonder, what does God intend people to use
>while they are healthily wacking away?
Given the amount of education you've claimed to have, you know quite well
that a "baser instinct" is not bad its just one of the primative survival
instincts we as humans have.
>You wrote:
>>
>> >You also seem to think there's something wrong with masturbation...
>>
>> Now where do you get that idea? I never alluded to that belief.
>> Masturbation is a perfectly natural activity, its only when it is
>> demonized that psychological problems can occure.
>
>
>My reply is:
>
>Demonized? I'm not sure what you mean there. You mean there's Holy
>Wacking and Demon Wacking? Does one think of The Virgin Mary in the
>former case and Sandra Bullock in the latter?
Again for all your education, you should know quite well what
"demonization" is.
>You wrote:
>>
>> >In closing, while we disagree deeply, I find it refreshing to hold a
>> >discussion with someone who really can think.
>>
>> Thank you. I also find it refreshing when discussions can be
intelligent.
>>
>
>My reply is:
>
>May we have many more. Clearly, this one still isn't over.
I don't think so. What started out as a lively, intelligent, and
courtious discussion, has through your effort degraded to repetitive, and
boring. You've begun to show your true intelligence, what's next do you
start calling me names or casting aspersions upon my sexuallity (you have
begun that at any rate), I prefer not to.
John W.
JGWStudios
>Absolutely. I think that people should have the right to turn on a TV
>or walk down a street and not be exposed to nudity, just as they should
>have the right to walk into a public building and not be forced to
>breath other people's cigarette smoke.
>
>On the other hand I think that anyone should have the right to see nude
>or erotic images if they wish, just as anyone should have the right to
>ingest harmful substances if they wish.
>
>The key point here is choice (aka "freedom"). Some people choose to
>look at erotica, others choose not to. Both choices should be
>respected.
You are right, it does come down to freedom, but more so respect.
Artistic images often lead the viewer to feel that the artist has some
respect for the model, and consequently the viewer also has a sense of
respect for the model. Unlike the pornographic image where the primary
thought for the photographer is how much money can be made off this one,
and for the viewer well you know what the viewer is thinking.
>Who says? That may be your opinion. Actually, its also mine (I just
>went and had a look at the "Afterglow" web site). But I don't elevate
>my artistic criticisms to the status of holy writ just because we are
>dealing with sex. There may be artistry in the Afterglow website that I
>cannot see. Jaz music is also pretty impenetrable for me.
Yes it is my opinion, and I'm not trying to elevate it to the status of
holy writ. I don't care if the material is sexual or not, some of the
most aclaimed works in history have been sexual in nature. I was making a
comment on the Afterglow work, and his assertation that what he was doing
was high art.
bethbethbeth
Wonders of the Unseen World wrote:
>
> If the essence of good art lies not in "interpretation" but in
> "composition" (to choose one possibility), then the value of art may be
> objective, not subjective. This would have the function of making
> statements like "Michelangelo's Pieta is a great sculpture" a statement
> which is objectively true or false, and not just a matter for opinion.
> (People would still have opinions, obviously, but those opinions would
> be true or false based on the objective reality of the work itself.)
If you mean "great" as in "large and imposing"
bethbethbeth
> Absolutely. I think that people should have the right to turn on a TV
> or walk down a street and not be exposed to nudity, just as they should
> have the right to walk into a public building and not be forced to
> breath other people's cigarette smoke.
Whoah-- BAD EXAMPLE, love. Second hand smoke can contribute to your
early death. NUDITY, does NOT. If anything, exposure to nudity would
make you a more liberal minded person in the long run. In the 1890s,
viewing a woman's legs was EROTIC EROTIC. But, once skirts shorted up,
legs became so commonplace that they weren't really any big deal. So,
the more society is exposed to nudity, the less evil and pornographic it
becomes.
>
> On the other hand I think that anyone should have the right to see nude
> or erotic images if they wish, just as anyone should have the right to
> ingest harmful substances if they wish.
This is not a believable argument. Nudity DOES NOT HARM ANYONE.
>
> The key point here is choice (aka "freedom"). Some people choose to
> look at erotica, others choose not to. Both choices should be
> respected.
However, should I be forced to listen to window-rattling bass music when
I am stopped at a stoplight in my car just because the guy in the car
next to me has hugeass bass speakers in his trunk? Though it doesn't
hurt me physically, the noise bothers me because it is not my taste, and
it is above the level I normally listen to music. In this case, he
should respect my wishes not to be forced to listen to his crappy music,
in an ideal world.
Yet, I do not think that we should encourage people to play their music
really loud so that we get exposed to it and consequently cease to have
negative reactions. (Nor to censor it. Can you imagine mothers clamping
their hands over their kids ears when a bass car rolls by?) The
difference with pornography is that we are all naked under our clothes.
We shouln't go to great lengths to hide kids from naked people, since
then nudity becomes some evil, hidden (appealing) thing. We should be
comfortable with our bodies and all our life processes.
[Snippity]
> Sex, in all its forms, is very close to our hearts. It is a deep part
> of what it means to be human. What is Art, if it has nothing to say
> about it?
So nudity, consequently, should not be censored, either. It is part of
what makes us human, no?
san...@suzy.torolab.ibm.com
bethbethbeth (ver...@netwave.net) wrote:
: >
: > My reply is:
: >
: > I think in this case it is noteworthy that the word "art" is defined by
: > the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "the conscious use of skill and
: > creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects;
: > also : works so produced."
:
: Well, then, what does your handy little book say about "Fine Art"?
:
: >
: > Using that definition as the standard, there is not much room for the
: > public and critic as decision-makers in this area. The word "art" really
: > is another word for "skill" or "technique."
:
: So, then someone who makes tacky little popsicle-stick boxes and
: decorates them with stenciled glitter bunnies is an ARTIST because they
: have technical skill? HMM?
He only read half the definition and forgot about the aesthetic objects
part. If you think "glitter bunnies" make aesthetic objects then it
follows that you think that that someone is "an ARTIST".
--
Sandor -- sandor...@prior.ca
Wonders of the Unseen World
JGWStudios wrote:
>
> >My reply is:
> >
> >And I thank you for that, but if someday you start to fear that what you
> >do may get you in trouble, you'll wish some dogs had barked before the
> >hobnail boots got anywhere near YOUR door, won't you?
>
> I don't fear. Fear is for fools who don't have the courage to take a
> stand and call a spade a spade.
My reply is:
Well, good for you. However, others may wish it was handled before it
comes to a storm trooper knocking on their door.
You wrote:
>
> >Why can't art be jerk-off material?
>
> I'm sure there's been a lot of art that's been jerked off to. But there
> is an intrinsic beauty to art, unfortunately I'm not seeing the beauty in
> your work.
My reply is:
You obviously haven't even taken Aesthetics 101. Beauty is one object of
art. Art may also shock or disgust. Art may be functional (the crafts,
porn). Art originally meant "technique" and covers a lot more territory
than "that which is beautiful."
>
> >You wrote:
> >
> >> I made a bad choice of words with "the lowest denominator" (my actual
> >> words). What I should have said was baser instincts.
You wrote:
> >
> >
> >My reply is:
> >
> >Okay, then, you meant "baser instincts." Given that masturbation is
> >healthy (see below), what are the more elevated things someone like you
> >might be thinking about while trying to get his rocks off?
My reply is:
No answer to this one. Guess you don't want to share that one with us.
You wrote:
> >Hmm. I don't associate baseness with masturbation. You do, apparently.
> >Unfortunately, you seem somewhat schizophrenically commited to two
> >incompatible beliefs: 1) that masturbation is good and 2) that
> >masturbation is base (at least if one uses a masturbation aid in the
> >form of a photograph). I wonder, what does God intend people to use
> >while they are healthily wacking away?
>
> Given the amount of education you've claimed to have, you know quite well
> that a "baser instinct" is not bad its just one of the primative survival
> instincts we as humans have.
My reply is:
But you TREAT baser instincts as though they're something we shouldn't
have or indulge. There were a couple interesting questions in there you
didn't get around to answering.
You wrote:
>
> >Demonized? I'm not sure what you mean there. You mean there's Holy
> >Wacking and Demon Wacking? Does one think of The Virgin Mary in the
> >former case and Sandra Bullock in the latter?
>
> Again for all your education, you should know quite well what
> "demonization" is.
My reply is:
You always find some reason to avoid answering the question, so let me
pose it one more time in the hopes you won't ignore it again: If
masturbation is good, what makes masturbation material bad? And more
specifically, why can't good art be masturbation material? (I would say
it's rather obvious that it can.)
You wrote:
> >May we have many more. Clearly, this one still isn't over.
>
> I don't think so. What started out as a lively, intelligent, and
> courtious discussion, has through your effort degraded to repetitive, and
> boring. You've begun to show your true intelligence, what's next do you
> start calling me names or casting aspersions upon my sexuallity (you have
> begun that at any rate), I prefer not to.
My reply is:
I would never stoop to calling someone who is actually discussing
something with ma a name (I have on occasion called a moron a moron, in
the spirit of calling a spade a spade), though you have essentially done
the same thing in the above paragraph.
--
***************************************************************
Afterglow Erotic Photogaphy | http://www.teleport.com/~afterglo
Home of fine erotic photography and booklets for budding nude &
erotic photographers. Feel free to call me at (503) 274-7131.
Visit http://www.unseenworld.com/aglow/serasmps.html for pics.
Wonders of the Unseen World
My reply is:
No, I am talking about evaluative statements in art being objectively
true or false based on an aesthetic reality of some sort. I am a
platonist in this area. And my position was arrived at after reading
about some research I read once in *Psychology Today*. I discuss this in
a reply to another person, so I won't go into it again here.
Wonders of the Unseen World
JGWStudios wrote:
>
> >> Take a thought problem: Suppose there was a kingdom consisting of 240
> >> million aesthetic morons plus a reincarnation of Michelangelo...Now,
> >> suppose he sculpted The Pieta or David.
> >
> >So your point is, "art" is relative to your culture, correct?
>
> what, as long as the artist intends it to be so. This is just idiotic,
> art cannot exist outside of a social context. Michelangelo would be
> considered an idiot or worse in this kingdom of aestetic morons,
> especially if societies idea of high art is velvet painting of Elvis. But
> then we have to look at who did the posting and other discussions he's
> involved in.
>
> John W.
My reply is:
No, you are the one who holds an untenable (because false) position.
I believed that the question of quality in art was subjective or social
once, but about 20-25 years ago *Psychology Today* ran a piece about an
experiment that went something like this (bear in mind, I'm remembering
something I read a long time ago). Since reading that piece and thinking
about it (in a graduate-level aesthetics context), I realize that there
are standards for art which are extra-cultural. They may or may not
reflect a metaphysical reality, but they transcend social/cultural
contexts).
The researcher selected respected artists from several divergent
cultures: (imagine a selection of respected artists from the European
sphere, the Orient, the Pacific Islands, Native American Cultures, and
Africa). He had each artist select a masterpiece and a basic journeyman
piece that was okay but nothing to write home about. The artists ranged
the gamut from mask makers to ceramicists to painters.
Then, the researcher had each artist look at the examples chosen by the
other artists and decide which of the two was better. Invariably, for
each pair of artwords, the artists from outside the culture made the
same choice as the artists within the culture.
It would appear, then, that whatever it is that we use when judging art,
it is at least human, and possible even a feature of reality itself, and
not simply a social construct foisted upon us after birth.
JGWStudios
This discussion is over, it is going no where and therefor has become a
waste of my time. But I will address on last issue in closing this
discussion.
You always find some reason to avoid answering the question,
so let me pose it one more time in the hopes you won't ignore it
again: If masturbation is good, what makes masturbation material bad?
And more specifically, why can't good art be masturbation material?
(I would say it's rather obvious that it can.)
First, questions I choose to answer, I answer fully and honestly.
Second, there is nothing wrong with masturbation material, for those who
need it, it serves a purpose and should be freely available.
Lastly, I'm sure a lot of good art has been used as masturbation material,
all those "art" books in the library certainly aren't beening checked out
by serious art students. My assertion though is that your masturbation
material is not art. That doesn't invalidate it for what it is, and if
its what you want to do and your making a living with it, you should be
proud of what your doing.
All that said, I am choosing to remain out of this discussion unless it
regains its interest.
John W.
JGWStudios
Ok, this is a little interesting.
>No, you are the one who holds an untenable (because false) position.
>
>I believed that the question of quality in art was subjective or social
>once, but about 20-25 years ago *Psychology Today* ran a piece about an
>experiment that went something like this (bear in mind, I'm remembering
>something I read a long time ago). Since reading that piece and thinking
>about it (in a graduate-level aesthetics context), I realize that there
>are standards for art which are extra-cultural. They may or may not
>reflect a metaphysical reality, but they transcend social/cultural
>contexts).
>
>The researcher selected respected artists from several divergent
>cultures: (imagine a selection of respected artists from the European
>sphere, the Orient, the Pacific Islands, Native American Cultures, and
>Africa). He had each artist select a masterpiece and a basic journeyman
>piece that was okay but nothing to write home about. The artists ranged
>the gamut from mask makers to ceramicists to painters.
>
>Then, the researcher had each artist look at the examples chosen by the
>other artists and decide which of the two was better. Invariably, for
>each pair of artwords, the artists from outside the culture made the
>same choice as the artists within the culture.
>
>It would appear, then, that whatever it is that we use when judging art,
>it is at least human, and possible even a feature of reality itself, and
>not simply a social construct foisted upon us after birth.
This brings to mind recent research into physical beauty. Could it be
that these early researchers were actually seeing the natural (as in
nature vs. nurture) common vision of beauty and not a common vision of
what is art.
John W.