Spencer Tunick
Tristán White
completely irrelevant to the naturist community, I am of the
thought-school that sees the fact that a large group of a hundred or
so people stripping off in public for art's sake as being particularly
relevant, and that any non-sexual public show of nudity is good for
the cause.
Showing people how beautiful and free the naked body is, and how happy
people are to show it in public, can only serve to help our cause.
Yesterday's Independent had in colour on the front page Tunick's
latest picture of naked people lying down in New York's Grand Central
station.
If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, you can see samples of
Tunick's wonderful photos here:
http://snurl.com/tunick
journalist-north
"Tristán White" <Trista...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:tq5vpvc18lm075o64...@4ax.com...
------------
That statement is stuffed fuller than a Christmas turkey....when Tunick shot
that NY shot a few days ago they CLOSED THE BUILDING (or that part they were
using) TO THE PUBLIC!!!
But then again it was the same old Tunick brigade that turned out for the
photo - clothes off - click click - clothes on - God no, were not naturists
we only take our clothes off for "art" TWATS!
It's NOT naturism and it's not even good art seeing as he keeps doing the
same thing over and over. It's all about Tunick. It's about Tunick making
money. He is a self-aggrandising, self-indulgent, egoist!
Tunick, personally, and to his credit, does NOT support naturist activism,
doesn't want his name associated with naturism and doesn't participate in or
support political protest with his name attached. We don't see Tunick
sponsored anti-war protests; we don't see Tunick sponsored anti-fur
protests; we don't see Tunick sponsoring Free Steve Gough protests; we
haven't seen him with even 1 (uno solo) naked person making a stand on
nudity outside a courtroom in protest; to do so would only hurt the Tunick
money machine - and he knows it.
Journalist
Tristán White
<journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>That statement is stuffed fuller than a Christmas turkey....when Tunick shot
>that NY shot a few days ago they CLOSED THE BUILDING (or that part they were
>using) TO THE PUBLIC!!!
>But then again it was the same old Tunick brigade that turned out for the
>photo - clothes off - click click - clothes on - God no, were not naturists
>we only take our clothes off for "art" TWATS!
>It's NOT naturism and it's not even good art seeing as he keeps doing the
>same thing over and over. It's all about Tunick. It's about Tunick making
>money. He is a self-aggrandising, self-indulgent, egoist!
>Tunick, personally, and to his credit, does NOT support naturist activism,
>doesn't want his name associated with naturism and doesn't participate in or
>support political protest with his name attached. We don't see Tunick
>sponsored anti-war protests; we don't see Tunick sponsored anti-fur
>protests; we don't see Tunick sponsoring Free Steve Gough protests; we
>haven't seen him with even 1 (uno solo) naked person making a stand on
>nudity outside a courtroom in protest; to do so would only hurt the Tunick
>money machine - and he knows it.
Okay Journalist-North, I hear what you're saying and you're right to
an opinion on this of course. As am I.
First of all, I think his pictures are lovely. But that's another
issue.
This particular shot was closed to the building, well if that's the
case I guess that wasn't up to Spencer Tunick, probably up to New
York's increasingly fascistic view on public nudity on general. His
shows on the South Bank here in London and in Barcelona and other
places show that he is certainly up to public nudity if up to him.
Secondly, OK so he doesn't join in any anti-fur or pro-Steve Gough
activites, OK, but he is an artist and quite frankly why should he. He
is not doing these pictures to promote our (naturist) cause, he is
doing it for the sake of art and I support art as well as I support
naturism and if the two combine then even better. I am an anti-war
campaigner (I have been at most of the London marches) and I am a
naturist, but does the fact that I did not campaign nude make me any
less of an (a) naturist (b) anti-war campaigner? Does if f**k!!!
Thirdly, he is making the front page of newspapers... not just the
scummy tabloids but intelligent broadsheets like the Independent as
well. People are being exposed to beautifully arranged coreographies
of naked people in all shapes and sizes, people are seeing nudity in
public (OK this New York thing was not strictly in public but this was
not Tunick's fault) and indirectly they are learning that the naked
form is beautiful and artistic. We need to bring some of the
romanticism back into our lifestyle and Tunick is therefore someone we
should embrace, and not diss with so much cynicism.
You are entitlled to your point but I, for one, will reserve my
entitlement to disagree with it....
TRISTÁN
CraigM
What journals do you write for exactly - The Philistine Weekly? Or
Killjoy Magazine perhaps?
Whatever it is, no doubt you get paid for what you write - why should
making money out of journalism (or anything else for that matter) be
OK but making money from photography so reprehensible? Of course
Tunick makes money - it's his job!
Being financially succesful doesn't invalidate an artist's integrity.
Would you prefer artists to be struggling to survive in a cold garret
somewhere, whilst multinationals fork out millions for their works
after they're dead? I'm sorry, but things have moved on a little since
Van Gogh's day. Dealers like Saatchi pay millions for works by people
like Damien Hurst and the Chapman brothers who become very wealthy as
a consequence.
Isn't progress terrible sometimes?
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
no...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> But then again it was the same old Tunick brigade that turned out for the
> photo - clothes off - click click - clothes on - God no, were not naturists
> we only take our clothes off for "art" TWATS!
>
John P
> > > latest picture of naked people lying down in New York's Grand Central
> > > station.
> Whatever it is, no doubt you get paid for what you write - why should
> making money out of journalism (or anything else for that matter) be
> OK but making money from photography so reprehensible? Of course
> Tunick makes money - it's his job!
This photo session was different from most of Tunick's previous
stunts. The "naked people" were actually all female. And as has been
said, Tunick's not a naturist and is making money off his work. Look
around on the Internet (and many other places) and you can find plenty
of opportunities to pay money to see pretty ladies with their clothes
off--which seems to be what Tunick has in mind now. My guess is that
he thinks it will lead to better sales if he takes a few pictures
without any of those horrid male bodies cluttering up the scene.
CraigM
> This photo session was different from most of Tunick's previous
> stunts. The "naked people" were actually all female. And as has been
> said, Tunick's not a naturist and is making money off his work. Look
> around on the Internet (and many other places) and you can find plenty
> of opportunities to pay money to see pretty ladies with their clothes
> off--which seems to be what Tunick has in mind now. My guess is that
> he thinks it will lead to better sales if he takes a few pictures
> without any of those horrid male bodies cluttering up the scene.
If you're suggesting that this is somehow a cynical change in
direction for Tunick, you';d be mistaken. The Central Station shot was
different but not unique. He has done a number of single-gender photos
in the past - both genders.
In any case, you haven't given any reason why this should be so
reprehensible in the first place.
And, another thing, if he was a naturist, would it make any
difference?
journalist-north
"CraigM" <snowma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3281cd78.0310...@posting.google.com...
(snip)
> In any case, you haven't given any reason why this should be so
> reprehensible in the first place.
>
-------------
BUT IS IT "ART"?
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/7454034?source=Evening%20Standard
Barschak in court over art attack
30 October 2003
Comedy terrorist Aaron Barschak threw red paint over Turner Prize nominee
Jake Chapman and one of his works in a gallery because he wanted to "create
a piece of art", a court heard today.
The 37-year-old, who gatecrashed Prince William's 21st birthday party at
Windsor Castle earlier this year, claimed he was collaborating with the
artist after the incident at Modern Art Oxford.
Barschak shouted: "Viva Goya" in protest at brothers Jake and Dinos
Chapman's alterations of a series of etchings by the Spanish painter, Oxford
Magistrates Court was told.
Afterwards, he claimed he would be entering photographs of the
paint-splattered walls and floor of the gallery in the Turner Prize himself.
(MORE...)
-----------
ditto for Tunick
ROTFLMAO
Journalist
CraigM
> >
> -------------
>
> BUT IS IT "ART"?
>
> http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/7454034?source=Evening%20Standard
>
> Barschak in court over art attack
> 30 October 2003
>
> Comedy terrorist Aaron Barschak threw red paint over Turner Prize nominee
> Jake Chapman and one of his works in a gallery because he wanted to "create
> a piece of art", a court heard today.
>
> ditto for Tunick
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> Journalist
So I take it that you do write for the Philistine Weekly?
David Looser
>
> "CraigM" <snowma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3281cd78.0310...@posting.google.com...
> (snip)
>
> > In any case, you haven't given any reason why this should be so
> > reprehensible in the first place.
> >
> -------------
>
> BUT IS IT "ART"?
Of course it's art. You may not like it, that's your privilege, but it
qualifies as art under any criteria I can think of. I notice that those here
who hate Tunick complain that he makes money out of it (as do all
professional artists) and that he's not a naturist. Why should he be a
naturist?, does naturism "own" non-sexual nudity?.
Tunick's work is not to everybody's taste, but I doubt whether there's ever
been an artist who's work does. You don't have to buy it, or pose for it if
you don't want to. IMO his work, together with things such as the "Calender
Girls" film, tell us something about public attitudes to nudity. Not
directly related to naturism of course, but of interest in the context of
the SOB.
>
<Snip>
> Afterwards, he claimed he would be entering photographs of the
> paint-splattered walls and floor of the gallery in the Turner Prize
himself.
> (MORE...)
>
> ditto for Tunick
Pardon?. What on earth has Barshak got to do with Tunick?.
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> Journalist
>
>
John P
> If you're suggesting that this is somehow a cynical change in
> direction for Tunick, you';d be mistaken. The Central Station shot was
> different but not unique. He has done a number of single-gender photos
> in the past - both genders.
> In any case, you haven't given any reason why this should be so
> reprehensible in the first place.
>
> And, another thing, if he was a naturist, would it make any
> difference?
Well, if this is a commercial venture and makes no pretensions to be
anything else, then I've already said my piece--he's part of a long
tradition of displaying naked female skin for cash. From "great art"
to the lowest pornography, that's what the paying public wants to see.
As a naturist, yes, I think it makes a huge difference. The central
belief of naturism is that "every body is a good body". If some
allegedly "naturist" activity requires that the bodies involved need
to be sorted so as to eliminate half of them (more than half, if you
allow for the normal demographics of naturists) then I don't see how
you can call it naturism at all. Spencer Tunick's previous photos
could be seen as a celebration of human diversity, or an attack on
body-rejection by placing hundreds of naked people in public places,
but if the issue is one of just renting a large building for putting
lots of women on display, then I don't think he's achieved much. He
could sell his images to Playboy magazine and they wouldn't look out
of place.
CraigM
> Well, if this is a commercial venture and makes no pretensions to be
> anything else, then I've already said my piece--he's part of a long
> tradition of displaying naked female skin for cash. From "great art"
> to the lowest pornography, that's what the paying public wants to see.
>
> As a naturist, yes, I think it makes a huge difference. The central
> belief of naturism is that "every body is a good body". If some
> allegedly "naturist" activity requires that the bodies involved need
> to be sorted so as to eliminate half of them (more than half, if you
> allow for the normal demographics of naturists) then I don't see how
> you can call it naturism at all. Spencer Tunick's previous photos
> could be seen as a celebration of human diversity, or an attack on
> body-rejection by placing hundreds of naked people in public places,
> but if the issue is one of just renting a large building for putting
> lots of women on display, then I don't think he's achieved much. He
> could sell his images to Playboy magazine and they wouldn't look out
> of place.
To the best of my knowledge, I don't think anyone ever has called it
naturism (and least of all Tunick himself). That said, I think both
his photos and his process for achieveing them have something to say,
if only incidentally, about the meaning and status of the naked body
in a public place in the 21st century. And that still holds true if,
on occasion, the images are gender-specific. I think I would have
agreed with your criticism if Tunick had stipulated that only young
and 'attractive' women were allowed to pose, but he didn't.
And he has in the past also run men-only shoots - I wonder if you
would also consider them quasi-pornographic in the same way (I'm
assuming there is a market for erotic pictures of men). I can't think
of many great artists, from Botticelli to John Curran, who haven't
depicted naked women in their work - and, just because sleazy porn
mags also show bodies, it doesn't follow that they are all equally
reprehensible. The presentation of nudity in culture in all it
manifestations (lads' mags, advertising, hollywood, art, etc.) surely
is an importnat topic, and one which I would have thought naturists
would be interested in.
Jerry.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, I don't think anyone ever has called it
> naturism (and least of all Tunick himself).
Plenty of his 'fans' have, otherwise why post here and not to one of the art
groups.?
That said, I think both
> his photos and his process for achieveing them have something to say,
> if only incidentally, about the meaning and status of the naked body
> in a public place in the 21st century. And that still holds true if,
> on occasion, the images are gender-specific.
Quite right, as all art containing the naked form does, it's no different to
any other subject matter, just look at how 'War Art' has changed through the
ages.
What gets my goat with the people who start threads about Tunick and his /
art / here is the way they think he is doing naturism a favour, he is doing
us no more of a favour than the Sun 'newspaper' is in printing page three
beauties or one of the great classical painters has done. At least the Sun
pay their models...
David Looser
news:WoUob.3388$lm1....@wards.force9.net...
>
> "CraigM" <snowma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3281cd78.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > swim_n...@yahoo.com (John P) wrote in message
> news:<4226a845.03110...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, I don't think anyone ever has called it
> > naturism (and least of all Tunick himself).
>
> Plenty of his 'fans' have, otherwise why post here and not to one of the
art
> groups.?
No one on this NG has ever called Tunick's work "naturism", and I post here
because I am replying to comments about him posted here. I'm not a "fan", I
think Tunic's work is interesting, but I wouldn't claim it as great art.
>
> That said, I think both
> > his photos and his process for achieveing them have something to say,
> > if only incidentally, about the meaning and status of the naked body
> > in a public place in the 21st century. And that still holds true if,
> > on occasion, the images are gender-specific.
>
> Quite right, as all art containing the naked form does, it's no different
to
> any other subject matter, just look at how 'War Art' has changed through
the
> ages.
>
> What gets my goat with the people who start threads about Tunick and his /
> art / here is the way they think he is doing naturism a favour, he is
doing
> us no more of a favour than the Sun 'newspaper' is in printing page three
> beauties or one of the great classical painters has done. At least the Sun
> pay their models...
Nor has anyone claimed that Tunick is doing us a favour. It's the public
reaction to his work that's interesting in the context of naturism, not the
work itself. It shows that the public, by and large, is not as offended by
nudity as some in authority would like to believe.
David.
>
>
David Looser
"John P" <swim_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4226a845.03110...@posting.google.com...
> snowma...@hotmail.com
>
> Well, if this is a commercial venture and makes no pretensions to be
> anything else, then I've already said my piece--he's part of a long
> tradition of displaying naked female skin for cash. From "great art"
> to the lowest pornography, that's what the paying public wants to see.
Yes there is a long tradition of nudity in art. It's a much, much older
tradition than naturism and has had a much more profound influence on our
culture than naturism has. Tunic's work is just part of it. You may
disparage this tradition if you want to but that wont make it go away. The
difference between pornography and art is the difference between pictures
which are titillating and those which aren't. Tunics work is not titillating
and the fact that a few of his pictures are female only does not make them
"porn"..
>
> As a naturist, yes, I think it makes a huge difference. The central
> belief of naturism is that "every body is a good body". If some
> allegedly "naturist" activity requires that the bodies involved need
> to be sorted so as to eliminate half of them (more than half, if you
> allow for the normal demographics of naturists) then I don't see how
> you can call it naturism at all.
No one has
It does seem that some naturists have a real problem with nudity *unless* it
can be called "naturism". Tunick's work is nothing to do with naturism but
it is art and it's not porn.
David.
Jerry.
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bo1cs0$fic$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> "Jerry." <use...@scarts.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:WoUob.3388$lm1....@wards.force9.net...
> >
> > "CraigM" <snowma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3281cd78.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > swim_n...@yahoo.com (John P) wrote in message
> > news:<4226a845.03110...@posting.google.com>...
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > To the best of my knowledge, I don't think anyone ever has called it
> > > naturism (and least of all Tunick himself).
> >
> > Plenty of his 'fans' have, otherwise why post here and not to one of the
> art
> > groups.?
>
> No one on this NG has ever called Tunick's work "naturism", and I post
here
> because I am replying to comments about him posted here. I'm not a "fan",
I
> think Tunic's work is interesting, but I wouldn't claim it as great art.
Perhaps I should have said those who start threads here, yes pleanty of
people post about Tunick who are not intrested and are certanly are not
fans.
No, it shows they are not offended by / pictures / of naked bodies, there is
a difference. Anyway you have just illustrated my point, you clearly / do /
think that Tunick is doing some kind of favour to naturists (getting people
use to seeing the naked body - well classical paintings and sculptures have
been doing that for centuries and were has it got us ?).
David Looser
>
> >
>
> No, it shows they are not offended by / pictures / of naked bodies, there
is
> a difference. Anyway you have just illustrated my point, you clearly / do
/
> think that Tunick is doing some kind of favour to naturists (getting
people
> use to seeing the naked body - well classical paintings and sculptures
have
> been doing that for centuries and were has it got us ?).
>
>
favour. As for your last point, the answer I think is that centuries of
nudes in painting and sculpture has got us quite a long way. Without
rewinding history and re-running it without artistic representation of the
nude I cannot prove that of course. The only comparison I can think of is
the Islamic world, where artistic representation of the human body (nude or
otherwise) is banned and naturism is a lot less acceptable than it is here!
David.
John P
> > Well, if this is a commercial venture and makes no pretensions to be
> > anything else, then I've already said my piece--he's part of a long
> > tradition of displaying naked female skin for cash. From "great art"
> > to the lowest pornography, that's what the paying public wants to see.
>
> Yes there is a long tradition of nudity in art. It's a much, much older
> tradition than naturism and has had a much more profound influence on our
> culture than naturism has. Tunic's work is just part of it. You may
> disparage this tradition if you want to but that wont make it go away. The
> difference between pornography and art is the difference between pictures
> which are titillating and those which aren't. Tunics work is not
Speak for yourself, there! What one person finds merely ordinary may
be what gets another thoroughly titillated. Even if naturists don't
agree, there are plenty of people around who just find the sight of
naked women "titillating", with no need for anything sexual to be on
display--just the view of the woman is enough. I doubt if you'd argue
with the statement that "In past decades, 'Heath and Efficiency'
magazine was treated by many readers as representing the height of
erotica." And I doubt if the things people consider arousing have
changed to the point where the sight of female nudity has stopped
being erotic for plenty of viewers. And among heterosexuals, it does
seem to be men viewing women that's the sexual combination. It doesn't
necessarily involve legally pornographic images, but for those
individuals, it's serving the same function.
> It does seem that some naturists have a real problem with nudity *unless* it
> can be called "naturism". Tunick's work is nothing to do with naturism but
> it is art and it's not porn.
True. Somebody took the trouble to mention this
nudity-but-not-naturism topic in a newsgroup that has
naturism-but-not-nudity in its title. I suppose that as naturists,
we're interested in nudity in various aspects, whether it's naturist
or not. Certainly I've often seen Tunick's work in naturist magazines,
and as part of workshops, as well as on the Internet. And when he's
covered city plazas with naked people (randomly self-selected) I've
accepted that as a demonstration of naturism in action, and maybe good
propaganda for non-naturists to see, with nudity being represented not
as erotic or even as "beautiful", but just human bodies being shown
without shame. But when it's yet another item in the long tradition of
women being displayed for profit, I don't see it as very inspiring at
all. Sure there's only one Playmate of the Month, but apart from the
numbers, what's Tunick doing that Playboy magazine isn't?
As far as "great art" is concerned, the rich men who sponsored artists
may well have appreciated the skill involved, but I don't think they
exactly objected to the sight of naked women either! In the immortal
words of Monty Python:
Art Critic: (Michael Palin) Good evening. I'd like to talk to you
tonight about the place of the nude in my bed ... um ... in the
history of my bed ... of art, of art, I'm sorry. The place of the nude
in the history of tart... call-girl... I'm sorry. I'll start again...
Bum ... oh what a giveaway ...
Tristán White
wrote:
<SNIP>
>What gets my goat with the people who start threads about Tunick and his /
>art / here is the way they think he is doing naturism a favour, he is doing
>us no more of a favour than the Sun 'newspaper' is in printing page three
>beauties or one of the great classical painters has done. At least the Sun
>pay their models...
I disagree. OK this particular New York happening was not "public" but
this is probably more to do with New York draconian rules on nudity
rather than Tunick or the models' own wishes.
His other happenings, such as the one outside County Hall in London,
have been public. And have involved both sexes (in fact, this is
normally the case).
As for comparing it to the Sun, no. The Sun serves only to titillate
sad schoolboys and bricklayers and their ilk. A better comparison is
with the classical painters you refer to because (a) that is also art,
and (b) that is appreciated by a more discerning public, like Tunick's
stuff.
Furthermore, the Sun babes tend to be pretty and svelte (and female!).
Tunick *generally* has all shapes and sizes, and both sexes, much as
one would see in a naturist camp in fact!
As for whether or not it does naturism a favour, it does because it
makes the front pages on the papers and shows nudity (beautiful
nudity) in public, familiar locations. And also, you never know, some
people may apply to be models who haven't tried naturism before,
perhaps not fancying being naked in public, but have done it for art;
then they enjoy it and may take up the clothes-optional lifestyle!
But far far more importantly, and less directly, any photo opportunity
that shows the naked body tastefully, and gets seen by people other
than the brickies and the labourers, is a good thing. Some people may
look at it and wonder that if these large shapes and sizes are not
ashamed of showing their bodies, and in fact they look quite
beautiful, then why not have a go themselves?
David Looser
. The
> > difference between pornography and art is the difference between
pictures
> > which are titillating and those which aren't. Tunics work is not
> > titillating...
>
> Speak for yourself, there!
No, I'm speaking for the majority.
What one person finds merely ordinary may
> be what gets another thoroughly titillated. Even if naturists don't
> agree, there are plenty of people around who just find the sight of
> naked women "titillating", with no need for anything sexual to be on
> display--just the view of the woman is enough.
There are, of course, men who get aroused by images that do nothing for the
majority. Men who like to see older women, plump women, other men or
children. But if you want to sell a "titillating" image into the mass market
the rules are clear: a young, physically perfect, woman posed in a way that
allows the male viewer to fantasise that she is there for him.
Your idea that any image of a naked female, regardless of age or figure and
regardless of pose, is equally titillating is simply absurd. When did you
last see a "page 3 girl" who was over 30, overweight or flat-chested, or who
was not looking at the camera?. Even with the right body the power of nudity
alone to titillate is limited, I wonder when the last time a stripper walked
on stage already naked and just stood there for three minutes before walking
off. If you were right naturist clubs would be full of sexually aroused men
which we know isn't the case, or are you suggesting that naturists are
somehow "different"?
of I doubt if you'd argue
> with the statement that "In past decades, 'Heath and Efficiency'
> magazine was treated by many readers as representing the height of
> erotica."
No I wouldn't argue with that. I'd simply point out that H&E has always used
young, attractive women in it's photos rather than
"ordinary" women.
And I doubt if the things people consider arousing have
> changed to the point where the sight of female nudity has stopped
> being erotic for plenty of viewers. And among heterosexuals, it does
> seem to be men viewing women that's the sexual combination. It doesn't
> necessarily involve legally pornographic images, but for those
> individuals, it's serving the same function.
> I suppose that as naturists,
> we're interested in nudity in various aspects, whether it's naturist
> or not.
Well I am. Though it seems some others here aren't.
Certainly I've often seen Tunick's work in naturist magazines,
> and as part of workshops, as well as on the Internet. And when he's
> covered city plazas with naked people (randomly self-selected) I've
> accepted that as a demonstration of naturism in action, and maybe good
> propaganda for non-naturists to see, with nudity being represented not
> as erotic or even as "beautiful", but just human bodies being shown
> without shame.
I agree. But I cannot understand why you think all that changes just because
one particular set happens not to have any men in it.
But when it's yet another item in the long tradition of
> women being displayed for profit, I don't see it as very inspiring at
> all.
Are you saying it's "inspiring" to display men for profit, or mixed groups
for profit, but not women? Because that's what it sounds like.
> Sure there's only one Playmate of the Month, but apart from the
> numbers, what's Tunick doing that Playboy magazine isn't?
He's using "ordinary" people, not models, he's using large numbers of people
in each shot, so that they cease to be individuals and become part of a
crowd, he's not posing them in a provocative way.
>
> As far as "great art" is concerned, the rich men who sponsored artists
> may well have appreciated the skill involved, but I don't think they
> exactly objected to the sight of naked women either!
Of course they didn't. I wouldn't suggest otherwise.
Female nudity in art has always been more acceptable than male nudity, and
not just because most artists and art buyers have traditionally been men. A
friend of mine runs life drawing and painting classes, which I ocassionally
pose for. The last time I did so the turn out was an all-time low - just my
friend and one other woman. In apologising for this my friend explained that
the date of the class wasn't in her brochure, but she also added that it was
much harder to get a good attendance at a class with a male model than one
with a female model, despite the fact that 80% of her customers are women.
We could have a whole new thread about how we respond to the image of the
human form and how that response is informed by our sexuality even when the
images are not overtly sexual. But this would be to deviate too far from
the topic. Suffice it to say that there is a world of difference between an
overtly sexual image, designed to arouse it's male viewers, and an artistic
one, which may still exploit the sexuality of it's viewer, but in a way that
is neither titillating or arousing.
David.
Richard Burnham
the journalist.
Tunick doesn't claim to be a naturist or represent naturism. He just
takes pictures of naked people, mostly a more representative selection
of people than most naturist photographers seem to take, although I
suppose he is limited to those who actually turn up to his shoots, who
seem to include naturists (why not?).
I don't know whether his work is good art, although I think it's
definitely art. He may well make money out of it, but as I pointed out
earlier this year Rembrandt created remarkable art for money - I
referred to the group portrait of some surgeons in the Mauritshuis in
The Hague, which is a work that stunned me when I found myself in front
of it for the first time. You could also count the famous 'The Night
Watch' in Amsterdam, which was another commissioned group portrait but
has had whole books written about it.
Yet these same people don't get worked up about Charlie Simonds, who
openly publishes exploitative tits'n'ass photography under a pretence
that it is 'naturist'. No-one claims AFAIK that Simond's stuff is art,
and he certainly does it for the money. Simonds work displays little
obvious talent; I think he'd probably be a suburban wedding photographer
if naturists weren't so stupid as to accept his work as 'naturism'. And
his photographs are published hypocritically by people who otherwise
claim that naturism is about 'body acceptance'. Not least by same
magazine that the journalist who creates such a stink about Tunick
writes for.
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Jerry.
"Richard Burnham" <c...@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:tYCki4GUsTs$Ew...@2seconds.org.uk...
> I don't see why some naturists get so worked up about Tunick, especially
> the journalist.
>
> Tunick doesn't claim to be a naturist or represent naturism. He just
IMO, it's not Tunick but the 'I posed for Tunick' brigade, why are they
posting about art to this group - As Mr Tunick has said, his work is Art,
not naturism.
> takes pictures of naked people, mostly a more representative selection
> of people than most naturist photographers seem to take, although I
> suppose he is limited to those who actually turn up to his shoots, who
> seem to include naturists (why not?).
No he is not, he could / pay / (now that's a novel idea...) life models etc.
>
> I don't know whether his work is good art, although I think it's
> definitely art. He may well make money out of it, but as I pointed out
> earlier this year Rembrandt created remarkable art for money - I
And does this group discuss Rembrandt, if a Google search was done I suspect
this (sub) thread would be the only posts to be returned !
> referred to the group portrait of some surgeons in the Mauritshuis in
> The Hague, which is a work that stunned me when I found myself in front
> of it for the first time. You could also count the famous 'The Night
> Watch' in Amsterdam, which was another commissioned group portrait but
> has had whole books written about it.
>
> Yet these same people don't get worked up about Charlie Simonds, who
> openly publishes exploitative tits'n'ass photography under a pretence
> that it is 'naturist'.
Err people do get worked up about his work, the very fact that Charlie
Simonds refers to his work as 'naturism' makes it on topic here - be that
praise or flame. If Tunick described his work as naturism / nudism it to
would be on topic - be that praise or flame.
No-one claims AFAIK that Simond's stuff is art,
> and he certainly does it for the money. Simonds work displays little
> obvious talent; I think he'd probably be a suburban wedding photographer
> if naturists weren't so stupid as to accept his work as 'naturism'. And
> his photographs are published hypocritically by people who otherwise
> claim that naturism is about 'body acceptance'. Not least by same
> magazine that the journalist who creates such a stink about Tunick
> writes for.
>
At least Charlie pays his way....
As for magazines using Charlie's work, if more 'normal' naturists took and
sent in decent photographs rather than poorly composed, out of focus grainy
snaps, perhaps they wouldn't have to. Also remember that a photo that is
suitable for use / within / the magazine might fall well short of the tech
spec needed for use on the cover or ISFC etc.