23:05 Channel4 13th May 'Naked World'
Duncan Heenan
hour 40 minute (!) documentary about the work of Spencer Tunic, entitled
"Naked World".
Whether this will settle the question "but is it art?", remains to be seen
and no doubt debated again on this newsgroup. Video recorders at the ready!
mikec
mike
Jerry.
"Duncan Heenan" <duncanheenanR...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:409f4...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> At 23:05 (i.e. 11:05pm) on Thursday May 13th on Channel 4, there is a 1
So, Mr Heenan, what has this programme got to do with naturism ?
Tim Forcer
> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>>
>> At 23:05 (i.e. 11:05pm) on Thursday May 13th on
>> Channel 4, there is a 1 hour 40 minute (!)
>> documentary about the work of Spencer Tunic,<snip>
>
> So, Mr Heenan, what has this programme got to do with naturism ?
I doubt Duncan has seen a preview of the programme, so he won't
be in any position to give a definitive answer until Friday.
While Duncan can answer for himself, my response to such a
question would be as below.
Non-naturist Spencer Tunick is well known for staging situations
where large numbers of people go naked. Some of those people
have been naturists, including posters to this group. Therefore
it seems likely to me that the programme will have something to
do with naturism.
Also, the non-naturists in Tunick installations often have (IMO)
interesting things to say about their experience of going nude in
front of / in company of others. Knowing about and understanding
those attitudes can be (IMO) helpful in dealing with other
non-naturists. Therefore the programme may have a relevance to
naturism if it includes interviews with the subjects.
--
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
Duncan Heenan
"Tim Forcer" <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d6v0a0lnofv80v9pi...@4ax.com...
(I did not respond myself , as I am trying to follow a policy of not
responding directly to 'Jerry's posts as it just seems to feed his
obsessions and always leads to abusive nonsense.)
mikec
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
> > At 23:05 (i.e. 11:05pm) on Thursday May 13th on Channel 4, there is a 1
> > hour 40 minute (!) documentary about the work of Spencer Tunic,<snip>
>
> So, Mr Heenan, what has this programme got to do with naturism ?
>
Jerry.
"marc" <marccdimspamremovedimspamto re...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:MPG.1b0b71ada...@news.demon.co.uk...
Err, no Marc, that was an example to ilastrate a point regarding the on
topic subject line, Mr Heenan post was from the start off topic.
Jerry.
>
> > Duncan Heenan wrote:
> >>
> >> At 23:05 (i.e. 11:05pm) on Thursday May 13th on
> >> Channel 4, there is a 1 hour 40 minute (!)
> >> documentary about the work of Spencer Tunic,<snip>
> >
> > So, Mr Heenan, what has this programme got to do with naturism ?
>
>
> Non-naturist Spencer Tunick is well known for staging situations
> where large numbers of people go naked. Some of those people
> have been naturists, including posters to this group. Therefore
> it seems likely to me that the programme will have something to
> do with naturism.
>
So when is the group doing to debate Rembrandt's work etc ?...
Just because people are naked it does not mean it's 'naturism', next you'll
be discussing people having a bath or having sex - Opps, forgot, the group
already does that as sex seems to have something to do with naturism
according to another one of your answer in another thread...
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
> 1
> > > > hour 40 minute (!) documentary about the work of Spencer Tunic,<snip>
> > >
> > > So, Mr Heenan, what has this programme got to do with naturism ?
> > >
> > A little bit more than your question on Deltics...
>
> Err, no Marc, that was an example to ilastrate a point regarding the on
> topic subject line, Mr Heenan post was from the start off topic.
>
Deltics?
Robbie Baldock
>I think I have read here of this before, so maybe it is a repeat?
>I believe Sky Travel is available on Freeview.
Sky Travel repeat this and most of their other evening shows quite
frequently - it's been on several times before.
Robbie
Richard Burnham
<m...@privacy.net> writes
all newspapers include in their listings. And it's not a channel anyone
with a brain would want to watch continuously in the hope that something
interesting would turn up. (Mostly consists of cheap, prurient US shows,
with everything pixellated if there is the slightest hint of 'naughty
bits'.)
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Tristán White
Watched the program, enthralled.
Anyone on this list who says "what has this programme got to do with
naturism" clearly never saw the programme so is talking out of
ignorance.
It had so so much to do with naturism. It was about people, most of
whomad never posed naked before, in a large social event outdoors,
naked. They felt extremely emotional and liberated afterwards.
Whether or not Tunick himself is promoting naturism or otherwise is
another (more moot) issue. But the reaction to the posing that was
experienced by the unpaid volunteers in each city was identical to
pretty much everyone's introduction to naturism. A feeling of great
liberation, or happiness, of togetherness. A great programme,
completely non-sensationalist, and top documentary-making.
I hope it's repeated again, as I will definitely record it.
Richard Burnham
<Trista...@rocketmail.com> writes
>
>
>Watched the program, enthralled.
>
>Anyone on this list who says "what has this programme got to do with
>naturism" clearly never saw the programme so is talking out of
>ignorance.
>
>It had so so much to do with naturism. It was about people, most of
>whomad never posed naked before, in a large social event outdoors,
>naked. They felt extremely emotional and liberated afterwards.
>
>Whether or not Tunick himself is promoting naturism or otherwise is
>another (more moot) issue. But the reaction to the posing that was
>experienced by the unpaid volunteers in each city was identical to
>pretty much everyone's introduction to naturism. A feeling of great
>liberation, or happiness, of togetherness. A great programme,
>completely non-sensationalist, and top documentary-making.
>
>I hope it's repeated again, as I will definitely record it.
I saw (approximately) the second half of the programme. I'm not much
impressed by Tunick's work, and the pictures of massed supine bodies
have another, unpleasant, resonance.
I can see that the actual shoots give the participants a buzz and I
understand why they are willing to pose. However, the only real beauty
was captured by the filmmakers in the bits between the actual poses -
real, live, active nude people interacting. How can we capture this
social interaction for naturism? That is really on-topic.
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Icarus
> I can see that the actual shoots give the participants a buzz
> and I understand why they are willing to pose. However, the
> only real beauty was captured by the filmmakers in the bits
> between the actual poses - real, live, active nude people
> interacting. How can we capture this social interaction for
> naturism? That is really on-topic.
From previous discussions on this topic, and submissions from
participants on websites, it would appear that many of the people
who got naked for the 'buzz' of being part of Tunick's work would
not want to just get naked for its own sake (sadly). It doesn't
seem to make people want to rush out and become naturists. Would
be nice to be proven wrong though! :-)
mikec
likely next time - if given the opportunity to strip off on the beach, for
instance - to grab the chance.
Whether or not these people want to go gardening, shopping, watching films
etc naked is irrelevant, at least they have acquired a bit of body-comfort
(something ST says he is NOT particularly trying to promote) whihc is an
important social attribute/issue.
It was a great film, just a shame it stopped in South America, because I
just know he made it back to England the next year!
mike
mikec
Jerry.
"Tristán White" <Trista...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:lbo9a0h161bq8vds1...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:42:57 +0100, "Jerry." <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Duncan Heenan" <duncanheenanR...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
message
> >news:409f4...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >> At 23:05 (i.e. 11:05pm) on Thursday May 13th on Channel 4, there is a
1
> >> hour 40 minute (!) documentary about the work of Spencer Tunic,<snip>
> >
> >So, Mr Heenan, what has this programme got to do with naturism ?
>
>
> Watched the program, enthralled.
>
> Anyone on this list who says "what has this programme got to do with
> naturism" clearly never saw the programme so is talking out of
> ignorance.
Well you are wrong, how can someone watch a programme before TX (except the
lucky few who might be able to see a preview tape) ?....
>
> It had so so much to do with naturism. It was about people, most of
> whomad never posed naked before, in a large social event outdoors,
> naked. They felt extremely emotional and liberated afterwards.
So, to you naturism is posing naked - that makes every Life model a naturist
!...
>
> Whether or not Tunick himself is promoting naturism or otherwise is
> another (more moot) issue.
His work is Art, nothing to so with naturism.
But the reaction to the posing that was
> experienced by the unpaid volunteers in each city was identical to
> pretty much everyone's introduction to naturism. A feeling of great
> liberation, or happiness, of togetherness.
I expect the same could be said for streakers, just being naked does not
make it naturism.
A great programme,
> completely non-sensationalist, and top documentary-making.
>
It might well have been, but it was nothing to do with naturism.
Mark
>A great programme,
>> completely non-sensationalist, and top documentary-making.
>>
>
>It might well have been, but it was nothing to do with naturism.
Who cares - it was a very interesting programme, and can have done
nothing but good for Naturism in general. (In total contrast with
most other recent Naturism-related programmes on the TV, which have
either been titillating or made naturists look just plain silly).
Mark
Jerry.
"Mark" <mark@hawks{get-rid}farm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n0aaa0dmkigev8j9s...@4ax.com...
Oh and Spencer Tunic doesn't ?...
As people have said in the past, some of his works of 'art' look more like
piles of dead concentration camp victims, others just look un natural -
something that is far from naturism.
Wake up, Spencer Tunic is making money out of making you look stupid -
Remember Tunic himself says that his art has nothing to do with naturism...
David Looser
news:2gkk3cF...@uni-berlin.de...
So what is naturism then?
David.
>
>
Mark
>
>Oh and Spencer Tunic doesn't ?...
You're right - he doesn't.
M
Mark
>Wake up, Spencer Tunic is making money out of making you look stupid -
Of course he's making money, silly!
Of course he's not making me look stupid (he's not making me look
anything.....)
M
Jerry.
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c83eqd$bqc$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
<snip>
>
> So what is naturism then?
>
Not Art !
Richard Burnham
writes
Perhaps you've captured the problem in the words 'for its own sake'.
Naturism, to a lot of the general public, means going to a club just to
be naked (and if anything else, to mix with other people selected to be
exactly like the other members). Not a great deal of appeal to many
people.
The thing about Tunick's shoots is that they bring a lot of people
together from a wide variety of different backgrounds for a common
purpose and activity, in which the nudity is only a part but a natural
one. Quite unlike a naturist club. Can we identify other ways of
bringing people together in social nudity that capture the same kind of
group interaction?
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
> Wake up, Spencer Tunic is making money out of making you look stupid -
>
they not naturists 'cos they make money or those that dress up not
because of their actions?
Jerry.
The old story about the King and his new cloths, or lack of them, come to
mind - those who believe without question never do see what the rest of the
population sees.....
Jerry.
"Richard Burnham" <c...@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:c9qmWpKd...@not.disclosed...
<snip>
>
> The thing about Tunick's shoots is that they bring a lot of people
> together from a wide variety of different backgrounds for a common
> purpose and activity, in which the nudity is only a part but a natural
> one.
Sorry but there is nothing natural in Tunick's work, nor the posing, look at
any photo of 'real' naturist enjoying naturism and then compare that with
Tunick's work. Tunick doesn't calls them artistic installations for no
reason...
David Looser
David.
>
Forester
their opinions on different country's attitudes to nudity. Watching it
with a non-nudist they felt it was very positive about it's portrayal of
naked - or not - people.
I don't care whether or not it's about nudism as a movement it was more
about allowing people the chance to express themselves without clothing.
There are an awful lot of people in this group that seem incapable of
accepting anybody else's opinion or definition of naturism; no wonder
there is little sign of increasing acceptance of it in organised circles.
That's my bit....stands back ready for the inevitable petty insults!!!!
David Looser
how little the man (and woman) on the Clapham omnibus are offended by it.
Like Richard I'm not sure I always like Tunic's work, but I have no doubt
that, by putting nudity in front of the public in the way he does, he is
acting as a mirror of public attitudes to nudity. I've discussed his work
with quite a number of people, interestingly it's only naturists who seem to
have a problem with it. I get feeling that some naturists enjoy the sense of
belonging to a "secret society" and don't like other people, who don't even
call themselves naturists, putting nudity in front of the public the way
that Tunic does and in the process demonstrating that the
David.
David Looser
news:dbeaver-947FB0...@iris.uk.clara.net...
>
> I don't care whether or not it's about nudism as a movement it was more
> about allowing people the chance to express themselves without clothing.
> There are an awful lot of people in this group that seem incapable of
> accepting anybody else's opinion or definition of naturism;
The curious thing though is that the person who is the first to shout
"nothing
to do with naturism" the minute Tunic's name comes up (and goes on shouting
it as long as the thread is running) doesn't have a definition of naturism.
When I pushed him on what *he* thought naturism was all I got was "it means
different things to different people".
David.
Peter & Jane
> David.
Since we seem to be collecting reactions, I found bbroadly the same as the
above.
I liked the "natural" attitudes of the participants - expressions of fun
and pleasure in some cases.
I liked his attitude to the human body as something worth photographing but
not titillating.
I liked his response to the police in France ie he cooperated and was
willing to cover up when asked but without admitting any "wrong".
I did not particularly like the "mass bodies" shots. Just a personal
preference. Too reminiscent of pictures of mass slaughter for me, although
the one taken near the Cutty Sark did have something; he was using bodies
to represent the texture of a seascape.
A good programme and one, I think, which would get the pulic used to seeing
people naked; I think that some people's adverse reactions is simply seeing
the unaccustomed and not knowing how to react and seeing naked people
interacting simply and easily as in the programme can do nothing but good.
Jane
--
Peter & Jane : Totnes : South Devon
Please do not reply by mail.
Tim Forcer
> Mark wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:06, Jerry wrote:
Ah, but the comment below was actually from Tristán White
>>> A great programme,
>>> completely non-sensationalist, and top documentary-making.
This was Jerry's bit:
>>>It might well have been, but it was nothing to do with naturism.
>>
>> Who cares - it was a very interesting programme, and can have
>> done nothing but good for Naturism in general. (In total contrast
>> with most other recent Naturism-related programmes on the TV,
>> which have either been titillating or made naturists look just plain silly).
>
> I agree totally. The really interesting thing about Tunic's work is just
> how little the man (and woman) on the Clapham omnibus are offended
> by it.
>
> Like Richard I'm not sure I always like Tunic's work, but I have no
> doubt that, by putting nudity in front of the public in the way he does,
> he is acting as a mirror of public attitudes to nudity. I've discussed his
> work with quite a number of people, interestingly it's only naturists
> who seem to have a problem with it. I get feeling that some naturists
> enjoy the sense of belonging to a "secret society" and don't like other
> people, who don't even call themselves naturists, putting nudity in
> front of the public the way that Tunic does and in the process
> demonstrating that the
Was David cut off in mid-flow?
Anyway, I've now seen my tape of the programme, and found it
absorbing. As with the previous Tunick documentary (about his
Naked States project), I found the film much more interesting and
rewarding than the stills produced by Tunick.
While I quite like most of the shots of individuals or small
groups, the mass assemblages of bodies generally leave me cold.
Some spark amusement or interest (eg the one where everyone is
crouched down, so the mob resembles a flock of pink sheep), most
seem somehow pointless. Compare the Melbourne bridge shot with
the film footage of the crowd streaming onto the bridge - IMO
there's no contest which has the greater impact.
Tunick himself admitted that he isn't a particularly good
photographer (was he hoping to be contradicted?). He said the
whole point was not the photograph, but its place in the project.
His art consists of creating the project. Which, to me, is
straight out of Pseud's Corner.
The film also gave a fair bit of time to attitudes to nudity.
Listening to the reactions of those approached, and those who
took part, not only showed how these attitudes can vary
substantially between cultures, but also how individuals can find
a first experience of social nudity amazingly liberating. So, in
Brazil, Tunick had no problem getting men to strip, but hardly
any women would do so - and it was the men who told us why (a
woman is generally seen as a man's chattle, and access her nudity
is a part of this possession/control status). Conversely, in
many other countries, women were _more_ ready than men to strip.
Tunick himself seems to be getting more childish, precious and
whingy as he gets more successful. I don't find him attractive
as a character. But, as long as he has a faithful collection of
acolytes and subordinates, he's normally happy. Maybe for his
next project he won't even bother attending the shoots? Concept
is all, remember!
As to the regular question whether Tunick exploits his subjects,
I think he does. The old deal of a print for every participant
has clearly been dropped. The subjects are, in his words, just
like paint for a painter (and boy, did he whinge when there
wasn't enough "paint"!) - except that a painter has to buy paint,
whereas Tunick (or his assistants or the workers in galleries)
only spends time, not money, on the bodies he uses. Still, at
least his partner stripped off for one set of shots this time
round!
I think Tunick doesn't actually like the naked body very much,
but he finds it a useful artefact for his purposes. Given that
his purpose is to place nude bodies in landscapes where they
wouldn't normally be found, and where the artisitic/technical
quality of the resulting image is of only secondary importance,
could not the "project" be realised more successfully by avoiding
all the hassle of actually taking the photos? Simply set out an
artistic manifesto, proclaiming the scenes, situations,
arrangements, and letting the stunning (?) significance of this
artistic (?) vision produce shock and awe without the need to be
mediated through a sheet of photographic paper?
--
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
CraigM
> photographer (was he hoping to be contradicted?). He said the
> whole point was not the photograph, but its place in the project.
> His art consists of creating the project. Which, to me, is
> straight out of Pseud's Corner.
I imagine all he was saying was that the 'meaning' of his art is the
combination of the photographs themselves, together with the
circumstances in which it was created - that you can't disentangle the
two. Which is why, I take it, he refers to them as 'installations'
rather than 'photo shoots' - a harking back to situationist art of the
60's and 70's. Not that pseud-corner-y surely?
> Tunick himself seems to be getting more childish, precious and
> whingy as he gets more successful. I don't find him attractive
> as a character. But, as long as he has a faithful collection of
> acolytes and subordinates, he's normally happy. Maybe for his
> next project he won't even bother attending the shoots? Concept
> is all, remember!
Erm...do you have Tunick down as a conceptual artist? It seems to me
he has little in common with contemporary conceptual works (something
like Martin Creed's The Lights Going On and Off). Conceptualism
effectively dispenses with all the trappings of 'traditional' art,
leaving just a bare idea or concept without anything to mediate it.
You must acknowledge that Tunick, love or loathe him, does create
highly-crafted pieces which apply established artistic techniques
(composition, perspective, contrast, etc.) to photos of naked people,
alone or in groups. I suspect that he would be a lot more respected
in art circles, and certainly a lot more fashionable, if he did decide
to go down the conceptual route.
There's another reason why I can't accept Tunick as a conceptualist:
that there is no 'concept' behind his works - that is, they aren't
reducible to any intellectual idea. I see his works more akin to those
of Anthony Gormley - he of the Angel of the North fame. Both present
images of the human body in new and interesting ways, and both a lot
more approachable than any conceptual art I can think of. And I speak
as a fan of conceptualism...
(Come to think of it, the creation of Gormley's Domian Fields is not a
million miles away from a Tunick installation: have a look -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/reviews/3033449.stm)
> As to the regular question whether Tunick exploits his subjects,
> I think he does. The old deal of a print for every participant
> has clearly been dropped. The subjects are, in his words, just
> like paint for a painter (and boy, did he whinge when there
> wasn't enough "paint"!) - except that a painter has to buy paint,
> whereas Tunick (or his assistants or the workers in galleries)
> only spends time, not money, on the bodies he uses. Still, at
> least his partner stripped off for one set of shots this time
> round!
'Exploits' is a very strong term. He's perfectly open about the deal
in advance and the people who pose for him know what they're getting.
And - as the film demonstrated - they have a good time doing it. So
where's the exploitatation?
I wonder if you only feel this way because the subjects are naked? I
assume that the (dressed) office workers and city brokers in Andrea
Gursky's photographs are similarly unpaid. Are they being expolited
too? (Gursky is the German art photographer one of whose prints was
sold for $600,000 by Christies in 2001. For a photo!)
Or, to change the medium for a moment, take Mark Quinn's sculpture of
a naked pregnant woman with no arms and shortened legs (soon to be
appearing on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square): is that exploting
the subject?
And before you answer, this is a slightly trick question. In this
case, the subject in question is an artist herself, Alison Lapper, who
- coincidentally enough - takes photographs of herself naked (again
take a look -
http://www.britart.com/artists/artist1071_all.aspx). These are very
powerful - and very well crafted - images. But are they exploitative?
Would they be more or less exploitative if Spencer Tunick had taken
them?
Tim Forcer
> Tim Forcer wrote:
[much cutting throughout - by me, not Craig]
>> Tunick himself seems to be getting more childish, precious and
>> whingy as he gets more successful. I don't find him attractive
>> as a character. But, as long as he has a faithful collection of
>> acolytes and subordinates, he's normally happy. Maybe for his
>> next project he won't even bother attending the shoots? Concept
>> is all, remember!
>
> Erm...do you have Tunick down as a conceptual artist?
No. I don't know anything like enough about art, let alone Art,
to get into that sort of debate. I didn't use the word
"conceptual", only "concept".
> You must acknowledge that Tunick, love or loathe him, does create
> highly-crafted pieces which apply established artistic techniques
> (composition, perspective, contrast, etc.) to photos of naked people,
> alone or in groups.
I neither love nor loathe Tunick. I am not entirely happy with
"highly" crafted. Tunick himself said his photos weren't
particularly good as photos - I think he was at least half hoping
to be contradicted!
>> As to the regular question whether Tunick exploits his subjects,
>> I think he does. ...
>
> 'Exploits' is a very strong term.
True.
> He's perfectly open about the deal
> in advance and the people who pose for him know what they're getting.
> And - as the film demonstrated - they have a good time doing it. So
> where's the exploitatation?
I think my (fairly minor) concern is with the dehumanising
aspect. The naked people are his "paint". He isn't interested
in them as people. That is exploitation (dictionary definition
of "exploit": work, turn to account, utilize (person etc) for
one's own ends ...) OK, so that's what artists have done with
subjects for ages. But at least some produce results which show
the subjects as human characters - IMO much of Tunick's work does
the opposite.
> I wonder if you only feel this way because the subjects are naked?
No.
For example, I dislike a fair bit of Annie Leibowitz's work,
because she has an agenda which she imposes on her subjects.
This is shown clearly in one of a couple of nudists -
particularly if one reads the supporting text.
> And before you answer, this is a slightly trick question. In this
> case, the subject in question is an artist herself, Alison Lapper, who
> - coincidentally enough - takes photographs of herself naked (again
> take a look -
> http://www.britart.com/artists/artist1071_all.aspx). These are very
> powerful - and very well crafted - images. But are they exploitative?
Yes. But the exploitation, IMO, celebrates the individual. The
individual comes through the work. Whereas for Tunick, the work
is the primary concern, the individual merely a component.
> Would they be more or less exploitative if Spencer Tunick had taken
> them?
Tunick wouldn't use a subject like that. Check out the people he
approaches in the streets.
I repeat, for me, the documentaries about the production of
Tunick's work are much more interesting, stimulating,
life-affirming and worthwhile than what Tunick produces himself.
But I don't expect others to have the same view.