My last post kept me thinking about the distinction between pornographic versus art nudes. I became overwhelmed realizing there is much in between, I began to think of it as a spectrum, pornographic photography being on one end and art nudes photography on the other, with erotica and glamour somewhere in the middle.
Certainly all of the above styles of have spectrums within themselves, for the sake of my sainity I'm only focusing my opnions on the four aforementioned categories. I might sound a little pedantic, you must forgive me!
Pornographic photography uses the depiction of the body and its sexual mechanisms as a tool to intetionally evoke sexual arousal from the viewer.
Erotic photography is not sexually explicit as pornographic. It is charged with sexual suggestion while leaving the explicity to the viewer's imagination.
Glamour photography is a very airbrushed style of photography depicting women with flat tummies and curvy breasts, shiny hair, bright teeth, glowing skin and seductive Mona-Lisa smiles usually clad in a bikinni or implying nudity (covering of the breasts with an arm for example). This style promotes the viewers' fantasy of the "perfect" woman (think Maxim style covers).
Art nude or figure nude photography uses the body the way a landscape photographer uses the landscape to capture interesting composition, form, texture, lines and and angles. The body is used almost inanimately.
Ironically, the photography styles at the opposite ends of this spectrum, pornographic and art nude, have one very common ground, both objectify the body.
In my opinion the above image of me would be a mixture of erotica and an art nude. As erotica, it suggests sex and has me tease the viewer with the placement of my hand, it also utilizes a bit of sexually suggestive apparel (note my self styling :). This image can also be argued as an art nude, because art nudes do not engage the subject's face or do not even use it alltogether, my body becomes simply about the the lines.
This photo was taken by a photographer who goes by Gus.
You may view some samples of Gus' other photography here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/42670484@N05/
Posts
I mostly agree with you regarding the need for simplification when defining and describing the styles of nude photography, there are too many nuances that can only be described subjectively. And there are so many ways to make an image "jump" categories :). I myself prefer not to think about styles, but instead concentrate on character of the person in front of my camera. The result speaks more about the person than it does about me and my intentions.
ReplyDeletecheers
Alex
http://intimatesketch.com
i like that alex
ReplyDeleteWow. This is very courageous of you. You've posed some interesting questions about the thin line that separates pornography from art, as well as the thin line that separates the stylist from the model.
ReplyDeleteMy belief about the former is that the purpose behind the photo, as well as the intended audience, are both factors (among many) in determining whether it is porn or erotic art. In the end, I think it's all very subjective. Different people have different ideas on what is tasteful.
I think it was Annie Sprinkle that coined the term: "Post Porn Modernist."
Regardless, nudity is always a good way to attract attention. It all depends on what you want to be remembered for.
"Wow, that stylist is very talented and does good work. We should hire her." VS "Wow, that stylist has a really great Brazilian. She must give a mean blow job. Maybe she's in the wrong business."
In my opinion the distinction between art nudes and pornography is not much in the product, that is the picture, but in the intention of the artist, and eventually its use. The depiction of body parts and or bodies involved in some form of sexual intercourse can be art, if whoever depicted it, as a painting or a photo, was driven by the urge, the need, the desire, to create something beautiful; the desire of saying something with the medium which is most congenial to them. If the driver is the arousement of the viewers’ sexual instincts, that may be pornography….but also could be artistic pornography if that motivation includes also a search for beauty. The picture of a foot in a shoe can be art for many….but it can be pornography to the fetishist. So the intent and the use determine the quality. Is Robert Mapplethorpe a pornographer or an artist? Is the late 1800 French painter Gustave Courbet an artist or a pornographer? (check Courbet’s “l’Origin du monde” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Origine_du_monde.)
ReplyDeleteRoberto
Anonymous, to me this is in part an experiment in bravery. there other less "pure" intentions, some conscous and some subconscious: desire for attention is I am sure one of them, cross marketing and self promotion is another. But I wholeheartedly think that whatever the muck may be there, the true intention is a soul search...and I still don't know why this is the means for me- but I do not have the Thorea-esque option of going away and hiding out in a cabin in the woods for a year.
ReplyDeleteThese are my woods.
Roberto,
ReplyDeleteYes it's subjective, I agree, grey areas. Like the shoe. But what about non-art sex depiction, name any mainstream or alt/fetish porn, and you have it, for instance Belladonna. I do not know who can argue that is art. Belladonna and her producers do not think there and wonder about how they will portray their personal philosophies on the world when planning the 500th "ass to mouth" or "ass gaping" themed video.
Then take films by Bernardo Bertolucci, "The Dreamers," for instance, a highly sexual movie about teenage sex, even depicting incest between a brother and a sister. Yet who would call it porn? Risque, maybe. Taboo, maybe. But noone of intelligent mind would categorize Bernardo Bertolucci with Belladonna.
I had to come to that realization a while back as well. Initially, I wouldn't photography a nude unless she had pubes to cover everything. Or I might just have the model keep her legs closed, which limited the poses. Suddenly I had a model who had large labia and there was no hiding it, pubes or not...legs closed or otherwise. This is the way she was made. I began to realize that I was censoring my own work and marginalizing a part of a woman's body. I shoot the whole nude, not just certain parts.
ReplyDeleteLater, I came to realize that what I really enjoy photographing is life. I do life from beginning to end and everything in between. It later occurred to me that sex is a vital part of life and that I would be remiss in omitting it. I've minimalized it in my work, granted, but I've shot it from an artistic perspective. Everything I've done has been meant to portray the model in a positive light. As an artists, my goal is to express my creative outlet and exhibit what I produce. Whether or not its erotic or not will depend on the viewer. The simple fact that a model is nude is enough to elicit a pornographic reaction in many people. An image of a model with everything covered up is enough for some to become aroused. Some people can't get past the notion that nude must equate into sex. So, I just do my work and exhibit it. A clothed model can be just as arousing as a nude. I quite worrying about it and just abide by my own standards.
That lustful trash is all pornography to God. The word porn means "whore" - Whore of Babylon.
ReplyDelete"The lusts of the eyes and the lust of the flesh is not of God but of the world. Those who are friends with the world are enemies of God" - James & John
"Having eyes full of adultery that cannot cease from sin. Cursed children" - 2 Peter
i suggest to the last commenter that they shouldn't look at my blog anymore since it's only going to get racier and i cannot be held responsible for the sins you commit by looking at my nude body ;)
ReplyDelete