Justify My Art
Congratulations if you manage to make it to the end of this marathon epic and stay awake. Verbal diarrhoea or meaningful discussion about photographic art? You decide.
One of the most common accusations in the photographic world is that fine art nude photographers do not produce worthwhile and evolving photography. Many opponents argue that fine art nudes have no place in modern photography, that fine art is cheapened by the inclusion of a naked woman, that it is not “serious photography.”
It is a generally accepted concept in fine art photography (so Brooks Jensen et al. say anyway) that in order to constitute a good photograph, an image should be powerful. It should stimulate some sort of emotional response in the viewer, enlighten him or teach him a new truth. In short the photograph should mean something.
However, the objective of a fine art nude photograph is not necessarily to arouse an erotic reaction in the viewer. The purpose is to idealise and create an unattainable vision of beauty, a goddess, a vision of perfection, captured for one moment in time. An emotional response is not guaranteed. Thus it is argued by fine-art purists that mere admiration and objectification of beauty is insufficient to qualify a photograph as fine art. The purists maintain that fine art nudes are meaningless because they don’t enlighten the viewer nor do they produce a deep emotional response. A b+w nekkid chick isn’t exactly as psychologically profound as Pepper No 30 or Moonlight over Hernandez, now is it?
Further, it is argued that there are simply too many fine art nude photographers nowadays. If you Google “Fine Art Nudes” there are tens of thousands of hits. Because of the growth of the internet and cheap digital cameras, b+w nudes are considered too overdone, too predictable. There are now so many images out there in cyberspace that they all look the same, and the topic has become boring, trivial and irrelevant. The genre is exhausted.
Lastly, we should consider the motivations of fine art nude photographers. Do nude photographers actually believe in art, or is it just an excuse to be in the same room as a naked woman? Nowadays every middle-aged bloke wants to be a fine art photographer. It allows him to get up close and personal with a naked chick and justify it as Art to his wife. Whether or not this means a photographer is a GWC or a fine art photographer is a moot point. Some guys don’t actually want to have sex with a woman, they just want to be in the same room and worship the perfect unattainable female from a distance. They want to create that image of Venus in every model they shoot, to bring out the inner Goddess in each woman. Does this make the photographer a GWC or an artist? Is the classification of whether or not a photographer qualifies as a proper fine art photographer simply a matter of whether he is technically any good at lighting and composition? Can the lowly GWC be a fine-art photographer if he is skilled enough, and do his motivations actually matter?
Moreover, if a photographer concentrates exclusively on shooting the female nude, doesn’t this result in variations on the same theme over and over again? Sure the lighting and model may vary, but the message is the same throughout. Every model is the same goddess, just with different skin. Is the photographer who repeats himself over and over again actually achieving anything? If he is conveying an emotional message that women are divine and unattainable, then O.K. what happens once he has done that? Now what? Sure the photographer has to develop his lighting and technique, and he becomes a better photographer, but that is a technical exercise. How does the message of his photography evolve? How can he continue doing the same thing for years and years without going completely nuts?
Now before you all go and throw your Hasselblads into the nearest swamp, I want to tell you a story told to Rich by a well respected nude photographer whom he met recently.
The photographer concerned used to be in the armed forces when he was younger. Because he had some photographic training, he was allocated the terrible task of photographing and cataloguing the dead bodies for identification. Now personally I can’t imagine a worse assignment for a photographer. The level of horror and carnage that he was exposed to must have been unimaginable. The photographer didn’t go into the gory details, but clearly the experience had scarred him emotionally for life. Anyway, when the photographer returned home from his assignment, he resigned his commission and although he remained a photographer, he vowed to only ever photograph what was beautiful and good in the world. For the rest of his life. And what could possibly represent beauty, goodness and purity more than a naked woman?
As Ansel Adams said, “it is just as important to bring people the evidence of beauty of the world of nature and of man as it is to give them a document of ugliness, squalor, and despair.”
Ultimately nudes are like a beautiful landscape, where the subject is flesh rather than trees or a rock. Just as you can never grow tired of shooting different breathtaking landscapes, the beauty and infinite variety of the nude form can never become overdone or monotonous. It is the goal of the photographer to discover that unique individual spark within each woman, and if he succeeds, if only for a second, then that single moment captured by the camera is surely the essence of what photography is all about.
I thought we'd have a Fine-Ass theme this time (as opposed to Fine-Art...oh never mind...)
One of the most common accusations in the photographic world is that fine art nude photographers do not produce worthwhile and evolving photography. Many opponents argue that fine art nudes have no place in modern photography, that fine art is cheapened by the inclusion of a naked woman, that it is not “serious photography.”
It is a generally accepted concept in fine art photography (so Brooks Jensen et al. say anyway) that in order to constitute a good photograph, an image should be powerful. It should stimulate some sort of emotional response in the viewer, enlighten him or teach him a new truth. In short the photograph should mean something.
However, the objective of a fine art nude photograph is not necessarily to arouse an erotic reaction in the viewer. The purpose is to idealise and create an unattainable vision of beauty, a goddess, a vision of perfection, captured for one moment in time. An emotional response is not guaranteed. Thus it is argued by fine-art purists that mere admiration and objectification of beauty is insufficient to qualify a photograph as fine art. The purists maintain that fine art nudes are meaningless because they don’t enlighten the viewer nor do they produce a deep emotional response. A b+w nekkid chick isn’t exactly as psychologically profound as Pepper No 30 or Moonlight over Hernandez, now is it?
Further, it is argued that there are simply too many fine art nude photographers nowadays. If you Google “Fine Art Nudes” there are tens of thousands of hits. Because of the growth of the internet and cheap digital cameras, b+w nudes are considered too overdone, too predictable. There are now so many images out there in cyberspace that they all look the same, and the topic has become boring, trivial and irrelevant. The genre is exhausted.
Lastly, we should consider the motivations of fine art nude photographers. Do nude photographers actually believe in art, or is it just an excuse to be in the same room as a naked woman? Nowadays every middle-aged bloke wants to be a fine art photographer. It allows him to get up close and personal with a naked chick and justify it as Art to his wife. Whether or not this means a photographer is a GWC or a fine art photographer is a moot point. Some guys don’t actually want to have sex with a woman, they just want to be in the same room and worship the perfect unattainable female from a distance. They want to create that image of Venus in every model they shoot, to bring out the inner Goddess in each woman. Does this make the photographer a GWC or an artist? Is the classification of whether or not a photographer qualifies as a proper fine art photographer simply a matter of whether he is technically any good at lighting and composition? Can the lowly GWC be a fine-art photographer if he is skilled enough, and do his motivations actually matter?
Moreover, if a photographer concentrates exclusively on shooting the female nude, doesn’t this result in variations on the same theme over and over again? Sure the lighting and model may vary, but the message is the same throughout. Every model is the same goddess, just with different skin. Is the photographer who repeats himself over and over again actually achieving anything? If he is conveying an emotional message that women are divine and unattainable, then O.K. what happens once he has done that? Now what? Sure the photographer has to develop his lighting and technique, and he becomes a better photographer, but that is a technical exercise. How does the message of his photography evolve? How can he continue doing the same thing for years and years without going completely nuts?
Now before you all go and throw your Hasselblads into the nearest swamp, I want to tell you a story told to Rich by a well respected nude photographer whom he met recently.
The photographer concerned used to be in the armed forces when he was younger. Because he had some photographic training, he was allocated the terrible task of photographing and cataloguing the dead bodies for identification. Now personally I can’t imagine a worse assignment for a photographer. The level of horror and carnage that he was exposed to must have been unimaginable. The photographer didn’t go into the gory details, but clearly the experience had scarred him emotionally for life. Anyway, when the photographer returned home from his assignment, he resigned his commission and although he remained a photographer, he vowed to only ever photograph what was beautiful and good in the world. For the rest of his life. And what could possibly represent beauty, goodness and purity more than a naked woman?
As Ansel Adams said, “it is just as important to bring people the evidence of beauty of the world of nature and of man as it is to give them a document of ugliness, squalor, and despair.”
Ultimately nudes are like a beautiful landscape, where the subject is flesh rather than trees or a rock. Just as you can never grow tired of shooting different breathtaking landscapes, the beauty and infinite variety of the nude form can never become overdone or monotonous. It is the goal of the photographer to discover that unique individual spark within each woman, and if he succeeds, if only for a second, then that single moment captured by the camera is surely the essence of what photography is all about.
I thought we'd have a Fine-Ass theme this time (as opposed to Fine-Art...oh never mind...)
Labels: AlexisSummers, Clayre McKinnen, IvoryFlame, Philosophy
posted by Lin at 11:04 AM
8 Comments:
Great post. Hard to argue with any point. I think it’s a personal thing quite frankly as far as appreciation of the “genres” and labels that seem to be placed upon what we do. Since I am an expert in myself only, I feel qualified only to address my views, to assume what others may think would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how ignorant one in fact is, so I will stick with self.
Myself, I lack the sophistication and eye for beauty to adequately appreciate the Fine Art Nude Genre. Doest that mean I don’t appreciate Fine Art Nude Photography?..to the contrary..(as I have several pieces in my collection that will only fit this category). I simply am not MOVED (there you go..I need an emotional response) by the VAST majority of Art Nude Photos that I see. When I see something I really like in this “genre”, I applaud the work. Jim Young is a great example..I love his work.
I remarked to a friend who shoots in this genre…”how many more nude women do we really need to see leaning up against a rock in the desert?”. This was not meant as a slam upon his photography, but instead it was offered as a challenge to photographic diversity and originality. I can think of nothing as boring (personally) as an exhibit of Art Nudes shot in the Desert. Give me one, two..maybe three of those photos….then lets get on to something else, been there done that!! I have likened much of what I see in the Art Nude Genre to the typical School Year Book type of photo. Same Pose…Same Lighting…Different Person…”OK….next in line please ok..stand like this”. For me, this oozes of redundancy and screams of the mundane. Do we not have any more creativity than this? But this is about the Photographic Artist…perhaps he loves this look…and that is OK…again just speaking my thoughts on the issue. I wish to see more of what the Photographer does with the photo (his take on it)..than to see a beautiful photograph. Beautiful photographs are a dime a dozen. But again, why would any photographic artist want to listen to me?...it is about the artist and what they want to convey, not what I want to see in his/her photos.
But the bottom line is…why care what others think?..should we not be creating for self? This is my world, I do what pleases me…not what pleases others. I wonder why others don’t feel the same way.
I am always confused why we worry about others interpretations of what we do artistically.
Ahh..what the hell do I know eh?..
bt
Lin, you raise so many questions and issues that fine arts nude models and photographers seem to struggle with almost on a daily basis. I know one photographer who actually went for counseling to determine whether he was lech or an artist.
I've come to the conclusion that good art does not need to be justified (OK, paraphrase from Flannery O'Connor's "Wise Blood": "A man with a good car don't need to be justified"). If you enjoy what you do, and you're not a dangerous criminal or a frothing-at-the-mouth pervert or using your "art" to parade your blatant adulteries and thereby hurting others, well, then, no harm done between two or among more consenting adults.
On the other hand, I have taken a humble attitude toward the work I do as a model. In the context of the history of art, it would be difficult to even be a flash in the pan. I agree with bt about the overdone, formulaic fine arts nude photos. I probably do quite a few, but I have tried to break free (with Joe Crachiola in our Anna Magnani series, with GaryM and the polar bear, with A. Owen Layne and the shiksa).
Actually, the issues you raise concern me less than the politics of fine arts nude photography. The jealousies and competitions and occasional vicious behaviors make me wonder if I am really enjoying all this.
BT, you are of course correct, it's all been done before. This is true of pretty much all styles of photography. There is pretty much no original photography styles left to be done.
However, as a photographer I can truly state that none of it has been done before by me, and that's all the justification I need. It would be nice though if I managed to do it better than anyone else.
You're killin' me, woman! Every time I think I've put another of your friggin' issues to bed with a verbose and overly analytic posting of my own, up you pop with another one.
I'll mull this one a bit more before posting at length, if ever, but in the meantime:
1) You overlook the role of nudie photog as serviceman. Not quite as mundane as the Maytag serviceman, and certainly more frequently called-upon, but nevertheless we photographers perform a service. Part of that service is as standing as a surrogate for all the viewers (mostly male) who wish the could be in our shoes, but for any of a variety of reasons cannot. But we also "service" the women who use us to express either (a) their artistic side -- I cannot count the number of gals who thank me for providing them a sense of participating in "art"; and/or (b) their exhibitionism, in a safe and positive environment. Surely we're more benign than a gentlemen's club.
2) You and BT touch on the repetitiveness. I think it was Susan Sontag, among others, who opined that "everything has already been photographed." And in some cases, multiple times. Yet the accomplished landscape photographer will still find customers for his glorious rendition of Utah's Monument Valley (albeit often sold in the National Park's gift store). Likewise there continues to be a market for the fine art nude print. And some of them, grantedly often by dead photographers, fetch damn high prices.
In the end, I'm with Richard -- I do it a) for myself, b) for my models and the relationship, c) for the art, and d) for the possibility of appreciation by others, expressed I hope in some tangible ($$) way. When thinking on this topic, I return to Edward Weston, and what his thoughts must have been when the very young and very nubile Charis Wilson first stepped out of her clothes for him. Somehow, I don't think it was of putting a print in the Museum of Modern Art or affecting the course of nude photography for generations to come!
SERVICEMAN??? Holy crap, let's pray there are no feminists reading this thread.
BTW, Rich loved your arguments!
Please...let no-one feel offended by this post. I am simply interested in other photographers’ views on answering the purists and fine art critics.
As always I am a passionate advocate of the fine-art nude style. However occasionally I do feel the need to examine the motivations and the "whys" of fine-art nude photography. As a genre, it is attacked so much by so-called critics and fine-art snobs who deride our photographic style as not worthy of being published or classified as Art. Lenswork, for example, publishes nudes only once every few years, and even in the last issue, the nudes were only published because a) they were photographed by a woman and b) they had a clear psychological theme of empowerment of the ordinary woman (not models.)
Unless we fight for fine-art nude photography to be recognised as worthy mainstream art, it will forever be looked down upon and trivialised. At least that’s my opinion anyway.
Awesome posts all...AWESOME!!!
We are all unique. Given that, each of our creations are in fact unique.
This is what is is all about...creating from within what matters to you (us)!!!
awesome again AWESOME posts.
bt
Yet another interesting post.
My personal opinion on all this: each has their own personal preferences, each has their own style. That's what makes the world more interesting. I don't think anyone should be so pretentious to think their way is the only way or supreme over someone elses way. I love well executed creative/ out-there work, and I absolutely ADORE the fundamental fine art nude, which is supposed to be a celebration of the form - what can possibly be more beautiful than that? I think often times the beauty of the art is tainted by the photographer's / models ego or insecurities. I think that when I respect the opinions and wishes of the people I choose to collaborate with, and when I let the rest do what they want to do, regardless of the level of appeal it has to me, I should be good. I keep the sources of negativity at arms length, and rather not deal with those. Focus on creating the things that move YOU, that's ultimately what matters most. Just my approach.
"Merely copying the object is not art, What counts is to express the emotion called forth in you, the feeling awakened...."
~Henri Matisse
Just take the word Fine out of Fine Art Nude and relax, it can be whatever you want it to be.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home