Nudes. Your partners attitude?

[Roger Hicks]

cf Kiki de Montparnasse: http://lapetitemelancolie.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/man-ray-alice-prin-kiki-de-montparnasse/

Cheers,

R.

 

[raid]

"Nudes" and "Attitudes" rhyme, but this where any communality ends.

 

[williams473]

It's really difficult (in my opinion here in the U.S. at least) to shoot nudes and get away from sexuality. Even same-sex photographer/model situations. I did a shoot for a young man who wanted some tasteful images of his body to be made - he had obviously worked out really hard to get it where it was. I was living in DC at the time and did the shoot in the alley behind a couple apartment buildings - he wasn't even nude - might as well have been at the beach. Even so we got a few jeers and whistles from passersby and a small group of people who confronted us and just assumed we were a gay couple, wanting to know what we were doing later (which my wife would find amusing.) Life is just sexual I suppose - clothes start to come off and we get excited.. . I think we're kinda hard wired that way...

Photography is so viewer dependent that I don't see how one could ever make a large amount of nude images for public viewing and not know that a vast majority will sexualize it, even if that was not the intention of the artist.

And maybe that's ok - maybe it's ok to be turned on by art... For some reason Rodin comes to mind - one of the greatest sculptors of all time - I LOVE his work. But alas he was a womanizer and slept with all his models. Maybe his sculpture and his love life were inseparable - maybe it's that way with all art - that the work is an expression of the person. Someone who shoots a lot of nudes is probably a pretty sexually charged individual. Not a bad thing - but let's call it what it is then.

 

[hepcat]

Creepy and sleazy? Some of the best nudes are very sleazy. Creepy, as in disturbing? Is that always bad?

It's only bad when the photographer is creepy and sleazy. Attribution of quality of the images is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[hepcat]

Yes I realise that ... but I don't think I, or anyone else for that matter, should be interested in conforming to your personal ethics.

I confess that my business ethics are personal for me, but they are fortunately shared by many pros. Without sound professional ethics, how would we as a business entity engender the trust of the public?

 

[hepcat]

Not that I am saying guys like Irving Klaw were in the least bit creepy and sleazy... 😉

I rest my case. 😀

 

[janrzm]

I've just been through something similar although not quite nudes......it's been tough, especially broaching the subject, then actually pushing yourself out of your comfort zone!!

From my perspective I just want to take beautiful photographs, I don't see anything other than that. Unfortunately there is a dodgy side to this industry and invariably that is the first conclusion many people make.

You can follow my first tentative steps here - http://www.aperturepriority.co.nz

Cheers, Jason.

 

[dct]

If I shot nudes, my partner would probably take an interest in my photographic hobby.

Hear, hear! 😀 +1 on that.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

This thread contains some wonderful examples of avoiding the obvious....

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not that I am saying guys like Irving Klaw were in the least bit creepy and sleazy... 😉

What about Man Ray?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mcary]

The genre is too broad to paint with a single stroke. Much of what's out there are cell phone pix of naked chix and are, frankly, aesthetically crap. The problem with many photographers who want to do nudes is that they represent themselves as "photographers" but they're really just a GWC who has little or no photography experience who looking to see some chick naked. "Creepy" and "sleazy" are two adjectives I've heard from time to time about other "photographers" who want to shoot nudes. I do everything professionally possible to stay as far away from "creepy" and "sleazy" as those terms can kill a photographer's reputation in this internet-connected world. Unfortunately, good photographers are often seen in the light of those guys until we prove ourselves otherwise. They make it tough for everyone.

There are good points made in this thread about what the purpose of the photo session is. It is important to me to have a shooting plan for a session that I can articulate to the model before hand. The model knows exactly what I'm after that way, and I typically don't get distracted by trying to figure out what to shoot next. I have releases ready before shooting, and I always advise the model what the current intended use will be for the images. My model releases are unlimited-use though, but I generally try to recontact the model as a courtesy if I have a secondary use or market for the images just so they know where their image is being used "out there."

When I have the images I had planned, the session is over. I have the studio set up for that plan when the model arrives. It's all about the business of making "THE" image. I have shot nudes successfully and still enjoy doing it from time to time. Shooting aesthetically pleasing nudes is a difficult genre and it is a serious pursuit to undertake. To do it well takes an exhaustive study of lighting and posing. Every human body has aesthetic strengths and weaknesses, and lighting and posing to highlight the strengths while minimizing the weaknesses while still maintaining the context of the image concept can be daunting.

I always have a studio assistant with me when shooting nudes, and my wife fills that role when she can. She has modeled for me in the past and I have some images from those sessions that are remarkable. I have a couple of ideas I'm currently working on making into images.

If you approach shooting nudes in a professional and businesslike manner, it can be quite rewarding. Approaching it any other way can lead to a host of unresolvable problems, both personal and professional.

Excellent post
When shooting nudes I simply work the same way I do with clothed models, in that I behave like a gentleman and respect them as individuals.

As as side note I know a number of nude models that are also dam good photographers,

 

[Mcary]

It all depends on what you're looking to convey. I recently commented on a nude in the gallery that it I couldn't see what differentiated it from soft porn.
I retracted my comment as I think it was too strong and unfair a comment to make when the photographer is aiming for something more artistic.

Actually I didn't have a problem with your original comment as you were simply stating your opinion about a single image, it wasn't like you were telling me that I needed to remove all of my images from the gallery because images like that shouldn't be allowed, no you were simply stating an opinion.

 

[bobbyrab]

I'm glad you took it the right way, although I think I formed my opinion as much from how nudes get viewed here as from the image itself, and I retracted it as on reflection I thought it was unfair criticism on my part.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If you have an interest in nudes, how does your partner feel about it?

Phew! Partner, not partners 😀


Pretty comfortable with it. Very lucky (me).

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Creepy and sleazy? Some of the best nudes are very sleazy.

I think it's the sleazy ones that get more notoriety. I'd say most people think notorious = best.

I think there's a lot out there that doesn't get the attention it deserves because it's not "controversial"/confrontational.

It's also people's nature to be bored by technically-good, tastefully-done, "appropriate" nudes. It's Supply-and-Demand.

 

[Sparrow]

I confess that my business ethics are personal for me, but they are fortunately shared by many pros. Without sound professional ethics, how would we as a business entity engender the trust of the public?

... sorry a bit too middle American for my taste

 

[noisycheese]

Check out Mona Kuhn's book, "Evidence".
That's pretty much what she did, and it's by far my favorite nude photography, so far. Very natural, not self conscious at all.

I took a look at her portfolios on her website ( http://www.monakuhn.com/ ) and I came away with the impression that for both Ms. Kuhn and her subjects, nudity and sexuality are two separate issues. As such, it seems to me that perhaps she and her subjects are in some way a bit more intellectually evolved that most of us, present company included.

Most people cannot separate nudity from sex. It may be because of religious teachings. Or it may be because in the west, sex is used to sell everything from autos to wristwatches to diamond rings to underarm deodorant to potato chips. This misuse, exploitation and abuse of sexuality - which is driven by nothing other than unbridled greed - cheapens sexuality, physical intimacy and the emotional bond that comes with intimacy.

The by-product of that misuse is that in terms of quality of life, we are all poorer as a result.

JMHO.

 

[Turtle]

Just thinking out loud here, but... if many of the finest photojournalists in history held strong partisan political views, what is the role of enforced sterility some are suggesting is absolutely necessary in nude photography?

Surely sexual interest and respect are not mutually exclusive?

If a man photographs a nude model and ALSO wants to sleep with her, is it more professional of him to conceal this fact from others and himself? Will it make the photos better?

My $0.02 is that respect and decency is what matters here and neither of them have anything to do with sex or desire, only what you do with those feelings. Some would have us believe that the high ratio of men shooting nude women to women shooting nude women is due to appalling male behaviour and the exploitation of women by male perverts masquerading as photographers. I would simplify it by suggesting that where 'men enjoying seeing women naked' ends and 'fine art' begins is impossible to define, and quite frankly, pointless. I would also venture that the quality of the 'art' would diminish to zero when the subjects become about as sexual as a vase of flowers.

Lets go tear up Edward Weston's photos of Charis, and Jean Loup Sieff's cheeky nudes, because I have a horrible feeling they may have strayed over that line.

FWIW the women in my life, past and present, have had no issue with me shooting nudes primarily because they have been the nudes. I have also talked to them about photographing other women and as long as I go to bed with my girlfriends and not the models, all will be well. Can I promise that I will not find any of the models attractive? Of course not, but the same issue exists whenever I walk out the front door, as it does for them. IMHO, its about confidence in yourself and the trust of your partner. You can't make sex go away by self-imposed piety. It has not worked terribly well for Catholic Priests now has it?

 

[Jamie123]

If a man photographs a nude model and ALSO wants to sleep with her, is it more professional of him to conceal this fact from others and himself?

I think in reality it's generally just assumed that a (straight) man wants to sleep with an attractive woman. I think the question is how exactly one interprets 'to want' in this case. If it just means there's an attraction or a desire then it's generally no problem. If, however, wanting to sleep with a model means that one attempts to sleep with her then it's a different matter. As you surely know, there's a strange kind of authority one gains when holding a camera. All of a sudden one can direct what a person does and the situation can lend itself to exploitation. That being said, even if the images were made under questionable circumstances it doesn't mean they're not good.

In any case, that's a bit off topic. I completely agree that there's no need to keep sex and nude photography apart. IMO there's nothing more boring than a 'tasteful' nude although that mostly has to do with that very old fashioned notion of tastefulness. As an example, I find this portrait that was in the Taylor Wessing portrait prize competition a few years ago quite tasteful. Others may disagree.
I also don't agree with the view that a creepy perv can't take good photographs. Just recently I was talking to a (female) friend of mine who's quite fond of Araki's work. This prompted me to look at it again in a long time and I have to say that, while it's still not my cup of tea, it's quite good. There's a sort of self-awareness in the work that makes it interesting IMO.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I find those "tasteful" nude studies quite disturbing, in a repressed kind of wonderfully pervy way. To me they say nothing much about the subject, but volumes about the photographer.

They all seem plucked out of a Modern Photography magazine in 1950. Very historic, kind of like WWII recreations.

Quite so.

On a (slightly) different topic, are you familiar with the work of Keith Dannat? One or sometimes two of his pictures appeared in most 1920s and 1930s British Journal of Photograph Almanacs: a sort of proto- Jock Sturgess, but studio based. Much more 'innocent' than David Hamilton, but again, curiously repressed.

I am reminded of a wonderful quote from a girlfriend's younger sister, at whose prompting I first bought a David Hamilton book: she said she really admired his work, and as she was both very pretty and keen on photography I had idle dreams of trying to replicate his style. I was in my 20s; the girlfriend was maybe 20; and the sister was maybe 15.

As we went through the book together, it became clear that she'd never seen much of his work. She produced what I think is the best summary of Hamilton's photography that I have ever heard: "You see one or two, and you think, wow, that's great. Then you see some more, and you think, yeah, they're pretty good too. But after a while, you start asking yourself: what else can he do?"

She was right; and I never took a single picture of her.

Cheers,

R.