| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/22/2007 10:47:43 AM · #51 |
| Mike - I've looked into your work off & on for over a year now, and it still inspires me. Very good work sir! |
|
|
|
04/22/2007 11:00:52 AM · #52 |
(edit)
I regard the complete human body as a natural work of art, male or female.
I agree with those who said that genitalia is a part of the body and not pornographic per se.
Message edited by author 2007-04-22 11:21:31.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2007 12:08:21 PM · #53 |
I especially like yours Anastasia. They're really a cut above the usual stuff. |
|
|
|
04/22/2007 12:30:51 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Thauglor:
The difference between art and pornography is whether the people involved were used and or demoralised. In front of or behind the camera, pencil, pen, brush, etc... |
I don't agree with this because I don't accept the premise that actors and actresses in pornographic magazines or films are necessarily used and/or demoralised. |
|
|
|
04/22/2007 12:47:26 PM · #55 |
Quote from Elaine in Seinfeld:
"The female body is a work of art. The male body is utilitarian. It's for gettin' around. It's like a Jeep. "
So true...
|
|
|
|
04/22/2007 12:51:13 PM · #56 |
I'll start by admitting that I'm no artist; I'm just a guy with a camera whose trying to learn to take better pictures.
I have a very hard time accepting that anyone who still has a sex drive really does look at a nude -- however artistic it may be -- as purely a study of the "beautiful" human body. These claims of divorcing artistic nudes from any hint of sexual excitement seem bogus to me. Hey, should I really be ashamed to admit that the most tastefully done artistic nude is still capable of turning me on? Am I really so different? I don't think so.
So, anyway, I don't have a problem with nudes; nor do I have a problem with images intended to arouse (which I think most nudes are, anyway). |
|
|
|
04/22/2007 01:16:51 PM · #57 |
Shooting nudes is fun. :-)
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 12:36:00 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by JeffDay:
Quote from Elaine in Seinfeld:
"The female body is a work of art. The male body is utilitarian. It's for gettin' around. It's like a Jeep. "
So true... |
Paraphrase attributed to Simone de Beauvoir: "Two women having sex with each other is perfection. Two men having sex with each other is ridiculous." Something like that. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 12:40:28 PM · #59 |
| I think you've all overlooked one of the finest nude photographers on the site -- silverfoxx! |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 12:53:16 PM · #60 |
Anastasia... I really enjoyed your gallery. I like that you have both men & women portrayed in your photos.
Another one from this site that is one of my favorites as far as nude shots go is  Judi |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 01:18:43 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
I think you've all overlooked one of the finest nude photographers on the site -- silverfoxx! |
Ohhh no... we all know she's fine :-)
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 01:37:30 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Rgarcia:
(edit)
I regard the complete human body as a natural work of art, male or female.
I agree with those who said that genitalia is a part of the body and not pornographic per se. |
I agree........ I think that the entire body is a work of art in itself..... of course it depends upon the nature of, or the idea of perception of, the photograph as to whether it is truely erotic.... & I think that even erotic photos are art, as long as they're done tastefully... it really depends on the photo as far as whether one is crossing the line between art & pornography. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 01:46:14 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
I have a very hard time accepting that anyone who still has a sex drive really does look at a nude -- however artistic it may be -- as purely a study of the "beautiful" human body. |
Wow, I completely dissagree.
There are centuries of art depicting both the male and female forms as non-sexual ideals of beauty; Michaelangelo's David is not intended to arouse, surely, nor "the creation of man" in the Sistine chapel (where Adam has "his wang hanging out").
Does the move into photography fundamentally change the nature of art, and in so doing render the nude inherently pornographic? Of course not. We don't call pictures of naked babies porn; we admire them as showing a tiny human in a natural state, a distillation of their form. Photos of people are no different. Google "abstract nude" and you'll see many, many pictures that it would, frankly, be weird to masturbate to.
I'm a young, sexual man; I enjoy actual pornography (that which is designed to arouse) as much as the next guy. When I look at fine art nudes I do not have the same reaction.
I think there is much to lose from fetishising nudity. My genitals are part of my body, and are not inherently taboo, or naughty, or dirty. They can be used in ways that render them such, and depicted as such, but it is offensive and short-sighted to imply that that is their fundamental nature. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 01:55:41 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
I have a very hard time accepting that anyone who still has a sex drive really does look at a nude -- however artistic it may be -- as purely a study of the "beautiful" human body. |
Wow, I completely dissagree.
There are centuries of art depicting both the male and female forms as non-sexual ideals of beauty; Michaelangelo's David is not intended to arouse, surely, nor "the creation of man" in the Sistine chapel (where Adam has "his wang hanging out").
Does the move into photography fundamentally change the nature of art, and in so doing render the nude inherently pornographic? Of course not. We don't call pictures of naked babies porn; we admire them as showing a tiny human in a natural state, a distillation of their form. Photos of people are no different. Google "abstract nude" and you'll see many, many pictures that it would, frankly, be weird to masturbate to.
I'm a young, sexual man; I enjoy actual pornography (that which is designed to arouse) as much as the next guy. When I look at fine art nudes I do not have the same reaction.
I think there is much to lose from fetishising nudity. My genitals are part of my body, and are not inherently taboo, or naughty, or dirty. They can be used in ways that render them such, and depicted as such, but it is offensive and short-sighted to imply that that is their fundamental nature. |
eamurdock...... you said it!.... but worded much better then I did ( & of course I am a woman, not a man) but I was leaning towards the same idea........ |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 01:56:42 PM · #65 |
Only hav this 1
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 02:42:09 PM · #66 |
My sweet ass
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 03:19:10 PM · #67 |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 03:32:00 PM · #68 |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 03:34:32 PM · #69 |
Not my very bestest, but the only one I have on the interweb.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 10:32:06 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
I have a very hard time accepting that anyone who still has a sex drive really does look at a nude -- however artistic it may be -- as purely a study of the "beautiful" human body. |
Wow, I completely dissagree.
There are centuries of art depicting both the male and female forms as non-sexual ideals of beauty; Michaelangelo's David is not intended to arouse, surely, nor "the creation of man" in the Sistine chapel (where Adam has "his wang hanging out").
Does the move into photography fundamentally change the nature of art, and in so doing render the nude inherently pornographic? Of course not. We don't call pictures of naked babies porn; we admire them as showing a tiny human in a natural state, a distillation of their form. Photos of people are no different. Google "abstract nude" and you'll see many, many pictures that it would, frankly, be weird to masturbate to.
I'm a young, sexual man; I enjoy actual pornography (that which is designed to arouse) as much as the next guy. When I look at fine art nudes I do not have the same reaction.
I think there is much to lose from fetishising nudity. My genitals are part of my body, and are not inherently taboo, or naughty, or dirty. They can be used in ways that render them such, and depicted as such, but it is offensive and short-sighted to imply that that is their fundamental nature. |
Not sure I agree with you. You don't know what the intended or actual affect of "centuries of art" was. True, sculptures and such may not arouse modern people now that we have photos and films. But, back when sculptures and paintings were the height of technology, who knows how people reacted to some of that stuff. Your reference to the Sistine Chapel is interesting because the Church originally had painters come in and paint clothes on God and Adam so as not to show their penises. They apparently thought someone might find it arousing.
Regarding your comment about masturbating to abstract nudes, I'm not talking about masturbation, I'm simply saying that I think it is normal to find sexual arousal in an artistic nude -- not to masturbate to it. But, if that's your thing, who am I to criticize?!
I never implied taboo, naughtiness or dirtiness in anything I said about nudity or sexuality. I feel quite the opposite.
I suppose that, at least where men are concerned, I'm very skeptical of any guy that looks at a "beautiful fine art nude photograph" of a beautiful adult woman if he is straight or of a handsome adult male if he is gay, and claims to only appreciate the lighting or exposure. I know that when I see a nude, the first thing I notice is that the person isn't wearing any clothes -- that's the basis of my position, really.
And, why is it that nudes, however artistic, almost always feature young, beautiful people? How often do you see a nude of a model who doesn't fit a certain standard of accepted attractiveness? Why is that? Clearly, it has to do with physical attraction, i.e., sexuality. And why are the nudes on this site, however artistic they may be, viewed so very many more times than pictures of anything else? Sexual attraction.
Message edited by author 2007-04-24 09:31:48. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 11:01:12 PM · #71 |
I have a self nude, I don't think anyone could find arousing. I would have posted here because it does of great meaning and symbolism, however, it is a full frontal and such can not be seen here. But, it is a rather nice image. it is one of my project images, the one that should be posted... but, for reasons of my own, I posted a parcialy covered image for my project.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 10:05:12 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
And, why is it that nudes, however artistic, almost always feature young, beautiful people? |
Well, the nude study is often (but not always) an attempt to distill an ideal of human beauty. This, again, does not inherently sexualize it - humans can be beautiful in the same way flowers can. Why are all pictures of flowers of young, vibrant, colorful flowers?
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
And why are the nudes on this site, however artistic they may be, viewed so very many more times than pictures of anything else? Sexual attraction. |
'Coz we're all pervs? You have a point here; there are certainly folks who will browse the nudes hoping to find something titilating. That doesn't mean that they're satisfied with what they find, however.
Imbuing meaning to a work is as much an act of the observer as of the creator, to be sure, and nudes perhaps leave more opportunity for adding sexuality than, say, flowers (O'keeffe excepted). But I'm specifically challenging two things: (a)your assertion that no one can view a nude non-sexually and (b) Nelzie's statement "If it shows genitals or the act, then it's pornography." Both of these statements, I think, debase a broad artistic tradition.
The Sistine Chapel thing - yes, the church was concerned with the nudity. This is precisely why I think it's so important to fight against the assumption that nudes are inherently sexual - the world would be poorer without them. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 10:50:29 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
'Coz we're all pervs? You have a point here.
But I'm specifically challenging two things: (a)your assertion that no one can view a nude non-sexually and (b) Nelzie's statement "If it shows genitals or the act, then it's pornography." Both of these statements, I think, debase a broad artistic tradition.
|
I'm not saying that no one can view a nude non-sexually (though Freud would). I'm saying that I think most nudes are viewed with some level of sexuality by most people (or at least most men). I also disagree with Nelzie's statement wholeheartedly. But then, I also have nothing against pornography and I specifically challenge the premise that sexualizing nudity is a bad thing. I think it is natural as sex itself. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 10:54:20 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
And, why is it that nudes, however artistic, almost always feature young, beautiful people? |
Well, the nude study is often (but not always) an attempt to distill an ideal of human beauty. This, again, does not inherently sexualize it - humans can be beautiful in the same way flowers can. Why are all pictures of flowers of young, vibrant, colorful flowers? |
Ok, this part, I'm not buying at all. If the human body is per se beautiful, as the artistic crowd here is saying, then all human bodies are beautiful, no matter the shape or size. That's a sweet-sounding lie that we like to repeat to feel better about ourselves. If we were sincere about this, then there would be more people like Fotomann shooting pics of "non-traditional models."
And, feeling some level of sexual attraction when one sees an artistic rendering of a beautiful naked body does not render one perverted. It renders one ALIVE!!! |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 11:18:44 AM · #75 |
This post is filled with Lies.
Lie 1) All Human Bodies Regardless of shape/size/colour/sex/age/whatever are beautiful.
Lie 2) Because it is nude you have to be sexually attracted to it.
Lie 3) Even though all bodies are beautiful I know what I am attracted to, and there are lots of nude figures that are not my type. Hence I am not attracted to.
Lie 4) Attraction does not = Sexual attraction nor Desire
Lie 5) All Guys are Pervs because it is ok for women to view nudes moreso than men.
Lie 6) Anyone looking at any nude image is only looking for wanking material.
Lie 7) Modesty was the first SIN.
Lie 8) Born Naked, Buried in Cloths, for the modesty of others.
Lie 9) Stereotypes destroy modern thought and people are unable to understand the generalizations made for them and forget about exceptions.
Lie 10) I wrote this post nude
Message edited by author 2007-04-24 11:19:45.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 04:05:19 PM EDT.
