| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/28/2006 11:10:37 AM · #1 |
Every so often, a thread comes up about nudity on the site and how it should be allowed/monitored, etc.
Very often (like almost everytime), someone makes a statement that those against nudity feel that way because they are prudes, hate the human body, find it ugly, etc. etc. etc.
You would find me in the "anti" nudity camp, I suppose, though I do recognize it as an "artform" to some and an historically accepted genre in all visual arts. When I vote, I look at it as photography and vote on it as such. While it is not my preferred subject matter, I do NOT give it a one just because it is a nude.
So, why do I have these opinions of mine? I suppose it is a blending of how I was brought up, my religious choices, and my outlook on life that has brought me to the point where I am now concerning nudes. But, what are my opinions?
I do not shoot nudes, nor will I pose nude. Given a preference, I will not view nudes, unless I have to in an "official" capacity (such as validating a nude for SC, etc.) or unless one "pops" up (and yes, even with the filter, some still show up every now and then.) However, I am not naive enough to think that we can simply "outlaw" them on dpc, and I have never advocated such.
Do I believe the human body ugly? or needs to be "hidden?" No. I believe we are fantastic, beautiful creations of God. The human body is beautiful. However, it is very private, as well.
(Now, things start getting kinda personal, so be gentle, please. haha)
I believe that when I got married, my body became my husband's, and likewise, his became mine. To "share" my body in photography for everyone to see is to take something that is "his" and devalue it by making it available to the masses. I do not shoot nudes for the same reason. The model's body is theirs, it is not mine to see or shoot. When I view a nude, I feel like I am encroaching on sacred ground and trespassing somewhere that I don't deserve to be.
(FWIW, that is also the approach I will take in teaching my children about nudity, but at five and two, it is not a huge issue, yet.)
I guess in some form of reasoning, my decision to NOT shoot nudes (or like them) is based on the same reason many of you pose/shoot nudity -- the body is special, very special. How we choose to treat that "specialty" is different.
I do not expect many to agree with me, and that is fine. I also do not post this with the hopes or expectations of changing anyone's mind. I am simply posting because it is not a view that I have seen expressed before, and wanted you to be aware that not everyone who is "anti-nude" thinks the body is ugly or should be hidden. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:15:24 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I believe that when I got married, my body became my husband's, and likewise, his became mine. To "share" my body in photography for everyone to see is to take something that is "his" and devalue it by making it available to the masses. I do not shoot nudes for the same reason. The model's body is theirs, it is not mine to see or shoot. When I view a nude, I feel like I am encroaching on sacred ground and trespassing somewhere that I don't deserve to be.
|
That's a very respectable view on it. It definitely makes sense.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:18:35 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:25:47 AM · #4 |
While i do not share your opinions i'm glad you posted that, because i've often wondered why people take offence or dislike to viewing nudes.
I feel the same that the human body is beautiful and very special, but just like every other photo, it is what the subject is willing to show us, and the photographer willing to convey that makes it an interesting subject to me, other than the pure beauty of the human body. No, not in the 'how much flesh can you see' way.
I can fully appreciate your views without sharing them, put it that way.
Message edited by author 2006-12-28 11:26:24.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:27:20 AM · #5 |
Nice post Karma, although I noticed your profile picture has you wearing nothing but a hat and scarf...
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:30:19 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nice post Karma, although I noticed your profile picture has you wearing nothing but a hat and scarf... |
ROFL. touche! |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:30:46 AM · #7 |
| Civil, well-stated...refreshing. Thanks for sharing this. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:42:26 AM · #8 |
Personally, I don't agree with you, but I respect your stand on the matter.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:43:26 AM · #9 |
Well put.
It's tough for a guy (at least this guy) to vote on an image of a nude woman -
I am very visual and when you throw an image in front of me like that I often get distracted.
I can't explain whether this is me being "pro-nude" or "anti-nude" but the female body is like a bug-light - very attractive and men can lose their minds just seeing it ... ZAP! |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:52:15 AM · #10 |
It would be wonderful for more people to have your view of this issue rather than be out on a witch hunt.
You don't care for them, and steer clear as much as you can. But you understand that there is a place for them with certain people. And that too is Honorable.
I may not be anti-nude, but I would never force a nude on someone. I make sure people have whatever warning I can give them.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:56:41 AM · #11 |
Yes nudes can be erotic and some are intended to be emotive.
Yet it is an art. For some who have seen many, maybe they can more easily get over any shock and see other technical aspects as well.
For similar reasons not all of us can or wish to see or do an internal operation on the human body in a hospital. In a similar fashion, Doctors and Surgeons distance themselves and concentrate on the task at hand, too.
I respect all people's preferences and appreciate their insights, and I hope that continues to go in both directions. I also am glad that some voters don't give ones to images simply since they don't like the subject category, be it nudes, cats, dogs, trucks, or anything. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 11:56:45 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nice post Karma, although I noticed your profile picture has you wearing nothing but a hat and scarf... |
hehe,. and in desparate need of a suntan. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 12:04:22 PM · #13 |
| i've had the pleasure of working directly with karma via the SC for almost 2 years and although we don't see eye-to-eye on some issues (like this one), it's her ability to clearly state her position and her reasoning that makes her so easy to work with. this instance is no exception. i think this is a very reasonable argument. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 12:09:56 PM · #14 |
| You do a good job of describing your position. Some people love photographs of church interiors (and there are many great examples here on DPC), however there are religious institutions that do not feel photography in some sacred places is appropriate. To me, these are similar situations, and there isn't a right or wrong answer. Then again... I'm not sure if I can picture a teenage kid hiding a magazine full of pictures of churches under his mattress :-) |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 12:24:13 PM · #15 |
I also do not agree with your position Karmat, but I respect it. You have quite clearly and eloquently expressed your view, particularly as it relates to potential nude images of yourself, your husband, your kids.
I think your point is analogous to the view held by some aboriginal groups that don't want to be photographed, because of their belief that to do so would "steal their soul." It is not important if the photographer believes he/she is not taking the subject's soul, merely capturing an image, etc. -- once you snap the shutter you irreparably damage the subject, regardless of intent or artisitc content.
Thanks for your post and your openness to the beliefs of others. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 12:27:41 PM · #16 |
A human body is aesthetic but so is a flower and so is a great bilding. I think you are very right about the privacy associated with nudity and it should be respected. The only point related to this is when the models themselves want to flaunt their bodies and then the photographer takes over to depict it in the best possible way.
However artful a nude maybe, its almost impossible to separate erotocism from it and thats the basic reason why the nude section on DPC is most viewes and the traditional art is one of the lowest. With a nude image a lot of finer photographic aethetics tend to evaporate and thats a fact. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 12:33:55 PM · #17 |
karmat, i don't think i could agree with you more.
you stated my position perfectly.
thanks,
s
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 12:37:01 PM · #18 |
This is an excellent example of how people view 'art'. Some artworks are considered masterpieces by some viewers while others are offended by them. If an artwork crosses the line of good taste, faith, and morals that has been set by the viewer, it doesn't really matter how great the piece may be. It's hard to see past the cultural bias.
Some artists capitalize on this concept because of the controversy it creates. Robert Mapplethorpe comes to mind fairly quickly when I think about this concept. When you reach a certain level as an artist, controversy is some of the best advertising you can find.
Here on DPC, I think we see good examples of advancement via controversy. The reward at the end of the road is non-existent, but the road is frequently traveled. Controversy makes something stand apart from the crowd, and I think that is enough to make folks pursue it more often.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 12:40:50 PM · #19 |
Well said Karmat and thank you for voicing your views. Although I do not share your views, it is an area I've struggled with for quite some time. I was raised in a Southern Baptist household and have very strong religious convictions and do consider myself a Christian. In the area of nude photography, I've had a difficult time balancing my religious convictions with my personal ones.
In Genesis, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, saw that they were naked and were ashamed (paraphrased). To me, this implies that God put us on this Earth originally naked and in a sense ignorant of sin. Is nudity itself a sin? Personally I think not, otherwise He would have had us clothed prior to eating the fruit. The human form is a beautiful creation and example of the work God has done. The sin stems from what we DO more than what we ARE. Nudity that is presented in a manner that triggers a (sinful) response such as lust or envy in my eyes is wrong. HOWEVER, nudity that is presented in a manner that celebrates God's work as an artform and the beauty and grace that is represented by His work is, in my opinion, not a sin.
I shoot nudes, but my nudes are a celebration of His work and generally presented in a tasteful manner. I did go through a phase where I pushed the envelope a little, but have since decided that erotic or sensual representation of human form was not to my liking. Now I have committed myself to only shoot nudes that can be considered depictions of the true work of art that He created... human form.
It's difficult for me to describe my convictions on this subject so this post probably makes no sense whatsoever... if that's the case, simply ignore everything I just wrote above. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 01:42:47 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by manniagni:
However artful a nude maybe, its almost impossible to separate erotocism from it... |
Perhaps on intentionally erotic photographs, but not on every nude photograph. Not everyone equates nudity with eroticism and sexuality.
Originally posted by manniagni:
With a nude image a lot of finer photographic aethetics tend to evaporate and thats a fact. |
You should probably support statements like this with actual facts, instead of declarative facts. Credibility tends to evaporate otherwise. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 01:53:31 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by karmat:
The model's body is theirs, it is not mine to see or shoot. |
This is perhaps the only part of your write up that I have an "issue" with.
When a person models nude, they give permission to share a visual representation of their body with others. It is no longer "private" then, see? While I respect *your* personal feelings on this matter, I definitely don't think it's ok to think that other people should always feel this way either.. (as in your statement that you'll be raising your children this way. They will have their own choices to make when they reach ages of consent, no?)
Otherwise, a very thoughtful post. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 02:06:00 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Nudity that is presented in a manner that triggers a (sinful) response such as lust or envy in my eyes is wrong. HOWEVER, nudity that is presented in a manner that celebrates God's work as an artform and the beauty and grace that is represented by His work is, in my opinion, not a sin.
|
I really like how you stated this....I think this closely resembles how I feel about nude artform.
ETA: Just because I don't like 'all' art forms doesn't automatically make me a prude or out on a witch hunt....wouldn't that be the same as me stating that all people that take nude art forms are nothing but attention-seeking, controversial, needy people that must have come from bad homes with horrible childhoods? No...different people have different views. Like Karma also stated, because I see a nude I do not automatically give it a one. I believe the photograph will speak for itself. On another note (and probably unpopular) when you have to jump up and down, waving your hands screaming 'look at me, look at me' with your photography ... it loses credibility...especially when it's the "same" thing over and over and over. Does this make me a prude or on a witch hunt? I don't think so. But then again...this is just my opinion :)
(thanks for your post Karma, I think you did an excellent job in explaining your views!)
Message edited by author 2006-12-28 14:25:24. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 02:08:25 PM · #23 |
re: teaching my kids
When they reach the appropriate age to start making their life decisions, yes, but until then, it is my job, and privilege to teach them what I feel is right. And why I feel that way. What they do is up to them, and their responsibility. But at 5 and 2 (or 10 and 7, or 14 and 11) it is my responsibility.
And I am in no way trying to make you, anyone else, or a model see it otherwise. If someone asks me to shoot them nude (and it has happened), I simply tell them "no, I don't shoot nudes" but I will help you find someone reputable who does.
I feel that way I am able to hold true to my convictions without forcing them on someone who views them differently. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 02:21:56 PM · #24 |
Excellent posts, Karma and Lee. I tend to not like nude shots, and often score a 1-3 simply because they seem to be more about sex than art. I have seen some excellent artistic nudes and have scored them much higher, even though they are not of a subject I would choose. I think there is a difference in a tasteful nude and a shot that elicits erotic feelings, but I suppose everyone has their own limit on where to draw the line.
edit for spelling
Message edited by author 2006-12-28 14:22:36. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 02:27:20 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by karmat:
re: teaching my kids
When they reach the appropriate age to start making their life decisions, yes, but until then, it is my job, and privilege to teach them what I feel is right. And why I feel that way. What they do is up to them, and their responsibility. But at 5 and 2 (or 10 and 7, or 14 and 11) it is my responsibility.
|
Excellent reply.
|
|
