When can nude photography claim any artistic merit?

[Toastgirl]

When can nude photography claim any artistic merit?

In your views, what's the difference between an erotic but tasteful art nude photo and something that you wouldn't give artistic merit to?

It seems that art nude is about the body itself, studying the lines and forms of the person's figure rather than the person on the photo. Probably that is why many photographers shooting nude use B&W and light/shadow to show texture and shapes of the body...

I suspect it's partly down to personal taste, but it would be interesting to hear about different viewpoints.

[crmcatee]

Ooooh a Friday night drinking question.....



Personally - I dislike full length nudes (e.g. heads and feet) and prefer as you say - B&W nudes which highlight the shapes and form of the human body whether they be male or female.

[mybrainhurts]

Steady on...

[crmcatee]

I did prefix is it by saying I'd had a drink in..

[poo at Paul's]

Toastgirl said:

When can nude photography claim any artistic merit?

In your views, what's the difference between an erotic but tasteful art nude photo and something that you wouldn't give artistic merit to?

It seems that art nude is about the body itself, studying the lines and forms of the person's figure rather than the person on the photo. Probably that is why many photographers shooting nude use B&W and light/shadow to show texture and shapes of the body...

I suspect it's partly down to personal taste, but it would be interesting to hear about different viewpoints.

Post the ones you have and we'll let you know what we think..!

[Dogsey]

Look up Nobuyoshi Araki ... although possibly not while you're at work ... I love his work.

[dave-therave]

Any type of photography can have artistic merit in my opinion.

One of my favorite photographers is a guy called Terry Richardson and he produced a book called "Kibosh" which was basically photos of him having sex with models. It's actually a very funny book if you pick up on the (excuse the pun) tongue in cheek subtext but most people think it's just badly shot porn. I think it's brilliant but that doesn't mean it has any more or any less artistic merit than anything else that I may hate.

It's kinda like comparing the Ramones to Beethoven really. Both are very different but to the right people both have artistic merit.

[andy-xr]

Toastgirl said:

When can nude photography claim any artistic merit?

Whenever you want...interpretation of the photograph is pretty subjective. Taking your words to mean any nude photo, there's some extremes and the way they're shot I'm not entirely comfortable with - a exhibition piece (subsequently withdrawn because) of an underage photo is a good example. It wasnt what I wanted to see but clearly someone somewhere found artistic merit in it

Toastgirl said:

In your views, what's the difference between an erotic but tasteful art nude photo and something that you wouldn't give artistic merit to?

Yeah. I believe the latter is called Glamour

Nasty....

Toastgirl said:

It seems that art nude is about the body itself, studying the lines and forms of the person's figure rather than the person on the photo. Probably that is why many photographers shooting nude use B&W and light/shadow to show texture and shapes of the body...

Kind of agree, I'll send you a couple of links over as a reply to your Photoshop email when I get it

Edited by andy-xr on Saturday 14th November 07:27

[Toastgirl]

crmcatee said:

I did prefix is it by saying I'd had a drink in..

No excuses now Craig, you've said it. Thanks for sharing your view!

poo at Paul's said:

Post the ones you have and we'll let you know what we think..!

What a great idea...! (in your dreams)

Dogsey said:

Look up Nobuyoshi Araki ... although possibly not while you're at work ... I love his work.

I did and I found some nice shots, but quite a few I wouldn't give artistic merit to myself or not in the art nude category. I think these are the ones when the photo is not purely about the body (with its lines and forms), but other objectives come across stronger in the image. There are too many distractions on these images in my opinion. It could be the colours that are distracting, could be facial expressions, the pose, the location or surroundings etc. It seems that these photos want to create other feelings/emotions in the viewer rather than just the pure appreciation of the beauty of the human body.

dave-therave said:

One of my favorite photographers is a guy called Terry Richardson and he produced a book called "Kibosh" which was basically photos of him having sex with models. It's actually a very funny book if you pick up on the (excuse the pun) tongue in cheek subtext but most people think it's just badly shot porn. I think it's brilliant but that doesn't mean it has any more or any less artistic merit than anything else that I may hate.

I had a look at some of the photos from that book, tbh I can't say I like it as art nude. I don't view them being about the human body as the main objective, but sex. Thanks for your opinion though.

andy-xr said:

Toastgirl said:

It seems that art nude is about the body itself, studying the lines and forms of the person's figure rather than the person on the photo. Probably that is why many photographers shooting nude use B&W and light/shadow to show texture and shapes of the body...

Kind of agree, I'll send you a couple of links over as a reply to your Photoshop email when I get it

Sent an email yesterday I guess you haven't received it.

[Dogsey]

[quote=Toastgirl

Dogsey said:

Look up Nobuyoshi Araki ... although possibly not while you're at work ... I love his work.

... It seems that these photos want to create other feelings/emotions in the viewer rather than just the pure appreciation of the beauty of the human body.

Surely that is the difference between the "Glamour" style and art though, glamour photography is all about presenting the beauty of the human form, art on the other hand should be about creating (both positive and negative) thought and emotions about the image.

[Toastgirl]

Dogsey said:

Surely that is the difference between the "Glamour" style and art though, glamour photography is all about presenting the beauty of the human form, art on the other hand should be about creating (both positive and negative) thought and emotions about the image.

I don't think that "Glamour photography is all about presenting the beauty of the human form", I think the model and their sexuality also features in this type of photography much more than in art nude. Generally, the breast and genitalia are not even visible in glamour photography and its main aim is to emphasise attractiveness and create temptation.

On the other hand, agree that art nude can also create thoughts and emotions in the viewer, however its aim is not about being sexually suggestive.

[KenP]

So glamour or art nude?

Mod note: NSFW and please respect posting guidelines in future

http://www.net-model.com/UserImages/102009/1012200...
.
http://1x.com/OEfullSize/28719-fullsize.jpg

Edited on Sunday 15th November 22:59

[Toastgirl]

KenP said:

So glamour or art nude?

Both are art nude in my opinion, because their main objective is not about temptation and being sexually suggestive. What do you think?

[Nick M]

Toastgirl said:

KenP said:

So glamour or art nude?

Both are art nude in my opinion, because their main objective is not about temptation and being sexually suggestive. What do you think?

Actually I'd go as far as to say that temptation doesn't *immediately* feature in those images, because my first impression was how visually beautiful they are, with the lighting, DOF, poses, etc.

So art nude, definitely.

[stigmundfreud]

Toastgirl said:

When can nude photography claim any artistic merit?

In your views, what's the difference between an erotic but tasteful art nude photo and something that you wouldn't give artistic merit to?

It seems that art nude is about the body itself, studying the lines and forms of the person's figure rather than the person on the photo. Probably that is why many photographers shooting nude use B&W and light/shadow to show texture and shapes of the body...

I suspect it's partly down to personal taste, but it would be interesting to hear about different viewpoints.

the bed in my studio is there in preparation for a nude shoot. Hopefully that answers your flickr question and the resultwill be purely artistic not smut.

Edited by stigmundfreud on Monday 16th November 00:43