For reasons I appreciate, Jim has asked that I not post work from my series of nudes in landscapes on NPN.
That being said I would like to get some feedback on the work and trust Jim will find it acceptable if I post the URL.
Jim's edit - anyone who is interested in viewing David's gallery and/or giving him feedback on the photos, please contact him via email using the email icon below.
Posted by Eva McDermott on October 17, 2011 at 7:34 PM
Absolutely not! If I wanted to see that, and I don't, I could go to deviantart or redbubble or 500px and unclick the block nude feature. It has no place here IMO.
While it is appreciated American society is very conservative, if you don't want to see them don't use the link! Being in a remote location it is difficult for me to get the opinion of talented photographers.
Posted by Luke Ormand on October 17, 2011 at 8:17 PM
I agree with what Dave says in his post - Eva, with all due respect he was simply saying that he would like some feedback on his work which is completely voluntary and he explains the nature of the posts ahead of the link. If you look at the link (which you should only do if you are comfortable) it's clear that the images are not explicit or anything of that matter.
I think it's certainly not appropriate for NPN because that type of thing isn't expected but for a nature photographer to want some feedback is appropriate (in my opinion) in this forum.
Posted by Jim Bennett on October 18, 2011 at 1:02 AM
Eva, Not only did David give you fair warning in his post, the site also warns you before clicking that you understand before going to the pictures. Nobody forced you to look at those pictures! I also think that this is appropriately under "Hot Topics".
As for my feedback to David: I think that they are tastefully done and you have a nice variety of poses and editing techniques. However, most of the pictures look a little dark to me on my monitor.
Posted by Eva McDermott on October 18, 2011 at 1:29 AM
Conservative or not male? Its also sounds like to me, that David is asking to post such images here on NPN. I don't think it has a place here. I raised two sons, one 18 and one 22 now and know the male mind set quite well, so don't misinterpret what I'm saying as I think you all have so far. This is a nature photography site. If you want to post nude images there are MANY other sites to do that. Check out deviantart and redbubble which have nude art galleries. I just don't think those images belong here on NPN. ...and I did click the link Luke. I am not stupid or conservative. I just think NPN is a place for nature photography and not posed nudes in a landscape.
Personally, I don't have any issues with nude photography. However, I agree with Eva -- it doesn't belong here on NPN.
I also don't see what living in a remote location has to do with getting on-line feedback. If the link can be posted on NPN, it can just as easily be posted on other web-sites/forums that cater to nude photography.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 18, 2011 at 3:39 AM
There are 18 billion places to post or see nude work. It doesn't need to show up here, warning or not. If you can get to this site and post a link, you can get to any site and post a link. It appears more like just wanting to push the envelope. That may not have been the intention, but that's how it comes across.
Posted by Ronald Lutz on October 18, 2011 at 7:38 AM
I agree with Paul 100% also. And this is both before and after looking at Dave's work.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 18, 2011 at 9:13 AM
Its also sounds like to me, that David is asking to post such images here on NPN.
No, he's not. He (apparently, from what he posted) had previously asked, but Jim has already told him not to, and he's agreed to that.
I just think NPN is a place for nature photography and not posed nudes in a landscape.
I think that gets at the real question - are posed nudes in a landscape "nature photography"? I think that the OP thinks that it IS nature photography - hence the desire to post on this site. (And I apologize if I'm wrong there David.)
I think I'd agree that they aren't nature photography.
If Jim ask him not to post the images, then they are obviously not appropriate for this site. He should not have posted the url. If he wanted feed back from an NPN member in particular he should have requested that in an email. If he wants feedback in general, he should post on one of the sites available for that genre. IMO it's like asking a landowner, "may I walk through your gate?" and when he says no, climbing over the fence.
Posted by Charlie Baugh on October 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM
Eva is sensible. We all know the meaning of "slippery slope".
Posted by Luke Ormand on October 18, 2011 at 10:39 AM
I never meant to imply that Eva was not sensible or conservative or prudish or whatever term you want to use. I just think the reaction was over-the-top considering the original post. The poster was not posting images on this site, simply reaching out to other talented nature photographers and people with proven artistic eyes to comment on his work that certainly ties in to what we do here. I don't see a fundemental difference in that and me posting a link and asking for some people to comment on images of architecture or some other subject.
Posted by David Prichard on October 18, 2011 at 11:09 AM
The reason I elected to show this work via a url is that during my time on this forum I have come to appreciate and admire the level of work and critisim of many of the photographers here. Many places you can post a photo of a grey card and "fans" will say "What a great shot!" As to them not being strictly "nature" photography it might be said neither are many of those in either the man and nature or enviromental forums.
Originally, when the series reflected more of an abstract figure in nature theme, there was no complaint when a couple were posted in man and nature. A later one in the series had Jim Erhart tell me he felt while it had artistic merit he asked I not post such work in the forum directly. So it puts me in a bit of a bind. On one hand I feel there can be excellent criticism here, but Jim would prefer they not be directly posted. It would seem that posting a URL would solve this. I have difficulty understanding Eva's difficulty with people being able to choose whether they might care to look at them. I would point out to her that over the years I have won several awards internationally for such work.
And Jim B., yes some are a bit dark. As with much work done in a series, they are evolving. One of the models had a definate Pre-Raphlite look and I ran with it. Looks better in print.
Posted by Barbara Graham on October 18, 2011 at 11:24 AM
Understanding and accepting the "risk" I'm taking by posting this, my feedback to Dave is that I don't think nature is the point of most of the work I saw. I think the nudes are the point, and I don't mean that (and it's silly that it seems necessary to say this) prudishly in any way. You chose to pose them outdoors, but that doesn't make it nature. I do agree that sometimes nature doesn't seem to be the point in the M&N category, but for the most part I think it is. So to me the bottom line is, yes, this is an amazing place for critique, but it's for nature critique. I can't imagine there aren't other places similar in quality of critique for other types of photography.
Posted by David Prichard on October 18, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Barbara,
With repect to your opinion and that of some others, nothing is being shown on NPN. It is a matter of choice should one wish to view it. In the time I have been on NPN a number of photographers have posted either directly or usually by link, non-nature aspects of their work for critque without garnering this sort of indignation about it not being nature. The choice to put nude in the title was deliberate so that people who choose not to view it were forewarned.
"I raised two sons, one 18 and one 22 now and know the male mind set quite well," While I could say much about this comment, it is to be suspected it speaks for itself. I much perfer my wife's observation, when viewing the Kandinsky nudes at the Guggenheim, "I can see your influences." I was rather hoping to get something in the way of, "I can see Rossetti's influence but you haven't done him any justice."
While I have moved away from the original theme of abstract figure studies in an abstract landscape, I do believe the work has aspects of nature photography to it. And if you think it is easy to do well, try it. All that is being asked for is that those who may wish to critque from that point of view it feel free to do so. I must say I'm rather taken aback by some of the reaction. In forty years of showing this sort of work I haven't had such negative feedback largely on the fact that the work was nudes rather than any aesthetic merit.
For reasons I appreciate, Jim has asked that I not post work from my series of nudes in landscapes on NPN.
It appears to me that you put the words "in landscapes" in there and in your subject line to try to make a link to nature/NPN as the reason for your posting. My feedback to you was and is simply that for me the link you seemed to be establishing isn't there for me.
If I had a series of work on cups and saucers in the outdoors and I wanted to request feedback from my friends at NPN I wouldn't call it "Cups and Saucers in Nature." I'd post in the Member's Lounge and say, "Hey, guys, I've been trying some work with cups and saucers. If you have time and inclination, I'd love to know what you think." I would fully expect that if I tried to link my cups and saucers in the outdoors to nature photography I'd be called on it.
Hmm, not a personal fan of the stuff Dave as I think it's a bit too Ortonish. The blur thing takes away from the female form and natural aspect of it in my opinion. Makes it more...fairytalish...I know, not a word.
But in your defense, I have not found anything in the rules that state no nudes? Maybe I'm missing it. I'm more unnerved by the photos of animals mating than I would ever be of a nude adult. The stigmas in our society crack me up sometimes...taboo indeed.
And as far as I am aware man and woman are both originally from this planet...so we are a part of nature. Don't think we were born with clothes on either so technically you have more right to post these in the man and nature gallery than a lot of other stuff. ;]
And hell, you warned people...twice.
But children view and post on this website all the time! How could you!
I don't see anything wrong with simply posting the link and asking for feedback from those who wish to view it. Photographing nudes in nature is a popular genre, and there are other NPN'ers that shoot it as well (eg. Darwin Wiggett, Aaron Feinburg). Dave - don't take the reaction too harshly, perhaps you can shoot Darwin or Aaron an email and see if they know any good places to get feedback on this sort of photography (yes, it is difficult to find a place that is actually critical!).
All wildlife photography is done in the nude (well, the animals are nude, generally the photographers are clothed), so really, photographing people in the nude is more true 'nature' photography than is photographing clothed people, huts, castles, or roads. But, I understand that for the sake of keeping this site what it is, that line needs to be drawn, and I think Dave has politely heeded by Jim's request.
Yes, okay, no disagreement in any regard with anybody who posts anything with the word "nude" in it. It's an automatic pass, because to disagree with anything they say is to promote stigmas in society. Remember, knee-jerk reactions go both ways.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 18, 2011 at 1:37 PM
David, as a red-blooded American male, I like the photos! They seem tastefully done and I had no problem admiring the work for longer than I probably should have.
However, NPN is "G-rated" so such photos are a no-go here, but maybe on some other site that needs to be deveolped.
Since this is a members-only forum and there is adequate warning of what the viewer is about to see, I think this thread (and link) can stand for discussion purposes.
Posted by Guy Manning on October 18, 2011 at 1:59 PM
To me, these are classic nude studies done in nature.They are completely unoffensive. There are equivalents hanging on the walls of art museums all over the world. Yes, even in the US. I have to question the "exposure" to the history of the medium of those who find these images offensive. Apparently they don't know the works of people like Edward Weston, Wynn Bullock, Harry Callahan (he photographed his wife) and Edward Stieglitz who also photographed his wife. Let's see what was her name? Oh yeah, Georgia O'Keefe.
I actually attended an art school, way back when, and all of the students had to take life drawing, one or two semesters depending on their major. Shockingly the subjects in all of the classes were nude models. They weren't draped but butt naked. As photography majors we had a whole semester class with Mario Casilli (Playboy's top photog back then) shooting nudes. So I guess you could ask was the top commercial art school in the US is turning out a bunch of perverts. I hardly think so, it was just part of a well rounded exposure to the real world of photography.
I agree that this site should stay away from nudes as it can only eventually become a great big can of worms.But to castigate a person for posting a link, with fair warning, is a bit of a stretch. Though I am new here, I can't believe no one has ever posted a link to the pages of another product or portfolio in relation in a forum discussion.
As for the work itself. Some I like, some I don't, as usual. Technically, there is what I consider a flaw in some of the images in the upper half of the page. I see it in a number of photographers images when they are trying for the dramatic lighting. This is where they allow the light to fall off into black, absolute darkness with no texture or line visible.
Using the fourth image as an example the eye perceives only black (blank) space once it passes the core of the shadow on the body. You can't even tell where the edge of the frame is on the black web page. The eye wants to see some bit of line or form created on the right side of the body. A good way to do so would be to bring the background up to about Zone II, dark with just suggestions of background texture. This would allow the bodies complete form to be drawn against the background, helping to complete it..Another way would be to add some fill light to the dark side of the body, but this would be the lesser solution for me in this case.
Perception is a funny thing. When one removes all vestiges of detail like you have done here it leaves the image incomplete and makes the eyes look around in the dark, seeking for anything. This draws them off the subject. I think most people would much prefer that some detail be left in the photo, even if it resides way down the scale. Though we may not be able to discern what the object is, in this case the background, we at least get the small pleasure of discerning that something is indeed in that space. Once can often find unexpected surprises in the shadows.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 18, 2011 at 3:40 PM
If Jim ask him not to post the images, then they are obviously not appropriate for this site. He should not have posted the url.
Nancy - I disagree with this in principal. We talk about things that can't be posted in the critique forums all the time. There have been discussions on painting, sculpting, architectural photos, product photos, etc. and that's just fine. I don't see this as any different.
Yes, okay, no disagreement in any regard with anybody who posts anything with the word "nude" in it. It's an automatic pass, because to disagree with anything they say is to promote stigmas in society. Remember, knee-jerk reactions go both ways.
Barbara - I take that to mean you feel that you've been unduly reacted to? It's a little hard to tell as sarcasm (if that's what I'm reading) doesn't translate well on forums. I hope you don't feel slighted though; Your opinions are perfectly valid, as are everyone else's. It's actually a good discussion going on up above.
Posted by Charlie Baugh on October 18, 2011 at 4:45 PM
Society is what it is. Isn't this, in a way, self preservation for all who love the NPN site for what *it* is? This OP asked us to help him, as a group, evaluate his work. The site owner declined to have it on site and in a certain way it has been brought on site. For the owner it is a sound business decision and for many member it is a sound judgement not to complicate our interactions here by opening to nudity. If there is any prudity here it seems very minor. There does seem to me to be healthy intelligent concern for keeping NPN much the way it is.
Barbara - I take that to mean you feel that you've been unduly reacted to? It's a little hard to tell as sarcasm (if that's what I'm reading) doesn't translate well on forums. I hope you don't feel slighted though; Your opinions are perfectly valid, as are everyone else's. It's actually a good discussion going on up above.
I don't know if I can put this into words adequately, but it seems to me that no matter the reasons anyone gives here the responses to those reasons are of the "the stigmas in our society crack me up sometimes" type. Without every poster posting paragraph upon paragraph and indeed giving life history I don't think that type of response is warranted. No one here has any idea what any other person might consider acceptable in society. I thought this discussion was about NPN only. If it's not, we should clarify.
Posted by Eva McDermott on October 18, 2011 at 7:47 PM
First off, my original comment may have been over the top but I absolutely do not want to see NPN become another devientart or redbubble (I have accounts on both and post there regularly as well as 500px). I find NPN an oasis from the general public photo craze of anything goes with a strong focus on the beauty of natural scenes minus people except in M&N of course where man or man made elements are less than 25% of the scene. I also find the rebuttals in this thread very male centric mainly focused at my comments, Barbara's, and Nancy's.
So where are your MALE nudes in Landscape? ONLY KIDDING!....... but truthfully, there does seem to be a male bias here in this thread which was the point of my 2nd post but I guess got lost in translation or just how I put it into words late last night.
Has anyone here heard of Alan Abel and the group SINA? An interesting hoax that had quite a few believers. There's a movie out that details some af Alan's other hoaxes.
Thanks for letting the thread stand, didn't think it would generate such controversy. Perhaps the, it ain't nature, crowd would be molified if they were learn the model and I were chased down the beach by a black bear this past summer.
Nicolaus and Guy thank you for your observations. I take fairytalish to be compliment as that was a look I was seeking to emulate. They are deliberately dark, the local landscape, being near the treeline, is fairly stunted and bland I had hoped to use the dark to put some drama into it. I don't think a small screen version carrys the subtle aspects of prints. Don't know that I am completely happy with them but your comments have me thinking I'm moving in the right direction.
Eva, I do have a series of male nudes, but they are all studio, nothing nature about them other than the birthday suit.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 18, 2011 at 9:15 PM
I also find the rebuttals in this thread very male centric mainly focused at my comments, Barbara's, and Nancy's.
Thanks for clarifying your response Eva. I am curious about the sentence above. None of the rebuttals mentioned anything that I would construe as male-centric, other than they are directed at women. The rebuttals could have been identical if a male had typed exactly what you did. (I.e., in my view no one "rebutted" Paul or Ronald in the middle because they were mostly restating or agreeing with others.)
FWIW, the OP did address Paul and Anil by explaining why he was posting here rather than going to many of the other sites.
It's certainly possible (probable?) that males here subconsciously would be more likely to rebut something a woman said. But it might also be possible that the females on this forum had a stronger negative reaction to the photos which showed in their comments, leading to more rebuttals. I really don't know for sure - and either way, I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
Posted by Eva McDermott on October 18, 2011 at 10:03 PM
David - First off, I don't think most women in general like seeing nude women displayed as art. I don't..It is like... has the feel of the old time beauty pageants IMO.
As far as comments, stronger replies were posted to the said three women. ........ It is a general observation I have made as a scientist, (close to 35 years+ now) working in aerospace and electronics which are male dominated industries that women's opinions, wisdom are less regarded even in this day and age (even though they are proven to be right, eventually). So I know the feeling well reading the replies in this thread.
Posted by Barbara Graham on October 18, 2011 at 10:33 PM
So, if we're expanding the discussion beyond NPN to women as art in general, then this is no longer about Dave's work and NPN. (Please re-read that. Thanks.)
First off, I don't think most women in general like seeing nude women displayed as art. I don't..It is like... has the feel of the old time beauty pageants IMO .
Yep. You guys have formed your thoughts on women and beauty long ago in your lives, but you could still consider the many other sides of that multi-faceted coin.
Posted by Brian Gatlin on October 18, 2011 at 10:34 PM
I have to admit I'm baffled by the strong response by some against David's post.
The objections that it has no place on NPN seem superfluous--he already cleared that up with Jim--he knows that they shouldn't be posted here, so he HASN'T. Instead he's posted, with full warning, the opportunity to view and critique the work IF someone desires. That some people who DON'T want to see it have somehow still clicked the link and surprise! found themselves offended, I'd say that's their own fault.
Sure, nudes are a controversial genre of photography. There's plenty of other genres of photography and art that are also controversial or offensive to some people. And the same with any art. But should it really be out of bounds, on an art site devoted to a specific topic, to ask people who are interested to view and critique a different aspect of your art (at a website away from the site that it is not related to)??
Posted by Mark Stahlke on October 19, 2011 at 12:02 AM
Brian Gatlin wrote:
But should it really be out of bounds, on an art site devoted to a specific topic, to ask people who are interested to view and critique a different aspect of your art (at a website away from the site that it is not related to)??
Yes.
The key phrase is "devoted to a specific topic".
Frankly, Mr. Prichard's posting of the URL looks like a disingenuous, lawyerly way of skirting the rules. It looks like a way to post the images without technically posting the images.
Yes. The key phrase is "devoted to a specific topic".
I don't mean to stir up any flames here, so this is meant as a polite rhetorical question to illustrate a point: how is the depression era more related to nature photography than nudes in nature?
David posted in hot topics, not in say, the landscape discussion forum, or even the general forum. The point of the hot topics forum is to allow for topics that are not necessarily directly related to nature photography, but possibly of interest to us 'nature photographers', and often topics that are contentious. I think this topic fits here quite well.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 19, 2011 at 2:19 AM
OK...this might be straying from the topic again, but I'll ask - if no one wants to respond, fine.
First off, I don't think most women in general like seeing nude women displayed as art. I don't..It is like... has the feel of the old time beauty pageants IMO.
That's interesting Eva. I, personally, don't "get" art like the OP posted either, but I suppose I can understand the study of the human form as art (and yes, I understand that the female form as art is more common and that presents its own issues with gender equality and attitudes). Do you feel the same way about all "nude" art - i.e. greek statues, Renaissance paintings, etc.? If not, are the qualms about these because their not obviously historical art like those?
As for the other part, I'd be curious to know if you can point to something specific that this quote :
"So I know the feeling well reading the replies in this thread"
refers to. Or is just a general sense of the way things are phrased/stated? I work in the same industry as you, and I can appreciate, although not relate to, the type of behavior that you mentioned. But as I said before, I don't see it here.
Just throwing this thought out there -- if art of a time period reflects society of that time period, and if a person agrees that historically there has been a problem with male society's attitude toward women, then historical art may be representative of a historical problem.
Posted by Eva McDermott on October 19, 2011 at 3:45 AM
If the original post was of male nudes, how many of you would have responded to this thread? Think about it and please answer truthfully.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 19, 2011 at 8:57 AM
Just throwing this thought out there -- if art of a time period reflects society of that time period, and if a person agrees that historically there has been a problem with male society's attitude toward women, then historical art may be representative of a historical problem.
Perhaps - that's a valid line of thought. But I also think in a society that did not have any issues with male attitude towards women, you'd probably be likely to get nude art as well. It would still probably be done in appreciation of the human body for the amazing thing it is. Perhaps it would be done completely differently though?
And for that matter, there is a lot of male nudity in certain periods of history (although I'm not very well versed here). Greek culture had lots of nudes of both sexes - the statue of David springing to mind here.
If the original post was of male nudes, how many of you would have responded to this thread? Think about it and please answer truthfully.
For me, it would have been identical, all else being equal. I have mainly been responding to others, rather than the OP, so if others' responses were the same, I believe mine would have been as well. My first post was to clarify that the OP was not actually trying to post these photos here, and to ask if nudes (of either sex, although that wasn't explicitly stated) in a landscape could be called "nature photography".
Posted by Brian Gatlin on October 19, 2011 at 9:16 AM
I suppose what this boils down to for me is:
For those opposed to David's post, do you feel it's inappropriate to invite people here to go offsite to view and critique any type of photography that is not nature photography, or just genres you might personally find offensive?
What about links to people's websites below their signatures--should those only be permitted if they are strictly nature photography?
Do you think that the NPN lounge where people post on-site (gasp) non-nature photos of pets and family members is an egregious violation of the purpose of the site?
Sounds stifling to me. I'm glad to know that people here have other interests and art--and if it doesn't interest me, or I might find it offensive, I'm free to stay here and not view it.
But I also think in a society that did not have any issues with male attitude towards women, you'd probably be likely to get nude art as well. It would still probably be done in appreciation of the human body for the amazing thing it is. Perhaps it would be done completely differently though?
Yes, I'm sure you're right in the first part and I agree with you that it would probably be done differently. I was thinking about the Greek culture this morning, and that culture does seem to have been different (though I am not a scholar of Greek culture).
If the object of the art were the human body for the amazing thing it is, that amazingness doesn't only exist at the height of perceived beauty. It's amazing from birth to death, even as it fights to stay amazing in the latter years of life.
This is such a huge issue that I don't know that any conversation can even touch on the issues without lasting for months if not years. But think about, for example, photos of aging prizefighters. That's just one very small subset of men, but it still exists in the realm of photography and art. It's very rare to see nude photos of aging women. I think that if there were to be more collections of nude photography of aging women they'd be very likely to be done by women instead of men. Would you agree with that?
Brian, I answered some of your questions in a previous post (before you asked them), but to reiterate, I think calling them "nudes in landscapes" is trying to relate them to NPN. I don't think they are related to NPN. I would therefore have posted the link in the Member's Lounge and not tried to relate it to NPN in any way.
Yes, nudity is natural. That's still not NPN. Yes, it is in my opinion for the most part silly for animals to wear clothes (except maybe in really cold weather for animals without much fur, I guess). It is also silly in my opinion to even bring that up in this conversation, as was done.
Problem with the link? No. Problem with trying to relate it, however sideways, to NPN? Yes.
Problem with nudity? No. Problem with nude women as art? See the conversation above. I'd much rather see nude women that have lived and fought the battles of life and show it.
If I answered honestly, would you have believed me?
Once a person forms an opinion of someone's words, usually it's not going to change.
And Floris's post hit the nail on the head.
Just seems some folks here were offended, while others were not. Happens all the time in forums. Just lucky there are not trolls all under this site or we'd be doomed.
To me this is much ado about nothing. David's post disclosed the nature of his images and left it up to each of us to make an individual decision about viewing them. He sought our critical reactions as fellow artists. For that reason I have no problem with the post. He sought feedback on the merit, not the morals, of his work, so why bother with a debate over the (very subjective and personal) morals of it?
Phil and those who agree with Phil: Could you point out to me any post where anyone's talking about morals? I don't get why some of you keep saying that.
David Bostedo and anyone else who might be interested: Women as art is one of the most interesting conversations I've had in a while. We could possibly move away from this thread and start a new one about that, or not.
I would be curious if you have read the American social commentor Camille Paglia, specificly her book Sexual Personae. While it is difficult to summerize a long book in a few sentences, her basic premise is sexuality, or rather fertility, has been the driving force of art and culture since humanity has had art and culture. That women, as much as men, if not more so, have shaped the perceptions we have of women. An example of this would be that young contemperary women consider Marlyn Monroe "too fat." She also uses the examples of Madonna and Lady GaGa emphasizing their sexuality to rebel against what they consider to be the conservatism of recent feminism.
As this discussion has changed perhaps you will indulge me to explain the background of my shooting. Eva, the models are, all but one, older women approaching 40, one near 50. Two were mothers, stretch marks and all. So I was not after glamour shots. It is also very hard to get good outdoor models. Being a small town I do have to bring professional models in. When reviewing model sites most of those that model nude do want to do studio glamour work by choice. I have found the better outdoor models generally are older and have some sort of athletic background, dance, swimming, gymnastics etc., artist's model seem too static for photography. The female photographers I know that shoot nudes, and they are straight, prefer women or gay men. My suspicion is that they are more body aware than straight men are and it does reflect in the work.
To return to is NPN appropriate? A story. One of my friends was banned from a local cyber photo board for suggesting a shot of a flower may have been better if less depth of field had been used. Given such local circumstances, I think it could be understood why I might seek out the opinion of photographers whose work and opinion I have come to value. I would suggest that had I posted a link to some new architectural work it would not have generated such interest.
There are other members who live in remote areas. Would you deem it improper for them to post links to recent work for critque if it wasn't directly nature related?
In the end, I do consider them landscapes. Clothed or not, I suspect many here have found how difficult it can be to photograph a person in a landscape without one overpowering the other. It is for this reason I sought the opinion of my peers. As others have noted, there are many places to post nudes, to get sound and serious critque is another matter.
Dave, I love your post. Thank you for taking the time to post that. I have not read Sexual Personae, but it's $12.99 on Amazon right now and I'm ordering it.
I went back and looked at your work again, and on more careful viewing I can see what you describe in your second paragraph. I think that's awesome.
About your local cyber photo board ban you mentioned, .
About your original post, architecture, etc., wouldn't be posted in Hot Topics. If it's just another type of photography it doesn't need to be in Hot Topics.
I think you've had more experience with photography groups and forums and sites than I have, and so your statement that "to get sound and serious critique is another matter" sounds right.
Barbara, I suppose it is possible that I erred in suggesting that this thread is somewhat moralistic. My belief, however, is that certain reactions to the original post were largely the product of the fact that nudity is an element of the photos at the link. I think it very unlikely that we would have had a similarly vigorous debate over "Cups and Saucers in Nature."
In any event, the point of my post was that we're all adults and artists here (well, I'm being a bit generous to myself on both counts). We can decide what we want to view, or not view, and those of us with an interest in the subject matter can express an artistic critique if desired. That's all David was asking for in the first place, and reasonably enough in my opinion.
Posted by Lynn Jones on October 19, 2011 at 4:45 PM
Hi folks,
I have no problem with this organization feeling that nude human bodies should not be included (although other nude living creature are OK). Some of the responses were pretty "far out", when a simple "I don't agree with that would have done". I've been a working photographer for over 6 decades and 20+ years photo professor and I love women and the female figure, I've never personally been good at that kind of photography, although my wife is incredibly good in "figures in the landscape", male and female.. I'm old enough to remember when the late Bruce Downes published an occasional nude in Pop Photo in from '48 or '49 and you would have the world would come to an end, however it didn't. Just relax and enjoy nature photography as many of us do.
If nothing else, this certainly has garnered some attention! While I like the form of mankind - especially of the female type (well just the female type), I, too, do not find it appropriate on NPN. Even the suggestion of going to a site where there are nudes irks me, although I am not mad at the poster. I get enough sexual spam already. Maybe the images are really unique and super (I have not gone to the site). I just don't think this is the forum to use to ask for nudity image feedback. NPN really seems to be a general audience where G is the rating of the day. Just shouldn't come up. Ok, that's it for me, now my darker side will go look at the images!
Posted by David Bostedo on October 19, 2011 at 7:31 PM
I get enough sexual spam already.
That's an interesting comment, even if made as a joke Troup. I think a lot of people don't separate nudity from sexuality from pornography. I think there are wide distinctions there, but I can understand that for many people it's easier/better just to lump them all together and treat it all the same. Sometimes I'm sure I do the same thing. Certainly, some of the difference is in the eye of the beholder too.
To continue our discussion on the representation of women in art, I would suggest our current portrayal of women, from a historical perspective, is one of health rather than the desires of men. The rendering of men has largely gone unchanged over the ages. The well muscled, six paxk abs man has, and continues to be, the stereotype. Women on the other hand have changed dramatically in the last serveral decades.
To use the term Reubenesque of a woman today is to politely imply she is overweight. If one reviews depictions of women in Western art over the ages, they are generally plump. Plump meant healthy, heathy meant fertile. We forget that as recently as Victorian times about half of all children died before age five. With better sanitary, nutrition and medical conditions the need for fertility has diminished. As a consquence women's perceptions of the ideal is a slimer figure. Search out early pics from Playboy on the Internet. Most of those women would not make current editions as they are generally more full figured than is acceptable today. That is how quickly it is changing and I would suggest it is as much to do with women's perception of themselves as any demands men might have.
Dave, that's really interesting. There's real controversy around women's perception of themselves and the reasons for that perception, and some would call some of women's perceptions of themselves a life and death matter, but adding health as it relates to fertility into the mix isn't something I had thought of before. I haven't done any real research. I've only paid attention to the articles that I come across in my interactions with female family (three sisters, a daughter and a niece in particular) and women friends, message boards, etc. I'm going to research now. I did order the book you mentioned, and I'll look for more. If you do have or notice any other titles, please let me know.
Posted by David Prichard on October 20, 2011 at 12:39 AM
Barbara,
Paglia was a columnist for Salon for a while and still does some commentary for them. A search of their site should bring up some of her work.
One of your links questioned why there are not more successful female artists. I would counter why aren't more successful female artists acknowledged? Georgia O'Keefe springs to mind. In posing nude for Stieglitz did she contravene modern feminist thought and as a consquence been sidelined? In my personal experience, while anecdotal, the limitations placed on women by other women are much stricter than those by men.
Women in the arts.It would seem to fit under "Hot Topics." Hopefully others may join in.
I have to get really low on the ground to make this molehill look like a mountain.
Nudes in the landscape is a long-established discipline, even as I don't think it really has a place on NPN. All I've seen is more about the human form than the landscape. For me it's no more about porn or titillation than the art classes with nude models in virtually every college across the country.
To illustrate, we have something approaching a dozen books from mainline publishers on photographing nudes on the shelf behind me right now. They're my wife's, as a matter of fact. She's been photographing nudes in the studio and in the landscape for 20 years- all of them clients. Photos of themselves or their loved ones for display in their own homes. She even has a selection on the walls in her studio, with permission of the clients. It's simply not a large deal, and done right is quite tasteful and artistic. Right for NPN? Maybe if NPN starts a gallery of portraiture, but within the current spread of galleries, no.
As for Dave using the link to hype his work? No more than anyone else who posts a link, whether to their web site, their latest photos, or any other photos they admire. I suspect if you explore the web sites of many other members linked in the signature lines here at NPN you'll find nude photos, just as you'll find them in the bodies of work from many, many photographers and artists down through time.
As for women in the arts as a "hot" topic? I've been married to one and admiring her and her work for 43 years, so I doubt I can be objective.
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 20, 2011 at 6:23 PM
I don't have any feelings one way or another about the link that was posted other than believing that nudes don't have a place on NPN, but I am posting this because I saw one thing that bothered me.
Reply posted by Phil Pogledich on 10/19/11 at 1:29 pm MDT
In any event, the point of my post was that we're all adults and artists here (well, I'm being a bit generous to myself on both counts).
We have NPN members who are as young as 11 and 13 years old, so not everyone on NPN is an adult, but they are members and they can see this thread.
I'd leave it alone expect for the fact this thread may now be about NPN policy rather than my work. I think this may be the first time we have disagreed.
Lets review the whole process. Originally I had posted a couple of abstract nudes in man and nature, no complaints. When a further one was posted that show a female breast Jim took it down explaining that, while he had no problem with the artistic merits of the photo, it was an open public forum. I understand and accept this reasoning.
Leibovitz's recent work, where she seems to seek a painterly look in her photography, held no attraction for me. Then in this past summer's shoot, and a bit to my own amazement, my work emulates a painterly style. I'd like some feedback on it. As you note, nudes in landscapes are not a revelation. NPN seems the answer as not only are there photographers dealing with nature subjects, but have a depth of experience in other aspects of the art.
As Jim's guidelines, to my understanding, precluded such work being available to the general public the work was put on my blog and the link posted in Hot Topics as it is only available to members. Rather than pushing the envelope as some have suggested, it seems an equitable solution as the public isn't involved.
As you note, and a difficulty for Jim, is members post links to their sites with their signature line. Should such a link contain nudes and somebody complain, does Jim have to have that member remove the link? As he can't police all the links, does everybody need remove them for fear there may be something, somewhere, that may offend somebody?
Further to this point, if we are using the 'it has to be nature' criteria, if a member is trying a new portrait lighting technique or would like members to review an architectural assignment, it seems they would be precluded from doing so. This not a If I can't, you can't argument. Rather I think members should be able to elicit the comments and critiques of their peers for work that may be non-nature on an offsite location. It does no harm to NPN and benefits members.
I could understand negative criticism of my actual work but am am at a bit of a loss to understand the reaction against nudes. As others have pointed out, no suggestive e-mails have been sent out, no redirecting of web pages, just a simple invitation, clearly indicating nudes are at the other end. Don't see what all the fuss is about. Mind you I'm at an age where naked women prowling around the house means I most likely won't get into the bathroom for a while.
As for this nonsense of 11 year olds whipping out their credit cards to become members. Even if Mommy bought the membership, if they are looking for prurient on the internet, they were there long before they got to NPN.
Hank, if your wife has any of her work on-line perhaps you could send me a URL. As we share a similar geography and topography, it would be interesting to see how she utilized it.
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 20, 2011 at 9:26 PM
David, If you do not believe me about the young members ask Jim Erhardt. I'm not spouting nonsense.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on October 20, 2011 at 10:01 PM
Further to this point, if we are using the 'it has to be nature' criteria, if a member is trying a new portrait lighting technique or would like members to review an architectural assignment, it seems they would be precluded from doing so.
May I suggest that if someone is seeking feedback on portrait or architectural photography they will probably get more and better feedback on a different website. This is, after all, Nature Photographers Network and most of the folks here specialize in nature photography.
Posted by David Prichard on October 20, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Mia,
There may well be members that young. I seem to recall, at that age, my buddies and I passing around purloined copies of Playboy. My nephew, at that age would pursue stuff on the internet. I've two degrees and am in a contented relationship. He has three degrees and was in a good relationship. Alas he broke up. He wanted to work overseas, she didn't. Sorry I just don't buy your argument. Kids seeing nudity is nothing new, they don't become monsters. I'm very close to being offended that you would think a photo of mine would somehow corrupt a youngster in a society where highly sexualized billboards of underwear is the norm or they need only turn on the TV to see artificially endowed women running on the beach in bikinis ostensibly to save drowning people.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 20, 2011 at 11:09 PM
I'm very close to being offended that you would think a photo of mine would somehow corrupt a youngster in a society where highly sexualized billboards of underwear is the norm or they need only turn on the TV to see artificially endowed women running on the beach in bikinis ostensibly to save drowning people.
While I completely agree with you Dave, I do have to side with Mia here - in that it's not directly up to us to decide what is available to people on this site. That would be up to Jim, and whatever standards he wants to set for it. If he chooses to make it completely G rated, for whatever reason, that's up to him. (It can, of course, be indirectly up to the membership in choosing whether or not they participate and renew their membership.)
FWIW, even for parents (or others) that are very concerned about nudity, there is a gray are in there. I'd think most people would not care if you posted a link to a portfolio of renaissance paintings of nude women - particularly if it was a general art site. In this case, photos, and those not created by someone well known to be an artist (like a famous painter or sculpter), will tend to get a different reaction, logical or not. Even if the subject matter may largely be the same.
For now, of course, your link is still available.
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 20, 2011 at 11:22 PM
David, I said nothing about your photos being offensive or corrupting youngsters. I wasn't arguing about anything. I simply stated that we (NPN members) are not all adults and that there are in fact minors on this board. If you are offended by that, I believe that is your issue.
Mia - your arguments are irrelevant, as when one clicks on the link there is a content warning asking you to certify that you are an adult.
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM
Floris, again I will say that I simply stated that there are NPN members who are not adults. That isn't an arguement, it is a statement of fact. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand.
Mia, I'm not arguing that fact - it is quite easy to understand, I'm just saying that that fact doesn't have any bearing on the discussion at hand, so I don't see how correcting Phil's mistaken assumption is worth talking about.
Floris, I beg to differ. I think Mia has raised a very good point, and one that has me concerned too. I have personally encouraged the parents of several children, who have shown an interest in nature photography, to get them NPN memberships. This was done with the understanding that NPN doesn't contain or point to nudity. If that is no longer the case, then I think this should be made clear. I will then have the embarassing task of explaining this to a few folks, who had specifically asked me about this fact.
It doesn't matter to me which way NPN goes, but I am sad to see that David is continuing to push this when he could have sought whatever input he wanted without posting the link. In any case, that is my opinion and I don't expect others to agree with it.
I have to admit I find it preposterous that the only thing that may have bothered someone in this thread was my oversight regarding the age of some NPN members. Obviously, that's not the real issue and I'm a bit dismayed that someone would feign offense at my oversight rather than putting their own sentiments out there for similar scrutiny.
Of course, I'm sure I'm not nearly as offended as David, who has had to repeatedly defend posting nothing more than a link to his work.
Without wishing to appear to be rude to, or mocking of, the "It ain't Nature' view, it is a point to be addressed. I do agree that images of Fred's portrait lighting techniques or Linda's experimentation with new software don't have a place in NPN galleries. But for the life of me I am at a complete loss as to understand why, if they elect to post a URL for comments, so many are dead set against it. You may not be interested. Fine, don't click the link.
Over the course of my career, having worked in different facets of photography, learned how an aspect of one type can be useful in another use. That the unrelated work of colleagues has an application in something I am doing. It may be that in posting a link to recent work, Fred may benefit from others critiques. It may also prove that the work may be of use to those viewing it, even in a nature application.
While I don't know where Jim may land on this, not to allow others to post URLs to non-nature work robs us all of the experience and talents of fellow members and diminishes our photographic capabilities.
Posted by Cindy Garwood on October 23, 2011 at 9:42 PM
I can't even read all these posts it's making my head spin. You either enter his site or not. Its your choice to click on the link. Then it gives you another warning. If you don't want to view don't click.
Dave, I think they are very tasteful and elegant. Some of the pictures seem a little on the dark side but all in all well done.
Hank, if your wife has any of her work on-line perhaps you could send me a URL. As we share a similar geography and topography, it would be interesting to see how she utilized it.
It's all contractual work Dave, and if any of it's on the web, the clients put it there. Probably half of the studio work is pregnancy photos or photos of mom and dad with new babies. Much of the outdoor work is what my wife calls "coming out" photos- mostly women or men who have recently lost a lot of weight, taken up body building, or emerged from destructive relationships and are embarking on new lives. As I recall, something like 99% is B&W with no frontal nudity showing genitalia.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 25, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Anil said;
I have personally encouraged the parents of several children, who have shown an interest in nature photography, to get them NPN memberships. This was done with the understanding that NPN doesn't contain or point to nudity.
This is an important point and one that must be maintained. I think NPN does more "good" to get young people interested in nature photography than expanding its borders to include photography that some may find offensive.
This is in no way a commentary on those who enjoy other kinds of photography that does not fit on NPN. For example, I have photos of firearms in natural settings that I'm sure some would find offensive as well so I do not post them here or even links to them.
It's entirely a matter of staying focused on what has always been our mission and remaining true to NPN's trademark. It's really as simple as that.
Thanks to all who participated in this thread, I think it was quite useful.
I am editing David's original post to delete the link - anyone who is interested in viewing David's gallery can contact him via email to get the link.
Discussion
72 repliesThat being said I would like to get some feedback on the work and trust Jim will find it acceptable if I post the URL.
Jim's edit - anyone who is interested in viewing David's gallery and/or giving him feedback on the photos, please contact him via email using the email icon below.
While it is appreciated American society is very conservative, if you don't want to see them don't use the link! Being in a remote location it is difficult for me to get the opinion of talented photographers.
I think it's certainly not appropriate for NPN because that type of thing isn't expected but for a nature photographer to want some feedback is appropriate (in my opinion) in this forum.
As for my feedback to David: I think that they are tastefully done and you have a nice variety of poses and editing techniques. However, most of the pictures look a little dark to me on my monitor.
I also don't see what living in a remote location has to do with getting on-line feedback. If the link can be posted on NPN, it can just as easily be posted on other web-sites/forums that cater to nude photography.
No, he's not. He (apparently, from what he posted) had previously asked, but Jim has already told him not to, and he's agreed to that.
I think that gets at the real question - are posed nudes in a landscape "nature photography"? I think that the OP thinks that it IS nature photography - hence the desire to post on this site. (And I apologize if I'm wrong there David.)
I think I'd agree that they aren't nature photography.
Originally, when the series reflected more of an abstract figure in nature theme, there was no complaint when a couple were posted in man and nature. A later one in the series had Jim Erhart tell me he felt while it had artistic merit he asked I not post such work in the forum directly. So it puts me in a bit of a bind. On one hand I feel there can be excellent criticism here, but Jim would prefer they not be directly posted. It would seem that posting a URL would solve this. I have difficulty understanding Eva's difficulty with people being able to choose whether they might care to look at them. I would point out to her that over the years I have won several awards internationally for such work.
And Jim B., yes some are a bit dark. As with much work done in a series, they are evolving. One of the models had a definate Pre-Raphlite look and I ran with it. Looks better in print.
With repect to your opinion and that of some others, nothing is being shown on NPN. It is a matter of choice should one wish to view it. In the time I have been on NPN a number of photographers have posted either directly or usually by link, non-nature aspects of their work for critque without garnering this sort of indignation about it not being nature. The choice to put nude in the title was deliberate so that people who choose not to view it were forewarned.
"I raised two sons, one 18 and one 22 now and know the male mind set quite well," While I could say much about this comment, it is to be suspected it speaks for itself. I much perfer my wife's observation, when viewing the Kandinsky nudes at the Guggenheim, "I can see your influences." I was rather hoping to get something in the way of, "I can see Rossetti's influence but you haven't done him any justice."
While I have moved away from the original theme of abstract figure studies in an abstract landscape, I do believe the work has aspects of nature photography to it. And if you think it is easy to do well, try it. All that is being asked for is that those who may wish to critque from that point of view it feel free to do so. I must say I'm rather taken aback by some of the reaction. In forty years of showing this sort of work I haven't had such negative feedback largely on the fact that the work was nudes rather than any aesthetic merit.
It appears to me that you put the words "in landscapes" in there and in your subject line to try to make a link to nature/NPN as the reason for your posting. My feedback to you was and is simply that for me the link you seemed to be establishing isn't there for me.
If I had a series of work on cups and saucers in the outdoors and I wanted to request feedback from my friends at NPN I wouldn't call it "Cups and Saucers in Nature." I'd post in the Member's Lounge and say, "Hey, guys, I've been trying some work with cups and saucers. If you have time and inclination, I'd love to know what you think." I would fully expect that if I tried to link my cups and saucers in the outdoors to nature photography I'd be called on it.
But in your defense, I have not found anything in the rules that state no nudes? Maybe I'm missing it. I'm more unnerved by the photos of animals mating than I would ever be of a nude adult. The stigmas in our society crack me up sometimes...taboo indeed.
And as far as I am aware man and woman are both originally from this planet...so we are a part of nature. Don't think we were born with clothes on either so technically you have more right to post these in the man and nature gallery than a lot of other stuff. ;]
And hell, you warned people...twice.
But children view and post on this website all the time! How could you!
All wildlife photography is done in the nude (well, the animals are nude, generally the photographers are clothed), so really, photographing people in the nude is more true 'nature' photography than is photographing clothed people, huts, castles, or roads. But, I understand that for the sake of keeping this site what it is, that line needs to be drawn, and I think Dave has politely heeded by Jim's request.
However, NPN is "G-rated" so such photos are a no-go here, but maybe on some other site that needs to be deveolped.
Since this is a members-only forum and there is adequate warning of what the viewer is about to see, I think this thread (and link) can stand for discussion purposes.
I actually attended an art school, way back when, and all of the students had to take life drawing, one or two semesters depending on their major. Shockingly the subjects in all of the classes were nude models. They weren't draped but butt naked. As photography majors we had a whole semester class with Mario Casilli (Playboy's top photog back then) shooting nudes. So I guess you could ask was the top commercial art school in the US is turning out a bunch of perverts. I hardly think so, it was just part of a well rounded exposure to the real world of photography.
I agree that this site should stay away from nudes as it can only eventually become a great big can of worms.But to castigate a person for posting a link, with fair warning, is a bit of a stretch. Though I am new here, I can't believe no one has ever posted a link to the pages of another product or portfolio in relation in a forum discussion.
As for the work itself. Some I like, some I don't, as usual. Technically, there is what I consider a flaw in some of the images in the upper half of the page. I see it in a number of photographers images when they are trying for the dramatic lighting. This is where they allow the light to fall off into black, absolute darkness with no texture or line visible.
Using the fourth image as an example the eye perceives only black (blank) space once it passes the core of the shadow on the body. You can't even tell where the edge of the frame is on the black web page. The eye wants to see some bit of line or form created on the right side of the body. A good way to do so would be to bring the background up to about Zone II, dark with just suggestions of background texture. This would allow the bodies complete form to be drawn against the background, helping to complete it..Another way would be to add some fill light to the dark side of the body, but this would be the lesser solution for me in this case.
Perception is a funny thing. When one removes all vestiges of detail like you have done here it leaves the image incomplete and makes the eyes look around in the dark, seeking for anything. This draws them off the subject. I think most people would much prefer that some detail be left in the photo, even if it resides way down the scale. Though we may not be able to discern what the object is, in this case the background, we at least get the small pleasure of discerning that something is indeed in that space. Once can often find unexpected surprises in the shadows.
Nancy - I disagree with this in principal. We talk about things that can't be posted in the critique forums all the time. There have been discussions on painting, sculpting, architectural photos, product photos, etc. and that's just fine. I don't see this as any different.
Barbara - I take that to mean you feel that you've been unduly reacted to? It's a little hard to tell as sarcasm (if that's what I'm reading) doesn't translate well on forums. I hope you don't feel slighted though; Your opinions are perfectly valid, as are everyone else's. It's actually a good discussion going on up above.
I don't know if I can put this into words adequately, but it seems to me that no matter the reasons anyone gives here the responses to those reasons are of the "the stigmas in our society crack me up sometimes" type. Without every poster posting paragraph upon paragraph and indeed giving life history I don't think that type of response is warranted. No one here has any idea what any other person might consider acceptable in society. I thought this discussion was about NPN only. If it's not, we should clarify.
So where are your MALE nudes in Landscape? ONLY KIDDING!....... but truthfully, there does seem to be a male bias here in this thread which was the point of my 2nd post but I guess got lost in translation or just how I put it into words late last night.
NPN, as is, means a lot to me.
Here's a reference.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Indecency_to_Naked_Animals
Thanks for letting the thread stand, didn't think it would generate such controversy. Perhaps the, it ain't nature, crowd would be molified if they were learn the model and I were chased down the beach by a black bear this past summer.
Nicolaus and Guy thank you for your observations. I take fairytalish to be compliment as that was a look I was seeking to emulate. They are deliberately dark, the local landscape, being near the treeline, is fairly stunted and bland I had hoped to use the dark to put some drama into it. I don't think a small screen version carrys the subtle aspects of prints. Don't know that I am completely happy with them but your comments have me thinking I'm moving in the right direction.
Eva, I do have a series of male nudes, but they are all studio, nothing nature about them other than the birthday suit.
Thanks for clarifying your response Eva. I am curious about the sentence above. None of the rebuttals mentioned anything that I would construe as male-centric, other than they are directed at women. The rebuttals could have been identical if a male had typed exactly what you did. (I.e., in my view no one "rebutted" Paul or Ronald in the middle because they were mostly restating or agreeing with others.)
FWIW, the OP did address Paul and Anil by explaining why he was posting here rather than going to many of the other sites.
It's certainly possible (probable?) that males here subconsciously would be more likely to rebut something a woman said. But it might also be possible that the females on this forum had a stronger negative reaction to the photos which showed in their comments, leading to more rebuttals. I really don't know for sure - and either way, I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
As far as comments, stronger replies were posted to the said three women. ........ It is a general observation I have made as a scientist, (close to 35 years+ now) working in aerospace and electronics which are male dominated industries that women's opinions, wisdom are less regarded even in this day and age (even though they are proven to be right, eventually). So I know the feeling well reading the replies in this thread.
Yep. You guys have formed your thoughts on women and beauty long ago in your lives, but you could still consider the many other sides of that multi-faceted coin.
Check out these links:
http://sylvanend.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/women-as-art/
http://inthefray.org/images/stories/mpn/issues/200306/imagine/matisse22/matisse22-page4.html
The objections that it has no place on NPN seem superfluous--he already cleared that up with Jim--he knows that they shouldn't be posted here, so he HASN'T. Instead he's posted, with full warning, the opportunity to view and critique the work IF someone desires. That some people who DON'T want to see it have somehow still clicked the link and surprise! found themselves offended, I'd say that's their own fault.
Sure, nudes are a controversial genre of photography. There's plenty of other genres of photography and art that are also controversial or offensive to some people. And the same with any art. But should it really be out of bounds, on an art site devoted to a specific topic, to ask people who are interested to view and critique a different aspect of your art (at a website away from the site that it is not related to)??
Yes.
The key phrase is "devoted to a specific topic".
Frankly, Mr. Prichard's posting of the URL looks like a disingenuous, lawyerly way of skirting the rules. It looks like a way to post the images without technically posting the images.
I don't mean to stir up any flames here, so this is meant as a polite rhetorical question to illustrate a point: how is the depression era more related to nature photography than nudes in nature?
David posted in hot topics, not in say, the landscape discussion forum, or even the general forum. The point of the hot topics forum is to allow for topics that are not necessarily directly related to nature photography, but possibly of interest to us 'nature photographers', and often topics that are contentious. I think this topic fits here quite well.
That's interesting Eva. I, personally, don't "get" art like the OP posted either, but I suppose I can understand the study of the human form as art (and yes, I understand that the female form as art is more common and that presents its own issues with gender equality and attitudes). Do you feel the same way about all "nude" art - i.e. greek statues, Renaissance paintings, etc.? If not, are the qualms about these because their not obviously historical art like those?
As for the other part, I'd be curious to know if you can point to something specific that this quote :
"So I know the feeling well reading the replies in this thread"
refers to. Or is just a general sense of the way things are phrased/stated? I work in the same industry as you, and I can appreciate, although not relate to, the type of behavior that you mentioned. But as I said before, I don't see it here.
Perhaps - that's a valid line of thought. But I also think in a society that did not have any issues with male attitude towards women, you'd probably be likely to get nude art as well. It would still probably be done in appreciation of the human body for the amazing thing it is. Perhaps it would be done completely differently though?
And for that matter, there is a lot of male nudity in certain periods of history (although I'm not very well versed here). Greek culture had lots of nudes of both sexes - the statue of David springing to mind here.
For me, it would have been identical, all else being equal. I have mainly been responding to others, rather than the OP, so if others' responses were the same, I believe mine would have been as well. My first post was to clarify that the OP was not actually trying to post these photos here, and to ask if nudes (of either sex, although that wasn't explicitly stated) in a landscape could be called "nature photography".
For those opposed to David's post, do you feel it's inappropriate to invite people here to go offsite to view and critique any type of photography that is not nature photography, or just genres you might personally find offensive?
What about links to people's websites below their signatures--should those only be permitted if they are strictly nature photography?
Do you think that the NPN lounge where people post on-site (gasp) non-nature photos of pets and family members is an egregious violation of the purpose of the site?
Sounds stifling to me. I'm glad to know that people here have other interests and art--and if it doesn't interest me, or I might find it offensive, I'm free to stay here and not view it.
Yes, I'm sure you're right in the first part and I agree with you that it would probably be done differently. I was thinking about the Greek culture this morning, and that culture does seem to have been different (though I am not a scholar of Greek culture).
If the object of the art were the human body for the amazing thing it is, that amazingness doesn't only exist at the height of perceived beauty. It's amazing from birth to death, even as it fights to stay amazing in the latter years of life.
This is such a huge issue that I don't know that any conversation can even touch on the issues without lasting for months if not years. But think about, for example, photos of aging prizefighters. That's just one very small subset of men, but it still exists in the realm of photography and art. It's very rare to see nude photos of aging women. I think that if there were to be more collections of nude photography of aging women they'd be very likely to be done by women instead of men. Would you agree with that?
Great conversation, David.
Yes, nudity is natural. That's still not NPN. Yes, it is in my opinion for the most part silly for animals to wear clothes (except maybe in really cold weather for animals without much fur, I guess). It is also silly in my opinion to even bring that up in this conversation, as was done.
Problem with the link? No. Problem with trying to relate it, however sideways, to NPN? Yes.
Problem with nudity? No. Problem with nude women as art? See the conversation above. I'd much rather see nude women that have lived and fought the battles of life and show it.
Once a person forms an opinion of someone's words, usually it's not going to change.
And Floris's post hit the nail on the head.
Just seems some folks here were offended, while others were not. Happens all the time in forums. Just lucky there are not trolls all under this site or we'd be doomed.
David Bostedo and anyone else who might be interested: Women as art is one of the most interesting conversations I've had in a while. We could possibly move away from this thread and start a new one about that, or not.
I would be curious if you have read the American social commentor Camille Paglia, specificly her book Sexual Personae. While it is difficult to summerize a long book in a few sentences, her basic premise is sexuality, or rather fertility, has been the driving force of art and culture since humanity has had art and culture. That women, as much as men, if not more so, have shaped the perceptions we have of women. An example of this would be that young contemperary women consider Marlyn Monroe "too fat." She also uses the examples of Madonna and Lady GaGa emphasizing their sexuality to rebel against what they consider to be the conservatism of recent feminism.
As this discussion has changed perhaps you will indulge me to explain the background of my shooting. Eva, the models are, all but one, older women approaching 40, one near 50. Two were mothers, stretch marks and all. So I was not after glamour shots. It is also very hard to get good outdoor models. Being a small town I do have to bring professional models in. When reviewing model sites most of those that model nude do want to do studio glamour work by choice. I have found the better outdoor models generally are older and have some sort of athletic background, dance, swimming, gymnastics etc., artist's model seem too static for photography. The female photographers I know that shoot nudes, and they are straight, prefer women or gay men. My suspicion is that they are more body aware than straight men are and it does reflect in the work.
To return to is NPN appropriate? A story. One of my friends was banned from a local cyber photo board for suggesting a shot of a flower may have been better if less depth of field had been used. Given such local circumstances, I think it could be understood why I might seek out the opinion of photographers whose work and opinion I have come to value. I would suggest that had I posted a link to some new architectural work it would not have generated such interest.
There are other members who live in remote areas. Would you deem it improper for them to post links to recent work for critque if it wasn't directly nature related?
In the end, I do consider them landscapes. Clothed or not, I suspect many here have found how difficult it can be to photograph a person in a landscape without one overpowering the other. It is for this reason I sought the opinion of my peers. As others have noted, there are many places to post nudes, to get sound and serious critque is another matter.
I went back and looked at your work again, and on more careful viewing I can see what you describe in your second paragraph. I think that's awesome.
About your local cyber photo board ban you mentioned,
About your original post, architecture, etc., wouldn't be posted in Hot Topics. If it's just another type of photography it doesn't need to be in Hot Topics.
I think you've had more experience with photography groups and forums and sites than I have, and so your statement that "to get sound and serious critique is another matter" sounds right.
In any event, the point of my post was that we're all adults and artists here (well, I'm being a bit generous to myself on both counts). We can decide what we want to view, or not view, and those of us with an interest in the subject matter can express an artistic critique if desired. That's all David was asking for in the first place, and reasonably enough in my opinion.
I have no problem with this organization feeling that nude human bodies should not be included (although other nude living creature are OK). Some of the responses were pretty "far out", when a simple "I don't agree with that would have done". I've been a working photographer for over 6 decades and 20+ years photo professor and I love women and the female figure, I've never personally been good at that kind of photography, although my wife is incredibly good in "figures in the landscape", male and female.. I'm old enough to remember when the late Bruce Downes published an occasional nude in Pop Photo in from '48 or '49 and you would have the world would come to an end, however it didn't. Just relax and enjoy nature photography as many of us do.
Lynn .
That's an interesting comment, even if made as a joke Troup. I think a lot of people don't separate nudity from sexuality from pornography. I think there are wide distinctions there, but I can understand that for many people it's easier/better just to lump them all together and treat it all the same. Sometimes I'm sure I do the same thing. Certainly, some of the difference is in the eye of the beholder too.
To continue our discussion on the representation of women in art, I would suggest our current portrayal of women, from a historical perspective, is one of health rather than the desires of men. The rendering of men has largely gone unchanged over the ages. The well muscled, six paxk abs man has, and continues to be, the stereotype. Women on the other hand have changed dramatically in the last serveral decades.
To use the term Reubenesque of a woman today is to politely imply she is overweight. If one reviews depictions of women in Western art over the ages, they are generally plump. Plump meant healthy, heathy meant fertile. We forget that as recently as Victorian times about half of all children died before age five. With better sanitary, nutrition and medical conditions the need for fertility has diminished. As a consquence women's perceptions of the ideal is a slimer figure. Search out early pics from Playboy on the Internet. Most of those women would not make current editions as they are generally more full figured than is acceptable today. That is how quickly it is changing and I would suggest it is as much to do with women's perception of themselves as any demands men might have.
Paglia was a columnist for Salon for a while and still does some commentary for them. A search of their site should bring up some of her work.
One of your links questioned why there are not more successful female artists. I would counter why aren't more successful female artists acknowledged? Georgia O'Keefe springs to mind. In posing nude for Stieglitz did she contravene modern feminist thought and as a consquence been sidelined? In my personal experience, while anecdotal, the limitations placed on women by other women are much stricter than those by men.
Women in the arts.It would seem to fit under "Hot Topics." Hopefully others may join in.
Nudes in the landscape is a long-established discipline, even as I don't think it really has a place on NPN. All I've seen is more about the human form than the landscape. For me it's no more about porn or titillation than the art classes with nude models in virtually every college across the country.
To illustrate, we have something approaching a dozen books from mainline publishers on photographing nudes on the shelf behind me right now. They're my wife's, as a matter of fact. She's been photographing nudes in the studio and in the landscape for 20 years- all of them clients. Photos of themselves or their loved ones for display in their own homes. She even has a selection on the walls in her studio, with permission of the clients. It's simply not a large deal, and done right is quite tasteful and artistic. Right for NPN? Maybe if NPN starts a gallery of portraiture, but within the current spread of galleries, no.
As for Dave using the link to hype his work?
As for women in the arts as a "hot" topic? I've been married to one and admiring her and her work for 43 years, so I doubt I can be objective.
We have NPN members who are as young as 11 and 13 years old, so not everyone on NPN is an adult, but they are members and they can see this thread.
I'd leave it alone expect for the fact this thread may now be about NPN policy rather than my work. I think this may be the first time we have disagreed.
Lets review the whole process. Originally I had posted a couple of abstract nudes in man and nature, no complaints. When a further one was posted that show a female breast Jim took it down explaining that, while he had no problem with the artistic merits of the photo, it was an open public forum. I understand and accept this reasoning.
Leibovitz's recent work, where she seems to seek a painterly look in her photography, held no attraction for me. Then in this past summer's shoot, and a bit to my own amazement, my work emulates a painterly style. I'd like some feedback on it. As you note, nudes in landscapes are not a revelation. NPN seems the answer as not only are there photographers dealing with nature subjects, but have a depth of experience in other aspects of the art.
As Jim's guidelines, to my understanding, precluded such work being available to the general public the work was put on my blog and the link posted in Hot Topics as it is only available to members. Rather than pushing the envelope as some have suggested, it seems an equitable solution as the public isn't involved.
As you note, and a difficulty for Jim, is members post links to their sites with their signature line. Should such a link contain nudes and somebody complain, does Jim have to have that member remove the link? As he can't police all the links, does everybody need remove them for fear there may be something, somewhere, that may offend somebody?
Further to this point, if we are using the 'it has to be nature' criteria, if a member is trying a new portrait lighting technique or would like members to review an architectural assignment, it seems they would be precluded from doing so. This not a If I can't, you can't argument. Rather I think members should be able to elicit the comments and critiques of their peers for work that may be non-nature on an offsite location. It does no harm to NPN and benefits members.
I could understand negative criticism of my actual work but am am at a bit of a loss to understand the reaction against nudes. As others have pointed out, no suggestive e-mails have been sent out, no redirecting of web pages, just a simple invitation, clearly indicating nudes are at the other end. Don't see what all the fuss is about. Mind you I'm at an age where naked women prowling around the house means I most likely won't get into the bathroom for a while.
As for this nonsense of 11 year olds whipping out their credit cards to become members. Even if Mommy bought the membership, if they are looking for prurient on the internet, they were there long before they got to NPN.
Hank, if your wife has any of her work on-line perhaps you could send me a URL. As we share a similar geography and topography, it would be interesting to see how she utilized it.
There may well be members that young. I seem to recall, at that age, my buddies and I passing around purloined copies of Playboy. My nephew, at that age would pursue stuff on the internet. I've two degrees and am in a contented relationship. He has three degrees and was in a good relationship. Alas he broke up. He wanted to work overseas, she didn't. Sorry I just don't buy your argument. Kids seeing nudity is nothing new, they don't become monsters. I'm very close to being offended that you would think a photo of mine would somehow corrupt a youngster in a society where highly sexualized billboards of underwear is the norm or they need only turn on the TV to see artificially endowed women running on the beach in bikinis ostensibly to save drowning people.
While I completely agree with you Dave, I do have to side with Mia here - in that it's not directly up to us to decide what is available to people on this site. That would be up to Jim, and whatever standards he wants to set for it. If he chooses to make it completely G rated, for whatever reason, that's up to him. (It can, of course, be indirectly up to the membership in choosing whether or not they participate and renew their membership.)
FWIW, even for parents (or others) that are very concerned about nudity, there is a gray are in there. I'd think most people would not care if you posted a link to a portfolio of renaissance paintings of nude women - particularly if it was a general art site. In this case, photos, and those not created by someone well known to be an artist (like a famous painter or sculpter), will tend to get a different reaction, logical or not. Even if the subject matter may largely be the same.
For now, of course, your link is still available.
It doesn't matter to me which way NPN goes, but I am sad to see that David is continuing to push this when he could have sought whatever input he wanted without posting the link. In any case, that is my opinion and I don't expect others to agree with it.
Of course, I'm sure I'm not nearly as offended as David, who has had to repeatedly defend posting nothing more than a link to his work.
Let's please keep this discussion civil.
Thank you,
--P
Over the course of my career, having worked in different facets of photography, learned how an aspect of one type can be useful in another use. That the unrelated work of colleagues has an application in something I am doing. It may be that in posting a link to recent work, Fred may benefit from others critiques. It may also prove that the work may be of use to those viewing it, even in a nature application.
While I don't know where Jim may land on this, not to allow others to post URLs to non-nature work robs us all of the experience and talents of fellow members and diminishes our photographic capabilities.
Dave, I think they are very tasteful and elegant. Some of the pictures seem a little on the dark side but all in all well done.
It's all contractual work Dave, and if any of it's on the web, the clients put it there. Probably half of the studio work is pregnancy photos or photos of mom and dad with new babies. Much of the outdoor work is what my wife calls "coming out" photos- mostly women or men who have recently lost a lot of weight, taken up body building, or emerged from destructive relationships and are embarking on new lives. As I recall, something like 99% is B&W with no frontal nudity showing genitalia.
This is in no way a commentary on those who enjoy other kinds of photography that does not fit on NPN. For example, I have photos of firearms in natural settings that I'm sure some would find offensive as well so I do not post them here or even links to them.
It's entirely a matter of staying focused on what has always been our mission and remaining true to NPN's trademark. It's really as simple as that.
Thanks to all who participated in this thread, I think it was quite useful.
I am editing David's original post to delete the link - anyone who is interested in viewing David's gallery can contact him via email to get the link.