<===Richard Kern
Out of context: Reply #43
- Started
- Last post
- 64 Responses
- veraicon0
ok boys and girls. here's the deal. Ready???
There are a TON of photographers that take both porn and more artsy shots and have done so pushing the envelope. Although not everything is porn on his site, he has a reputation for taking very provocative photography, which have a certain "white trash snap shot" appeal to them. Work like that flys in magazines such as Nylon, Wallpaper, Spoon, etc. Personally, I am kinda tired of it and would love to see some more substance and emotion. This style is becoming the “waif” of the photo world.
Lesson 1: Kern takes PORNOGRAPHIC photos. I don't know if you have notice a warning the splash page and that he actually states that he uses 18+ year old girls. Usually for an art site with none "porn" photos there aren't warnings such as those.
Anything that is “fetish nudity”, “kiddy porn”, “soft porn” is all under ONE category: PORN. Try going ot a video rental and see what section all those are under.There are catagories and standards for nudity. Let's not kid ourselves here.
Lesson 2: In nude photography, which I shoot a lot of myself, usually things like the body as a landscape, documentary-style nudes (e.g. naked girl brushing teeth), national geographic + and the likes of, and nude portraits that are not sexually explicit, vulgarly provocative are considered "artsy". Kern clearly doesn’t fit onto any of those categories, so he goes to the next level which is Porn. What you see in his work is no different than how the girls are POSED and OBJECTIFIED in magazines such as playboy, etc. His style and quality of photo has nothing to do with it being porn or not. His lighting/location/use of flash and sterile mood is just the style that he chooses to use while taking porn/soft porn images. ( of those that are pornographic...not all are. )
Other sites that are long the same lines where you have the same argument:
http://www.suicidegirls.com
http://www.digitalgirly.comBeing a photographer, i can say that photography is not a "fine art" form. it is making it's way around to become known more as an art, but will always walk a very fine line. Why is that you ask? Well, because it has mainly been used for commercial purposes and can swing both ways; artsy and commercial. Whereas painting is painting, sculpture is sculpture...and even if it is used for commercial purposes it is seen as art being used for commercial purposes.
Sparticus said: “Nudity does not equal pornography.”
You are absolutley right...it just depends what is happening in the photo. A girl sprawled out on a bed with a blue condom hanging out of her pussy is not exactly something that a 4-17 year old could look at. Whereas something along the lines of the type of work i do, nude as landscape, doesn’t shock nor offend ( in most cases. i have had some). Look at the Sistine Chapel and painting from that time period...there is nudity there, but it is done in a way that glorifies the body and doesn’t visually degrade a human to a sexual manikin nor arose the viewer.
:) I wil have more nudes soon in my library :)
AND I have a show coming up featuring one of my nude pieces:
femalepersuasion.net art show: Opening November 8, 2003 at cherrydelosreyes gallery in LA!
http://www.cherrydelosreyes.com/…peas to all nude photo lovers,
vip