<===Richard Kern
- Started
- Last post
- 64 Responses
- ********0
Some of them are explicit.
Does anyone find them truly offensive? Please, let me know.
on a diff. note:
Vera, check your mail.
- veraicon0
4cV:
i have check my mail :)xo,
vera
- 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
- unknown0
Some of the images are sexually suggestive, but none of them are sexually explicit. I've seen fashion ads that are more sexually suggestive.
Perhaps you're confusing pornography which is defnined objectively as sexually (or violently) explicit vs art which is almost entirely subjective and therefore subject to more dialoge and scrutiny.
I agree that there are some provocative images which relate more to an implied sexual situation then an actual sexual situation. This is largly no different from many Calvin Klein ads. Some CK ads in Europe have even been known to show femail pubic hair from time to time.
What specifically do people find offensive about this person's work? And don't just say it's porn.
- unknown0
"His work is no different than how the girls are POSED and OBJECTIFIED in magazines such as playboy."
Actually it is. in his work, his models are smoking pot, hiking, watering pot plants, putting in contact lenses, popping zits. Pretty nonerotic activities. You ever see that in playboy? the point is, the majority of his work is nonsexual. They could almost be stills taken from a nudist camp.
In his photos, the models aren't the object, they're the subject. They are occupied with doing something normal (holding a tissue to a bloody nose) and subjective. It's less about the model and more about the context of the model, what the model is doing. In contrast, pornography typically documents the sexuality of the models. Something I find lacking in most of Richard's work.
- TNDAP0
It can be seen as either or depending on the viewer which still makes it art I believe it doesnt succeed as either and I am not a fan of this shit at all but it has resulted in one of the most interesting threads on PV-AN in a minute...oh and a lot of the links in NTB are suspect if some of you guys look at these people as your peers and not your superiors (which they are not) you'll see post wack shit at times to, in fact it's some dudes over there that if I see em post something I don't even read or click it. On another note this dude does what Mr. Kern would like to do...
http://www.patrickhoelck.com/
- pr20
For those saying: painting is painting (implying painting is art) you have to go out more to art show openings then you will see that painting is commority as much as anythiing else. Moreover, it was invention of photography that made the artist thinker rather than just picture takers-makers (eye and mind became more important that hand).
This tread is one more reason why designers should never call themselves artists. Artists would just look at it and chill while uptight businessmen-artist-wannabes get ofended.
- veraicon0
First of all i wasn't talking about the shots of girls putting contact lenses in, etc.
i was talking about the shots that ARE very pornographic and fit into the category very much so.
can you please tell me how an 18 year old on a bed with a blue condom hanging out of her crotch is not sexually explicit? And how do you compare that to a Calvin Klein add? Please amuse me. I am not being vindictive, just more than interested how you can compare the two?
Please don't give me comments like , "have you seen a playboy" and try to insult my intellect. I am sure that you read playboy for the articles as well?
Being in the industry i have seen far more than most. And know that there is a very fine line in this category. That is why i posted the two links of digitalgirly which is not for commercial purpose and suicide girls which is for commercial purpose.
Being an artist and a WOMAN, i assure you i know what OBJECTIFICATION of woman is. THAT is what you don't see nudes of MEN on his site. Read his bio as well...maybe that will give you a better idea of his work if you have not done so yet.
If you don't think that these shots aren't porn, then go ahead and show then to a 4th grade classroom. I don't think it would fly. But if you take a field trip to the Museum and under age crowd sees nudes represented there, I don't think there will be a problem.
Just because he has a sterile approach, much like Kubrik in and his treatment of nudity/sex on screen, doesn’t mean that it is not considered pornographic imagery. Now you will probably say that Kurik can’t be considered porn. True, he is one of my favorite directors and I think that he does his work with a certain level of class and yet pushes it to the limit. But Kern takes his images to an even more Aggressive level in my opinion ; a Passive aggressive level that sparks conversations such as this one and this thread.
I repeat myself again, I am ONLY referring to the more vulgar/provocative photos and not of a girl picking her nose, putting in contacts, etc.
i think i made my points very valid and i will not talk in circles.
Your thoughts are just that. To each his own. Respect. Art/beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I nor anyone else can take that away from you. We see things differently and good for us otherwise this world would be a very boring place.
Peas and nudity,
vip
- mrdobolina0
what is commority?
- veraicon0
pr2:
i hope you didn't misunderstood me and the paragraph. i was stating that painting, sculpture and the likes of fine art will be seen as ART no matter what. Even if they are used for commercial purposes they are still considered art for the most part.
But that is not the case with photography and that is why photography has a hard time getting credited as ART in the long established art community. Because it has such a great use for commercial purposes. Adds, commercials, etc...
I would never discredit painting of any fine art form. My fathers work is in the Permanent Smithsonian collection , and i have grown up in the Fine Art world since birth. I have a very good understanding of that is Fine Art and what isn't.
You stated:
"This tread is one more reason why designers should never call themselves artists. Artists would just look at it and chill while uptight businessmen-artist-wannab
es get ofended. "WOW, you must be kidding me? right? do you honestly assume one is an artist because they are "CHILL" and not "OFFENDED"???
I will not get into such remarks. i think that is very thoughtless and entirely based in your own opinion. it doesn't have any standing in this thread.
I believe that there is a very good conversation going on in this tread and we need not get aggressive and start insulting people just because you don't see the same way.
Pr2, then I ask you. Are you a designer? Or an artist? Its a rhetorical question. we need not get into an entirely different discussion.
- unknown0
well there already is a lot of photography like this.. i see it more as fashion (even if theyre not wearing anything.. i mean their hair is made up right? heh) more than art, not to say that fashion isn't art.. but i mean, yeah i like macs more than pcs. macs are expensive.
- ********0
"yeah i like macs more than pcs. macs are expensive."
haha! me too.
:)
- veraicon0
TNDAP:
great link.
some really beautiful images. Love the color saturations, the mood of hte shoots are great.
very nice fashion work.
- TNDAP0
Cool.
- TNDAP0
I aim to please.
- unknown0
i really like jamil GS.
- pr20
I really couldn't care less if it's porn or not. The only reason i got into this argument is that somone said that links like that shouldn't be posted here. That i find really disturbing as statements like that might eventually lead to censorship.
Saying that anyone can know distintion between what fine art is and isn't is very unhealty. I'm not sure i'm able to say what will end up being showed as fine art in say 50 years. Making that statemen is somehow ignorant as it implies undertstaning of ever developing culture of "now."
- TNDAP0
Jamil GS' stuff is really hot I think he's the one that did the most recent Ecko ads with Mobb Depp, that Supreme calender is the truth! His stuff is most definently sexy, glossy and bling bling.
- veraicon0
pr2
"That i find really disturbing as statements like that might eventually lead to censorship. "
you have a great point. Yes, his work walks a very fine line...i think that is why it was posted.
"Saying that anyone can know distintion between what fine art is and isn't is very unhealty. "
i agree with you totally.
But i think that you have to consider that people will think they are artists even if you or i don't. Just as someone that picks up a camera thinks he is a photographer , or a person with an art degree thinks that it makes him/her an artist.however i still don't think that it is healthy to say that ,
"This tread is one more reason why designers should never call themselves artists. "
i think that was a bit too harsh. if my thinking it was a harsh statement discredits me from being an artist in your eyes, than i think i will have to live with that for i cannot change your mind.
:)
vip
- balb0a0
What do you mean "lead to censorship"? This site is already "censored" (aka edited), and proud of it. It's not a totally open forum.
People waste a lot of energy looking for consistency in the editing. But sooner or later you realize that the editors, moderators, and participants are an opinionated bunch. And opinions (in my opinion) are a good thing.
As far as the art vs. porn thing is concerned...
It's not important whether the work fits today's definition of Porn or Art. The rules will change next week.
And it's not the medium that makes the artist. Doesn't matter if the artist uses a camera, a paintbrush, a burnt stick, or his/her genitals...
...It's the work. And the intent. And the message. And the context. And the audience. And the venue. And everyone else that made work before them.
These days artists design, designers illustrate, illustrators direct commercials, commercial directors make films, film directors paint. And so on.
The old definitions are dead. There's no reason to inhabit a predefined niche anymore. That's a really liberating thing. It allowed me to segue from Architecture into Graphic Design into Web Design (with a few Gallery shows inbetween).
Think about this: Fine Art is affected by trend cycles just like everything else in consumer society. The fashion/ commerce/ art/porn/music machine are inextricably intertwined with capitalism and the need to "sell to survive". All are forms of entertainment/distraction for the bored masses.
Photogs like Noboyushi Araki, Larry Clark, Eric Kroll. Helmut Newton, and Terry Richardson (sisley) all excel at creating a sexualized fantasy world. And fantasex sells (duh).
Even though he's been around for years, Kern is now enjoying a renewed popularity because "transgressive art" is in vogue (i.e. in demand). He used to be an undergound fimmaker. But there was no huge demand for his work, and eventually everyone gets tired of creating work in a vacuum. It sucks to struggle. It makes sense that his career has veered into more "saleable" territory.
The bummer is that a lot of really beautiful compelling work by amazing people never gets out into the world simply because it won't sell. And it's really hard to survive as an Artist when you're making unsellable work. So if you think about it, we usually never get to see the "best" art. We get to see the "most marketable art".
BTW, great long-winded thread!
:)