on nude photography.
- Started
- Last post
- 44 Responses
- bigtrick
right. so nude (art) photography is almost without exception really photographs of females. the only nude photographs of men that are considered legitimate art photos, that i know of, were done by mapplethorpe. who was gay. and there is a definite sexual bent to a lot of those photos.
is it a given that you have to be sexually attracted to the sex you are photographing, if you are a male* taking nude pictures?
does that mean that there is always an "i want to have sex with you" subtext to every shoot involving a male* photographer and a nude model?
*i specify male because nudes of females taken by females are more common than nudes of males taken by males.
- kult0
...What?
- dbloc0
...huh?
- pumpaction0
Perhaps posting pics would help
- bigtrick0
ok, in simpler terms: is it true that guys taking pictures of naked people for "art" purposes are just hiding their boner behind their camera? all evidence points to yes.
- moniker0
I think you have to understand what makes a subject desirable in order to cast it in a good light. So yes i think you (the photographer) should be attracted to the model in one way or another in order to make the viewer believe your concept.
- And whatever the particular attraction is to a given model will project itself to the photo.Continuity
- Excellent points /threadLillebo
- locustsloth0
It's probably due more to stigmas attached to the actual activity of photographing someone who is nude. The assumption that you will be perceived as gay if you're a guy photographing another guy.
Plus, i don't hear about a lot of women photographers shooting guys. The male genitalia are just not photogenic- speak for yourself. I'm an Adonismoniker
- Adrian Adonis, maybelocustsloth
- http://1.bp.blogspot…locustsloth
- < had a beautiful wangmoniker
- *fires up BBQ*juhls
- SrSamaurai0
you should start off with self portraits and then figure it out from there
- moniker0
I find myself appreciating male imagery more and more these days. I think it's because of the saturation of female photos that are bombarded at me on a minute to minute basis through both the internet and in other media. it's almost become cliche, like how people don't appreciate a shot of a famous landmark anymore, because they've been shot to death.
Now whether or not that's the case with most non-photographer consumers I doubt it, but in my case, certainly.- this is where you call me gay >moniker
- It's true.juhls
- you single?locustsloth
- err... i mean... GAY!! GAYLORD!!! HOMOMOMOMO!!!!
(call me)locustsloth
- juhls0
I would think yes, unless you're specifically doing a project about different body types or ages, etc. You want that "interest" factor in your models, hoping that it will make the outcome better. Some photo sets are blatantly more sexual though, and I imagine the answer would be a resounding "yes" in those cases.
Statistically-speaking, there is a higher number of females who are comfortable with and attracted to the female body compared to men and their level of comfort with the male body (especially if it's not their own).
- scarabin0
if it's good enough for the camera, it's good enough for me™
- rotten.com ?locustsloth
- I suppose the difference between artistic photography and porn is a lighting class away.moniker
- bigtrick0
i tried to cast male models for a nude male photo series a year or so ago. i had no idea what sort of pictures would result, but i wanted to try it. i'm not gay - and thusly somewhat revolted by seeing naked frank'n'beans - so it would have been interesting to see what sort of pictures i could take.
it never worked out. maybe i'll try again.
- moniker0
It is possible to find someone of the same sex attractive without wanting to drill his anus out. i mean if you hired some bum off the street and tried to do a nude shoot, you aren't going to succeed in making a pretty image. At least not easily. I would think having an attractive male model certainly helps things along.
- ********0
this thread disappoints.
- No. QBN disappoints. Normally within 3 posts there are "chick of the day" links.Gucci
- Douglas0
Dunno... I think it might be worth digging deeper into art photography beyond Mapplethorpe. I'm not very good in photo history, but even popular photographers like Sally Mann, Ryan McGinley, and Larry Clark just photograph Young Sexuality in general... no preference male or female. Of course those dudes from the late 70's&80's like Arthur Tress who lean gay, and today's Terry Richardson's who are all about the girls, but I think there are probably plenty who go both ways... photographically speaking.
- ********0
Even if a large part of what the work is communicating is sexual, there's no given that you need to find the subject sexually attractive.
If you are photographing your subject in order to titillate the viewer, you are probably aiming to create either erotica or pornography.
It's possible to photograph a nude / and or sexual acts, without aiming to titillate the viewer.
In all cases, the relationship between the photographer and the subject is probably important - because the photographer is showing the viewer a specific point of view, which originated from his/her mind.
It's possible to completely objectify / abstract the form of the human body without sexualising it.
- shinpo0
Photography is emotional and shoots that have no emotion behind them are more kin to taking pictures of family members at some 3rd cousins wedding using a disposable.
Male photographers shooting male models (clothed) can shoot with a myriad of directions and a wide range of emotions, but when the male model is nude there is really only one emotion tied with it, sexual. Yes, yes I know people do nude to bring out other emotions, but there is always the underlying sexual tension of a nude art shot. So if you are a male and not attracted to the male model then your shots, IMO will be bland. Not that a heterosexual male photographer shooting a nude male model would be gay it would more likely have any emotional response to it.
It really boils down to this:
- bigtrick0
@lukus - i agree with your last statement, but i'm having a hard time backing it up. show me a male photographer's non-erotic photo of a nude male where the photographer isn't gay - i don't know of any.
- Then be the first. The problem is, the idea of taking a photo of someone naked usually feels contrived.********
- Then be the first. The problem is, the idea of taking a photo of someone naked usually feels contrived.
- scarabin0
- Depends on context.********
- so is it context that makes a hting art or not? i found this in COTD, but if it were hanging in a gallery people would be finding meaning 'n' shit in itscarabin
- in it.scarabin
- I think it's impossible to dismiss something as definitely _not_ art. If this was in an exhibition about women's relationships with their bodies would that change anything?********
- with their bodies would that change anything?********
- I'd say that's art, but my definition is simply based on whether I like to look at the thing I question.Samush
- I'd hit it.pastpastdue
- NIce tits. But not art.boobs
- Depends on context.