newtoyou Loc: Eastport

Are these reposts? Sure look like it.

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Don't follow you, what do you mean?

newtoyou Loc: Eastport

When I joined,I went thru old posts,the ones today's looked familiar. Just wanted to check my memory. Thanks for reply.

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

These images are a couple of years old and one of them may be in a Flickr group or two, perhaps you saw them there. Unless someone posted them as their own work on here, and I can't imagine that happening considering how new this section is, I seriously doubt they're anywhere else on this site.

fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

There was a cartoonist, many years ago- I’m thinking (perhaps) of Hank Ketchum- creator of “Dennis the Menace”- who drew three continuous and parallel lines across the cheeks and nose of teenage female characters. I never understood this particular variation of artistic shading but now I do: a visual shorthand suggestion of freckles and youth. Remember, “youth” is relative. Regardless, my comments are off topic to the subject of this thread but not as to “Art” in general. In short, as a head & shoulders portrait, this image has much potential.

snapshot18

Well, I agree, in part. To say that the "Venus De Milo" is (NSFW) NOT suitable for work, is beyond STUPID! However, this country's enslavement to Puritanical Religion makes such a Reality! Also, to say that any depiction of a Nude is automatically Pornographic, again, is beyond Stupid! But, like a Bad Cold in the wintertime, there's a lot of that going around in this country! However, as an artist (by nature) and a photographer (by trade), I feel that there are different levels of what you may call "Beauty". "Hustler Magazine", being at the very bottom of the list, doesn't give a damn about 'Beauty'. I personally knew one of the head photographers for "Hustler" (we both had built our own sail boats and met at a local marina) and the things he told me about their 'approach' as far as photography goes, would make most people's stomach queasy. Meaning NSFW (and I don't mean the photography itself) in the ABSOLUTE! All they cared about was actually appealing to one's 'Prurient Interest'; however, the publisher, Larry Flynt, was actually HONEST enough to say, that was what he intended the magazine to be and nothing more.
The next step up, "Penthouse" magazine, published by Bob Guccione, definitely added a measure of 'Beauty' into the publication. He even went so far as to produce the most expensive pornographic major motion picture ever ("Caligula") in both "XXX" and "R" ratings and with MAJOR actors such as Malcom McDowell, Sir John Gielgud, Peter O'Toole, Helen Mirren, Ann Savoy, and many Italian 'biggies' . . . plus a bevvy of beautiful prostitutes that 'did the deed' in glorious color. It is said to have cost 25 million to produce; a rather expensive endeavor compared to the typical 'back room' porn of today. Still, the magazine had a definite Porn 'flavor'.
Then came "Playboy" ( a 'Distinguished Man's Magazine'). I would classify it as about half - 'Beauty' and half 'Sex Appeal'.
But, why can't a Nude be all about 'Beauty'. I tried that approach in the '70's & '80's and must have succeeded, at least in part, as my work was requested by a city Government rep in 1977 for a new gov. building that was going to be opened shortly. Yes, there were other photographers 'requested' to exhibit their respective 'wares', but I was the only one exhibiting NUDES. Of course, this was California in the'70's and it was known to be a bit more progressive.
Still, this country is still living "In the Dark Ages" when it comes to 'removing one's clothing' for publication. But, I'm sure there are some people that were born fully clothed. Maybe the real culprit is that BS statement in our "Declaration of Independence" where it stupidly said, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident that All men are created Equal". If that is true, then Classic Nudes and Pornographic Nudes, by definition, MUST also be equal!
Which comes to your opinion . . . which is 100% your granted right . . . since both you and the Pope are equal.

212kelvin Loc: San Francisco

I don't find either of the 2 examples to be candid, and both I find to be erotic. This is not my photo but I think this is a better example of a candid nude. She is not paying attention to the camera, 100% of her attention is somewhere else. If her attention would be redirected the next focus would be on her drink not the camera. if your model is looking at the camera and smiling, it is not candid. Posed photos can be artistic but not candid.

212kelvin Loc: San Francisco

An artistic nude photo is one that the nudity is used to convey a message other than a sexual one. It can convey emotion or be used to highlight the human form. The model should be engaged with the environment and not the camera.
A porn image is one that is focused on genitals and shows the model and not much else. So a photo of a nude woman against a white background looking at the camera and/or legs wide, would most likely be considered porn.
But it is the intent of the photographer that decides whether it is art or porn. One can usually determine the intent by looking at the photo. Here's some examples of artistic nudes. There is nothing sexual about them.
Most art photographers take photos of both men and women. if you take only women you should consider your intent when trying to classify your photos. It is a murky topic and has some gray areas. But I think if you are trying to create art, not just look at nude girls you have a better chance of creating art.

snapshot18

212kelvin:

What if a photographer isn't interested in 'Art Photography' OR 'Porn Photography' . . . but simply showing "Beauty"? NO weird, contorted poses or no blatantly sexual pose-, much the same as a Landscape or Seascape photographer shoots for Natural Beauty. Why can't people accept that. For example the picture of the girl with the surfboard shows a very shapely form with a smaller than usual waist one would find these days, plus the stance is also quite natural. That photo is neither 'Art' nor 'Porn', tho' some would consider it Porn simply because she's 'Naked'!

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

A few things: First, I agree that the images that started this thread are not purely candid. The set itself was unplanned (not orchestrated) so as a whole I would call the group impromptu. As I tried to define in this thread, though perhaps poorly, there is a spectrum of intent and execution where the photographer can assign his individual shots. Others may look at the same image and place it elsewhere. That group of shots for me was closer to candid than orchestrated. My photo, my intent, my interpretation. Yours is just as valid, just not to me, LOL.

Second, this first shot you showed looked like it was taken at a naturist outing. I am familiar with this setting, attending myself upon occasion, and often it's understood that photos won't be taken. That makes the image you supplied potentially voyeuristic. If a woman is walking around naked with the assurance she's not going to be photographed and yet her picture gets taken, then it can only be voyeuristic. If it had been your photo, you could have assured us that it wasn't. Perhaps you should not be posting photos that aren't yours even if you feel you're defining your point of view.

Third, and this may be a controversial point that pertains more to your next posting, even in the most "artistic" nude there is a bit of the prurient. Show me someone who creates or looks at "artistic" nudes on a regular basis and I'll show you someone who is masking their prurient side under the auspices of art. It is impossible for us to turn off our sexual natures and yet many would have you believe that a properly posed and lighted nude is as sexually benign as a artfully arranged and illuminated pile of stone . It's ludicrous.

The photo below was orchestrated but not artistic in the least, it is what I call cheesecake and it is the style I work in the most. It is not by any stretch of the imagination pornography, however.

(Download)

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

You made the first point before I could although I might had used the word "expectation" vs "assurance". I have seen others posted in this forum of those sunbathing on secluded beaches or on boats that were obviously taken without their awareness or permission, which in the old days was an "invasion of privacy", plus breaks UHH rule of having consent. The only defense of photo posted was if it was during some public event - thinking Miss Nude Contest at Ponderosa - whereby any nudists walking around near the stage, with 100s of photographers present, should have no expectation of not being photographed plus gave implied consent.

On your 2nd point, I agree 100%. The poster is way too narrow-minded on definition of art and porn, thus classifying almost all cheesecake & glamour shots as porn. Although I have seen some near-porn on this site, just because you are engaging with the camera vs the "surroundings" does not make it so. Many of my 1970s postings we're frontal, with full body view, some even emphasizing the "V" area, but would challenge anyone calling any of them porn. IMHO

snapshot18

InfiniteISO:

To repeat what you said: "..... and this may be a controversial point that pertains more to your next posting, even in the most "artistic" nude there is a bit of the prurient. Show me someone who creates or looks at "artistic" nudes on a regular basis and I'll show you someone who is masking their prurient side under the auspices of art. It is impossible for us to turn off our sexual natures and yet many would have you believe that a properly posed and lighted nude is as sexually benign as a artfully arranged and illuminated pile of stone . It's ludicrous."
WHAT IS LUDICROUS (if it weren't so sad) is you sitting in judgment and putting down others that MAY photograph a Nude female strictly for Artistic or (in my case) from a strict standpoint of Beauty. My guess is that you're one of those Fanatically Religious people that see 'Evil' in others when the TRUE "EVIL" is in yourself! Plus an 'artfully arranged and illuminated pile of stone is simply best left as Nature made it.
As to your "Cheesecake" photo; you can call it whatever you like-that is your right; however, I just find it 'Tasteless'. In my opinion it is NOT 'Artistic'; it is NOT from a standpoint of 'Beauty'. It comes under the heading of "Flotsam & Jetsam".

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Really Snapshot, you don't see a similarity between my last photo and your "Merry Everything Sweetie" or any of the other photos from your vintage nude post.


http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-532463-1.html


Yours is pure beauty and art and mine is "Flotsam". Thinking I'm a religious fantastic that takes cheesecake images is assigning me a pretty insane dichotomy, don't you think. I can assure you I don't whip myself with chains every time I process an image that contains nudity. My point was, if you like to look at or take art nudes, it might be because you like to see naked people. I think 90 percent of straight men enjoy looking at naked women and the other 10 percent are lying.