File :-(, x, )
nude photography else !L6xabslN96
can someone pls explain the concept behind nudes or nudity in photography? it just seems like superfluous exhibition most of the time.

i understand the importance of figure study in art but is there a general ideology behind "nude photography"? it certainly doesn't fit comfortably within the realms of pornography, neither does give any adverse meaning to photography - well not to me, because i don't understand it.

not trolling, documentaryfag here.
>> Anonymous
It is a subject that interests people. Most people find other people and their bodies interesting. Certainly more so than HDR shots of your shoes.
>> Anonymous
also: butts
>> Anonymous
I'd prolly ended up fapping.
>> Anonymous
fap before the shoot. take a break in the middle and fap and then fap afterwards once or twice during pp.
>> Anonymous
>>284960
Shit made sense when it was a big "FUCK YOU" to the estabolished social norms of earlier times, nowadays I concur with the OP, most nude photography is superfluous exhibition. The same message can be expressed with a clothed model in most cases, very few are expressed better with a nude model.

Nowadays nudity is just thrown in to be artsy, just like shooting in black and white.

If you're going to express the beauty of the human form, find interesting ways of doing it. It's already been done, find a new way of doing it.
>> Anonymous
>>284974

Nude photography was done from the very earliest of days, just as there are cave paintings and ancient clay models of nude women. What the hell are you talking about?
>> Anonymous
>>284956
pretty much... 99.99% of photography is meant to be visually appealing; all of the compositions rules are built around making your photo visually appealing. What is more appealing than the opposite sex???
>> Anonymous
>>284986

butts
>> Anonymous
>>284987
Okay well, yeah...
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>284974
Why does there have to be a message? I'd say >90% of what I'm interested in is messageless, unless that message is some variation upon "pretty", "beautiful" or "wow".

To discount nudity as "having already been done" is painting with a pretty broad brush - I think we can probably define another few sentences that would discount _all_ photography.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a choice - sometimes it's better, sometimes it's gratuitous. I usually find myself frustrated with artists that want to avoid nudity simply for the sake of avoiding nudity when they display shots that would be been better had only they not "had to" cover up offending parts such as nipples.
>> Anonymous
>>284990As far as I'm concerned, it's a choice - sometimes it's better, sometimes it's gratuitous.

sometimes it's butts
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
if you go check the senior show at your local college, year after year, there will invariably be nude self-portraits by every single male.

it's one of the great mysteries of nature.
>> Anonymous
>>285000

Same reason guys fight over putting their boner on any Wikipedia pages. Guys love showing it off.
>> Anonymous
>>284954
I came
>> Anonymous
>>285011

on her butt?
>> Anonymous
>>285012
wellthtswhtwsimingforbtihitthekeyordandnwsmekeysdontwor
>> Anonymous
>>285020

totally worth it though, amirite?
>> Anonymous
>>284974
Now it has to be children or people won't pay attention.
>> Anonymous
What a great ass. I want to bite and nibble and play with that.
>> Anonymous
Man, what a cute butt. I want to adopt it and cuddle it and pet it.
>> Anonymous
Same thing as anything in photography, you find something that looks interesting, isolate it with framing and something to draw the eye in. It just so happens that the interesting thing here, for example, is a pretty face and the lead in her legs and body.

Bit of an over generalisation there, I mean, she does also have a very nice butt.
>> Anonymous
>>284990
maybe message isn't the best word, and everyone has their own interests. I have no problem with nude models, I'm not offended by the fact that the people are nude, what bothers me is that it's just another cliche, like black and white.

Tasteful nudes are great, if done well, but I'm sick of seeing the same images over and over again, I want to see something new. My point in saying "it's already been done" is that people need to start moving forward with their imagery, stop churning out the same crap because it gets pageviews and faves on deviant art.

"Art" is what you make of it, and for everyone that's different. For me, it's about finding new ways to do things and making progress.

It's not like any of this matters though, hey! butts!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>284974
>>285118

This. There's lots of stuff ("This random urinal is ART! Because I says it is!") that was good and useful to make in its sociohistorical context, and maybe (often) even still great, but if you're doing it now you're being dumb.

Nudes (or urinals) aren't necessarily this; big generalizations are only useful up to a point. But it has to be more than it used to. Jörg Colberg wrote recently on his blog that he thinks the conventions of classical photojournalism have become stale and that's why immensely good works aren't having a broader political impact, which I'm not sure I agree with but it's a sound thesis. Like that. Nudes are definitely stale; I mean, the last time they shocked anyone, anyone was Robert Mapplethorpe, and he had to put a bullwhip up his ass for that. Which doesn't mean that people shouldn't do nudes, or employ the conventions of nude photography, just that they have to expect a cool reaction unless they go the extra mile in awesomeness and creativity, and they have to count on the shock attention-grab value of the work just not being there. It is true that an image of (say) a starving African doesn't shock us anymore, even if it overwhelms or moves us. The same is true of nudes; you could do a photographic recreation of L'Origine du monde and print it eight feet on a side and it'd be just another big large format nude, whereas when it was first painted L'Origine was groundbreaking. Not that it's a bad painting- it's great and hugely erotic- or that the photographic equivalent would be a bad photograph, but it wouldn't be the same thing it was.

Erwitt pic related to the discussion.
>> else !L6xabslN96
okay i'm starting to understand a little, but does there have to be a distinction/genre for "nude photography". i mean, they're all essentially portraits except the subject is nude or there is some nudity - or am i completely wrong?
>> Anonymous
Concept behind nude photos? Other than for pornographic reasons? Nudity conveys a sense of intimacy, privacy, and vulnerability, and sensuality (and to the degree that it conveys sexuality, it can also be artfully pornographic). There's other elements, and it will vary between cultures, but that's the gist of it.

A really good photo is made at least as much by the subject as it is by the photography. The "problem" with nudes is that people think that it's such a great subject that it's cruse control for a good photograph. It's not. It's often just another nekkid person.

I'd love a chance to take some semi- or full-nudes with cute girls. Not for so much a sexual aspect, but as a way to convey warmth and emotion. But just having a cute girl mostly or fully naked, while admittedly arousing, is boring. She (or he, depending on the case) needs to be doing something naked to have any value. This has been true for all forms of nude art. Nudity alone is just pornography. Nudity in conjunction with some sort of action (or inaction) is art.
>> Anonymous
>>284954
Taboo subjects sell best.
>> Anonymous
>>285131
The guy in the foreground with the big trench coat, and bald spot.

Is totally fapping in public.