Question: Nudity vs. Sexuality
I haven't made any effort to hide my....."lack of enthusiasm" for traditional, static, posed nudes in photography. Yeah, I guess the pictures are pretty, but I'm not entirely convinced they MEAN anything. I mean, why bother? What are you trying to SAY? But I digress.
So this is my biggest issue with them: why on EARTH are these types of pictures included in shows/books/etc based on "sexuality"? Sexuality is a facet of a person's identity. I'm not entirely sure how "glorified" Playboy shots a representative of sexuality. To me, the only thing a picture does is identify the SEX of the model (not gender or sexuality). And even then, it promotes a binary order to the sexes, man or woman (yes, there can be more than one. go to the library). With pictures like these, all we can see is the exterior. We have no idea about that person on the inside, physically, psychologically, or sexually. And, there's nothing that says that picture addresses a particular person. Part of the problem here is that sexuality is hard to define, almost like art. Thus, because sexuality isn't altogether definitive, the relationship between sexuality, nudity, and art can't be either.
I'm not looking for anyone to change my mind, but I do want to hear what other people think. Do traditional nudes belong in exhibitions about sexuality? How does nudity express sexuality?
Because this is such a sensitive subject, please respect other opinions when responding. You are, of course, allowed to disagree, and I encourage you to speak your mind, but I WILL delete any post that seems to attack a particular person or uses hateful language. This is a post about sexuality in art, art being the operative word.
So this is my biggest issue with them: why on EARTH are these types of pictures included in shows/books/etc based on "sexuality"? Sexuality is a facet of a person's identity. I'm not entirely sure how "glorified" Playboy shots a representative of sexuality. To me, the only thing a picture does is identify the SEX of the model (not gender or sexuality). And even then, it promotes a binary order to the sexes, man or woman (yes, there can be more than one. go to the library). With pictures like these, all we can see is the exterior. We have no idea about that person on the inside, physically, psychologically, or sexually. And, there's nothing that says that picture addresses a particular person. Part of the problem here is that sexuality is hard to define, almost like art. Thus, because sexuality isn't altogether definitive, the relationship between sexuality, nudity, and art can't be either.
I'm not looking for anyone to change my mind, but I do want to hear what other people think. Do traditional nudes belong in exhibitions about sexuality? How does nudity express sexuality?
Because this is such a sensitive subject, please respect other opinions when responding. You are, of course, allowed to disagree, and I encourage you to speak your mind, but I WILL delete any post that seems to attack a particular person or uses hateful language. This is a post about sexuality in art, art being the operative word.
posted by Samantha Wolov at 12:41 PM
3 Comments:
To me a nude form is more an expression of the sexuality of the individual in the work and the person consuming the work. When you photograph sexuality and capture the electricity in a sexual moment it you're emphasizing the expression of sexuality. With a nude photo I feel the sexuality is more in the body language of the subject. How they carry themselves, how their body looks, how the photographer captured the image, and what they were trying to say. On the other side you have the person reacting to the work and for me I usually try to analyze my reaction. Granted much of the mainstream nudes like Playboy are really only interested in creating arousal. But that too is also an aspect of sexuality. Attention is focused more on nudes than on erotic moments in expressed sexuality but I think it may be to try and reach a broader audience. Think of the many people in the world who are still uncomfortable with the sight of a naked body, then consider how many more would be uncomfortable by a nude where the model had a clothespin clamped on a nipple. It might alienate more conservative people. The clothespin makes a statement about sexuality where the same picture without it changes the message. I also wanted to find out if you are going to be having any shows in the DC area.
Interesting. Is it possible for the nude form to be expressive of the model, the artist, and the viewer at the same time? I could see how all three can REACT to it, so they can have that connection to each other and the image, but I think I’m still missing as to how that’s they’re expression. Although you could argue the reaction IS their expression. Which raises a different question. You mentioned you thought sexuality was expressed through the body language of the model. I could see how this might be true for the photographer. More often than not, those pictures are posed, so there’s that element of artificiality. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, sometimes, it’s a necessity, but how do you think that artificiality affects the definition of sexuality, or the expression of sexuality by that artist? And if that’s the case, how can that still be expressive for the model? I absolutely agree with you about Playboy’s direct goal of arousal being an element of sexuality. That’s actually why I like porn--it doesn’t pretend it’s something it isn’t. And actually, I think that’s why I don’t like these static, traditional nude shots--I really don’t see a difference between the two. Do you think there’s a difference? I like the clothespin example, it introduces a new element to sexuality, that it can be expressive of the group rather than the individual. Yeah, there are a lot of people who are uncomfortable with nudity and SMBD themes (among other things, I’m sorry to say), but I’m glad there are artists who use those themes to make a statement precisely because they make people uncomfortable. It’s the body-as-billboard idea. I like it. Thanks for your input! I’d like to hear more.
As for shows in the DC area, I don’t have anything coming up, unless little art thief elves have somehow stolen my work and will be having an exhibition in a tiny gallery somewhere, in which case I’ll be very mad because I haven’t gotten an invitation. DC doesn’t seem to be the best place for me, but I’ll post if something comes up. In the meantime, I have the show in Lexington, and I submitted work to the nude issue for projekt30.com. The only DC show I MIGHT get into is the annual photo show at the Fraser, which won’t be until March, IF I get in. Honestly, I’m still convinced it was fluke I got in two years ago....but I’ll keep you posted.
But I’m more likely to be shown elsewhere, unfortunately. It’s premature, but I’m optimistic about Dirty Detroit 2006.
Well, here is my perspective, being an american male who enjoys mainstream porn. I find no meaning in porn. I feel its purpose is to arouse. I think at its best it a form of non-verbal communication of sexual arousal. I'm not sure how much or what kind of porn you've viewed, Samantha, and I'm not asking. But I used to go to a site that was user submitted porn and you could literally 'see' who was actually having a good time and who was just going through the motions. It was communicated non-verbally. To me it was hot stuff, but also intellectually interesting, in regards to the conversation here anyway. It's been a long day, I hope my comments were somewhat coherent. I just watched the HBO series ROME, and in that spirit, sign me Marcus Aurelius.
Post a Comment
<< Home