photography query

stratguitarist · 11-11-2005, 08:41 AM

ok so i see a lot of photographers who do pictures of nude people. to me it is pornography, but the photographers would say they are "capturing the beauty of the human body" or something like that. and while i agree that the human body is beautiful, i don't think it is the same kind of beauty as, say, a sunrise or something, because a sunrise doesn't bring on the same kinds of feelings, etc (i think you guys get the idea of what i'm meaning here)

so basically the question is this:
do you think that when people are seeing this picture as "beautiful", the feeling they are in fact feeling is lust and they are just righting it off as an appreciation of beauty so that they can continue to take those kinds of pictures?

Cadence · 11-11-2005, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stratguitarist

ok so i see a lot of photographers who do pictures of nude people. to me it is pornography, but the photographers would say they are "capturing the beauty of the human body" or something like that. and while i agree that the human body is beautiful, i don't think it is the same kind of beauty as, say, a sunrise or something, because a sunrise doesn't bring on the same kinds of feelings, etc (i think you guys get the idea of what i'm meaning here)

so basically the question is this:
do you think that when people are seeing this picture as "beautiful", the feeling they are in fact feeling is lust and they are just righting it off as an appreciation of beauty so that they can continue to take those kinds of pictures?

I personally just think nudes are overdone.

I do think that there are many in the art community who can geuinely appreciate nude art without lusting. That's not to say that some don't lust - all I'm saying is it's not a given.

Then on the other hand there are many who also see sensuality as a beautiful thing and have no qualms about conveying that.

WARangel · 11-11-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadence

I personally just think nudes are overdone.

I do think that there are many in the art community who can geuinely appreciate nude art without lusting. That's not to say that some don't lust - all I'm saying is it's not a given.

Then on the other hand there are many who also see sensuality as a beautiful thing and have no qualms about conveying that.

The problem is not whether its automatically sinful or not. The problem is whether a person is HONEST about it - whether it causes them to lust or not. Honest with themselves and others and to God [though God already knows].

It is possible to look at a nude figure and say, "That is a beautiful body" and mean "That is a beautiful human form, design" and not "Wow. I want to have sex with them . . . etc. etc."

Cadence · 11-11-2005, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WARangel

The problem is not whether its automatically sinful or not. The problem is whether a person is HONEST about it - whether it causes them to lust or not. Honest with themselves and others and to God [though God already knows].

It is possible to look at a nude figure and say, "That is a beautiful body" and mean "That is a beautiful human form, design" and not "Wow. I want to have sex with them . . . etc. etc."

exactly

**redbaron** · 11-11-2005, 08:58 PM

also, a lot of nude photography is posed intentionally in a way that is beautiful without being erotic. I think that is part of the difference between art and pornography.

Obviously there are many great paintings & statues of nudes from the rennaisance, so...

I personally don't think it's something I would do, but if there are people who can do so for the right reasons, I don't see a problem with that, perse.

stringsamateur · 11-20-2005, 02:15 PM

You can't really understand their reasons for donig anatomy art, but I've never appreciated it.

stratguitarist · 11-20-2005, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stringsamateur

You can't really understand their reasons for donig anatomy art, but I've never appreciated it.

well anatomy art in the drawing/painting/etc. department is extremely useful to be able to draw people, because if you don't understand how the body is put together and moves, etc., you can't draw people well, although i've never done a nude drawing and never will (unless i end up taking a class where i have to, then i might, not sure), but photography is totally different...

it would be comforting to me to know that there are people who can appreciate these pictures as art and not be seeing them lustfully, but... i don't think i know anyone who can...

thanks for ya'll's input

zekthedeadcow · 11-20-2005, 06:54 PM

I would say that if you are trying to appreciate a human form it us easy to nonlustfully appreciate nudes... my problem is that so many of them are just done poorly. To me "good" nudes are more design/structural orinted but there are so many that are simply sexual...

it's sort of like painters who paint "still life" by assembling a basket of fruit and painting it.. where if you study classic still life that is absolutly not what is done. It's a matter of an immature artist not understanding their genre... and it's really common...

"nudes = artistic' so I'll shoot naked people to be artistic" doesn't work.