And a related thread on Photo.net:(posted 8250 days ago)http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg? msg_id=001eay&unified_p=1
Since it's a 24-hour thread, I'll repeat the question and my response below:
"Today one of the Photo.net home page critique photographs was another nude self portrait by Amy Powers. This posting is not a critique of her work, which I find good to excellent. But rather this is a question I had been thinking about before, but was touched on in the posted remarks below her photograph. There was some discussion about what I’ll call the prurient interest her “nude behind the window frame” might engender in a male looking at her photograph. This got me thinking about the connection between the eroticism in a “fine art nude” as this is, and the viewer. Put another way, is it possible to divorce the subject from the photograph, especially when one’s brain and body are “hard wired” to react in a favorable way to that subject?
In critiquing a photograph one can talk of the colors, or lighting on the skin, and appreciate the texture and other technical details of the photograph, but the bottom line is that (in this case) it is a photograph of a very attractive naked women in a not unappealing pose. Is it possible for me, or any other healthy heterosexual male, not to be influenced to some extent by the sexual nature of the subject. I ask myself if the photograph was the same except for it being of a nude male, would I have the same positive reaction to it that I had of Miss Powers’ photograph?"
I guess what I’m trying to ask is if it is OK to acknowledge the sexual (erotic if you will) nature of a “fine art nude”, or must these be judged in this forum solely on technical photographic merit? And if that is so, is it possible to deny the sexual nature inherent in “fine art nudes”?"
-- Stephen Jantscher, September 17, 2001; 10:22 P.M. Eastern
[I think you should stop looking at them - otherwise you'll go blind.]
'And if that is so, is it possible to deny the sexual nature inherent in “fine art nudes”?'
Interestingly, I just posted a related topic on the People Photography forum. I don't see anything wrong with seeing "fine art" nudes as erotic. What I don't like is when people try to suppress what is often obvious eroticism.
I think in the past the fine art nude was mainly upper-class eroticism. Today, with the widespread availability (and to some extent respectability) of more explicit work (compare Ms. Powers work with that of Natacha Merritt - www.digitalgirly.com - for example), the fine art nude is a genre in search of a new aesthetic.
Of course, the fact that both artists create self-portraits add another level of interpretation here. Just how much is auto- biographical and how much is auto-eroticism?
-- John Kantor, September 18, 2001; 04:26 A.M. Eastern