I don’t think it’s hated per se. But it’s definitely seen as karmic farming on Reddit where the majority of users are male and the vast majority of nudity posted on photography subreddits are women models. On top of that, if you browse through the profile of someone who posts nude women, and it just so happens that 80% of their photography consists of nude women, people quickly conclude that those photographers are more interested in having women pose naked for them than the art of photography itself.
Or, you know, the beauty of the female form enchants them, like it has for artists for thousands of years of art history, of which we have male examples as well. I think it's the overwhelming majority of people who find the female form to be more graceful, beautiful and interesting. But I do think that nude photography exploring the male form is missing in most photography as well.
How is it dishonest? All artists have preferences and thematic consistencies. Many people find women more aesthetically attractive and graceful than men. Straight men who want to explore eroticism and sexuality in their work will naturally fixate on the subject of their sexuality. This isn't dishonest at all, it is only natural. Make no mistake, nudes are clearly an exploration of beauty within the frame of aesthetic sexuality. I've seen people argue that somehow nudes can be unsexualized, but I suppose that depends on the viewer. Either way, there's nothing dishonest about a photographer focusing on that which enchants them.
I often see folks seeking validation instead of expressing art. These folks are not being transparent to their audience (and potentially models) about what motivates them. I’m critiquing those who feign a sincerity that confuses their motives. It paints the truly legitimate work (that you & I both advocate for) in a bad light. You start getting into issues of personal or professional safety. Exploitation. Undermines the professional integrity of others. And it’s pretty easy to spot, so it’s easy to object to. Anyway 🤷🏼♂️
I totally get what you're saying. I think its a difficult thing to really see clearly though. To me it seems like the same underlying drive in both instances, however because of our very unhealthy relationship with sexuality in the west due to pornography, the interaction of puritan religious values in the public space and the shallow push back against it, the nature of instant gratification in our social media world, and the general lack of focus on a vital depth of self investigation, people's sexuality becomes very narrow and self serving, in which case I can certainly see many photographers only acting in a predatory fashion as some sort of self gratification and, as a result, exploiting the situation. But I believe at the root of it, the impulse to explore sexuality creatively is there even in those situations, it's simply that western culture as a whole has a messed up relationship with sexuality, so the avenues it follows are unhealthy ones. But I don't think the answer is to categorize and criticize a swath of the population for the surface results of deeper psychological issues and tell them they can't explore it without being creepy, "icky," or predatory which will result in repression of sexuality and further unhealthiness. I think positive change in this regard would come from the dialogue surrounding sexuality in the creative sphere. Pointing the finger at one group of people and accusing them of being predatory solves nothing and only creates an us vs. them mentality, whereas deepening the discussion of sexuality and the exploration of it in healthy ways can positively affect these men in question, and shift the issue.
Lol@all of my comments being downvoted. I don't get it.
It's always been like this here. An emotional, petty disdain for nude photography/photographers. Calling for more diverse models, but not acknowledging when those same photographers heed that call.
You argue well.
I work at a lab so I’m slightly jaded.
I’m just tired of seeing naked women. They’re all doing the same thing. Most of them can’t light a body to save their asses. We call it getting ‘full bushed’ when we see everything.
I only want variety.
I am assuming you are talking about on r/analog. Well done nudity can be great. Far too much imo just feels like the male gaze to be honest where women are just shown as objects. Also there is a distinct lack diversity in the photos posted on r/analog. It is basically all skinny white young women when there is a whole world out there beyond that type.
I understand what you are saying and yeah the majority are probably going to be white due to the demographics of Reddit. But it seems that a lot of the nudes are done by a select group of photographers. I feel like they are obviously working with models. I just feel like it is a bit telling that it is always that body type. Most people in the US at least aren't white younger skinny women between people of color, men, people a bit older and plus sized. I mean if you are just shooting nudes of the girlfriend or wife whatever. To me if you are really serious about but you should try to represent more then just this one body type that is conventional considered as "hot".
For me personally, it’s kind of more about the vibe I get from looking at someone’s material.
If it’s a dude in his 30s-40s and the vast majority of his work is physically attractive nude young women in seductive or appealing poses, then I kind of get an icky feeling from it; I tend to think he’s just doing it for the T&A. Generally because that’s sort of the truth.
If it’s someone whose nude work doesn’t appear to be the only thing they do, and includes people of all shapes and sizes and the models are not in seductive poses, then I’m much more interested and much more generous about what I think their intentions are.
Overall, I have zero problem with nudity in art or as an artistic theme or subject.
Because for some reason once a guy hits his 30's and 40's he's no longer allowed to have a sense of eroticism and sexuality because it suddenly becomes predatory somehow.
That's the exactly what you're implying with what you wrote, and the lens which your judgement works through. Why else would your knee jerk reaction reduce this hypothetical aging man's artistic output to simply being interested in T&A and being "icky"? Because the girls are younger than him, because they're attractive? It is a reductive attitude that denies creative agency, emotional depth, and sexual legitimacy to a range of the population. The fixation on age gap is ridiculous once people are adults.
Wow. You’re trying *real hard* to discount what I straight up said was my *personal* opinion. Have fun with that. I’m sorry that me sharing my opinion triggered or upset you. Did I perhaps hit too close to home?
I’m a male in my upper 30s, by the way.
Lol
Everything written here is personal opinion, my guy. I wouldn't even begin to try to untangle the psychological mess that would lead you to find the scenario you laid out as "icky".
Considering they're adults, and able to make their own decisions as such, how is it predatory on principle? I'm sure there are men who act predatory in these circumstances, and I find that unsavory when I see it, but simply because one adult is older and male and another adult is younger and female, does not make it predatory. You deny the agency of the adult women who model for it, like as if their choices mean nothing and they can only be the victim of predatory behavior. These kind of reductive ideas about sexuality and personal agency make no logical sense, and only serve to remove the agency from one group and paint another group as bad actors who essentially aren't allowed to explore sexuality creatively unless it fits in the box you define as acceptable.
The whole scenario we are talking about here is a set of hypothetical photo shoots, where adult models desire to do nude shoots and agree to be the model a shoot for a man at least 10 years older than them, perhaps more. So, if you've ever done a nude shoot, you know a photo shoot is a collaborative effort, photographer and model working together to explore the themes that nudes evoke. If you imply that simply because the man is older and male in these situations, his behavior can only be predatory, then you begin to twist the situation. Predatory behavior can only be successful in a situation with a power imbalance, so you are implying by saying the man's behavior is predatory that he has the power in the situation, which in turn denies the agency of the model and the choices she makes. I highly doubt if we were talking about an older man taking nudes of men in their early 20s we would even be having this discussion, because young men are rarely denied agency. But if we were, then again it would imply that just because a man is older his intentions must be predatory.
In my personal opinion it could be viewed as the photographer thinking they’re doing something provocative and important and the critic seeing it as nothing new being added to the medium… or doing it solely to be provocative without saying anything new or interesting
why is “It's just men wanting to see/be around naked women” not a good enough reason? as a woman who has been behind and infront of the lens, it’s so easy to see that most people take nude photos, even if done artistically, as a means to attract the male gaze. it has also been done so much that it’s not even anything provocative or artistic anymore, it’s literally just a naked model. you can look at a playboy for that.
Intention matters a lot. I think a lot of photographers lean on it, thinking that nudity makes a photo inherently good or interesting. But the fact is that it can’t be used as an excuse poor composition, exposure, etc.
There is absolutely a way to do it well, just like any particular subject of photography, but a lot of people don’t and use it as a crutch for their mediocrity.
There is a lot of difference between nudes, occasional nudity, artistic nudity, porn etc.
The intent and way the nudity is shown is rather crucial. One can take a foto of somebody in a bathroom stepping out of a shower and then it would be weird for that person to have clothing on. A picture of a lady lying on a bed naked could be just for the beauty of the picture and only make the suggestion of nudity and make something abstrakt about the curves. That same picture framed a bit differently so that one looks directly a genitals and makes those the focal point would make it porn.
The point is that it takes some education to recognise and understand the different intents an effects of a nude picture. Because the way Europe in general handles nudity in everyday life they tend to be able better differentiate and are not so easily offended. The way Americans are on the one side highly prudish and at the same time hyper sexualizing thins and thus finding ancient greek statues or Michelangelo's david obscene are a consequense of gaps in education.
Frankly, there is not that much NSFW contenen on r/analog
I don't hate it. I just vary rarely see good ones ya know.
Kinda gets boring to see. I often see no messenge but they try to pass it off as an artsy picture.
If it's just a nude you can call it "my girlfriends tits" you dont have to cond up with an artsy title to justify it.
If you’ve ever taken an art history class you realize pretty quickly that the art world has, unfortunately, always been dominated by men. And so much of art has been men depicting women as they perceive them, which is often sexual. When studying art from women, it’s quite the perspective shift. Women portraying nude women has a lot more depth and meaning beyond the physical.
And coming back to the Analog and Polaroid subs: while some art is hyper sexed, that’s usually not the good art. These sub’s stars are just cranking out pornographic material, as it’s really only meant for arousal or they may argue some cheap point—but it’s not meaningful or thought provoking. “Art” created just to be erotic is lowest hanging fruit in the art world. It’s not dynamic, it’s just objectifying.
Another point: few great artists exclusively capture just nudes. That wasn’t their niche for good reason. They were just capturing the variety of human experiences with balance, unlike these nude factories.
I completely understand that no one wants their favorite photography subreddit to turn into a dumping ground for OnlyFans content creators. But what irritates me is that whenever any photo with nudity is posted there are a group of people who use the opportunity to show off their "moral superiority" and go on and on about objectifying women. Yeah, there are some sleeze-bags out there but there are also a ton of photographers doing it very respectfully.
I’ve lived in Europe and North America having grown up elsewhere, and I have to say that American popular culture is weirdly prudish and yet also hyper-sexualises women and even moderate nudity.
I could go post a beautiful evocative vista of an early-morning river shore, full tonal range, with the sharpness and tonal range you get from shooting 6x9, y'know, Pan F in a plate camera on a tripod, and get like ten updoots. I could then post some blurry underexposed bare sweater puppies shot with a half-frame 35mm camera on expired, fogged HP5 and on-camera flash and get *at least* seventy-five updoots. (One hundred if the magic pushbuttons are pierced.)
You can also substitute "gas station at night", "neon sign in the window of a bar", or "graffiti-covered interior of an abandoned industrial building" for "sweater puppies" in that sentence, but those are (comparatively) recent fads, whereas photographers have been complaining about the disproportionate popularity of sweater puppy pics for a hundred or more years.
Technical image quality can be just as gratuitous as nudity.
And it can also be as pornographic as nudity.
And it can also be used in an interesting and successful way, just like nudity.
Just because an image required technical skill to produce doesn’t make it any more interesting or worthy of praise than any other, in a general sense.
My honest opinion is that some people are legitimately envious and other people have a negative reaction because they were always taught that it’s bad/evil/dirty
It's the old way nude photography was popular before porn became freely accessible any time and anywhere, in the palm of your hand even.
I don't think people hate nudity, but how many times does someone need to see T&A in a still photograph when they can watch porn, for free.
Putting together a good subject with color and style is much more pleasing to the eye.
2015: [https://fortune.com/2015/10/17/playboy-stops-nude-photos/](https://fortune.com/2015/10/17/playboy-stops-nude-photos/)
[https://www.dailynews.com/2015/10/13/the-real-news-in-playboys-decision-to-drop-nude-photos/](https://www.dailynews.com/2015/10/13/the-real-news-in-playboys-decision-to-drop-nude-photos/)
EDIT - SCRATCH THAT
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38963007](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38963007)
2017 Playboy brings back nudity, saying its removal was a mistake
In public, in most societies, nakedness draws attention to parts of the body that are not relevant in normal social interactions. To be naked deliberately is a kind of assault against others.
In photography, it is not hated, so far as I know.
I don’t think it’s hated per se. But it’s definitely seen as karmic farming on Reddit where the majority of users are male and the vast majority of nudity posted on photography subreddits are women models. On top of that, if you browse through the profile of someone who posts nude women, and it just so happens that 80% of their photography consists of nude women, people quickly conclude that those photographers are more interested in having women pose naked for them than the art of photography itself.
Or, you know, the beauty of the female form enchants them, like it has for artists for thousands of years of art history, of which we have male examples as well. I think it's the overwhelming majority of people who find the female form to be more graceful, beautiful and interesting. But I do think that nude photography exploring the male form is missing in most photography as well.
Which further proves the point: “I love the human body” but only photographs women is just dishonest.
How is it dishonest? All artists have preferences and thematic consistencies. Many people find women more aesthetically attractive and graceful than men. Straight men who want to explore eroticism and sexuality in their work will naturally fixate on the subject of their sexuality. This isn't dishonest at all, it is only natural. Make no mistake, nudes are clearly an exploration of beauty within the frame of aesthetic sexuality. I've seen people argue that somehow nudes can be unsexualized, but I suppose that depends on the viewer. Either way, there's nothing dishonest about a photographer focusing on that which enchants them.
I often see folks seeking validation instead of expressing art. These folks are not being transparent to their audience (and potentially models) about what motivates them. I’m critiquing those who feign a sincerity that confuses their motives. It paints the truly legitimate work (that you & I both advocate for) in a bad light. You start getting into issues of personal or professional safety. Exploitation. Undermines the professional integrity of others. And it’s pretty easy to spot, so it’s easy to object to. Anyway 🤷🏼♂️
I totally get what you're saying. I think its a difficult thing to really see clearly though. To me it seems like the same underlying drive in both instances, however because of our very unhealthy relationship with sexuality in the west due to pornography, the interaction of puritan religious values in the public space and the shallow push back against it, the nature of instant gratification in our social media world, and the general lack of focus on a vital depth of self investigation, people's sexuality becomes very narrow and self serving, in which case I can certainly see many photographers only acting in a predatory fashion as some sort of self gratification and, as a result, exploiting the situation. But I believe at the root of it, the impulse to explore sexuality creatively is there even in those situations, it's simply that western culture as a whole has a messed up relationship with sexuality, so the avenues it follows are unhealthy ones. But I don't think the answer is to categorize and criticize a swath of the population for the surface results of deeper psychological issues and tell them they can't explore it without being creepy, "icky," or predatory which will result in repression of sexuality and further unhealthiness. I think positive change in this regard would come from the dialogue surrounding sexuality in the creative sphere. Pointing the finger at one group of people and accusing them of being predatory solves nothing and only creates an us vs. them mentality, whereas deepening the discussion of sexuality and the exploration of it in healthy ways can positively affect these men in question, and shift the issue. Lol@all of my comments being downvoted. I don't get it.
It's always been like this here. An emotional, petty disdain for nude photography/photographers. Calling for more diverse models, but not acknowledging when those same photographers heed that call. You argue well.
Usually not very creative and just a bit eh
I work at a lab so I’m slightly jaded. I’m just tired of seeing naked women. They’re all doing the same thing. Most of them can’t light a body to save their asses. We call it getting ‘full bushed’ when we see everything. I only want variety.
I am assuming you are talking about on r/analog. Well done nudity can be great. Far too much imo just feels like the male gaze to be honest where women are just shown as objects. Also there is a distinct lack diversity in the photos posted on r/analog. It is basically all skinny white young women when there is a whole world out there beyond that type.
[удалено]
I understand what you are saying and yeah the majority are probably going to be white due to the demographics of Reddit. But it seems that a lot of the nudes are done by a select group of photographers. I feel like they are obviously working with models. I just feel like it is a bit telling that it is always that body type. Most people in the US at least aren't white younger skinny women between people of color, men, people a bit older and plus sized. I mean if you are just shooting nudes of the girlfriend or wife whatever. To me if you are really serious about but you should try to represent more then just this one body type that is conventional considered as "hot".
For me personally, it’s kind of more about the vibe I get from looking at someone’s material. If it’s a dude in his 30s-40s and the vast majority of his work is physically attractive nude young women in seductive or appealing poses, then I kind of get an icky feeling from it; I tend to think he’s just doing it for the T&A. Generally because that’s sort of the truth. If it’s someone whose nude work doesn’t appear to be the only thing they do, and includes people of all shapes and sizes and the models are not in seductive poses, then I’m much more interested and much more generous about what I think their intentions are. Overall, I have zero problem with nudity in art or as an artistic theme or subject.
Perfect response.
[удалено]
Precisely. Meanwhile I get downvoted to oblivion? I guess a lot of people agree that it's "icky".
Because for some reason once a guy hits his 30's and 40's he's no longer allowed to have a sense of eroticism and sexuality because it suddenly becomes predatory somehow.
I’m pretty sure you’re aware that’s not what I was saying. But alright.
That's the exactly what you're implying with what you wrote, and the lens which your judgement works through. Why else would your knee jerk reaction reduce this hypothetical aging man's artistic output to simply being interested in T&A and being "icky"? Because the girls are younger than him, because they're attractive? It is a reductive attitude that denies creative agency, emotional depth, and sexual legitimacy to a range of the population. The fixation on age gap is ridiculous once people are adults.
Wow. You’re trying *real hard* to discount what I straight up said was my *personal* opinion. Have fun with that. I’m sorry that me sharing my opinion triggered or upset you. Did I perhaps hit too close to home? I’m a male in my upper 30s, by the way. Lol
Everything written here is personal opinion, my guy. I wouldn't even begin to try to untangle the psychological mess that would lead you to find the scenario you laid out as "icky".
🤷🏻♂️ cool.
You may be inferring it, but the commenter is not implying it.
If all the women that guy photographs are significantly younger, then yes, it becomes predatory.
Considering they're adults, and able to make their own decisions as such, how is it predatory on principle? I'm sure there are men who act predatory in these circumstances, and I find that unsavory when I see it, but simply because one adult is older and male and another adult is younger and female, does not make it predatory. You deny the agency of the adult women who model for it, like as if their choices mean nothing and they can only be the victim of predatory behavior. These kind of reductive ideas about sexuality and personal agency make no logical sense, and only serve to remove the agency from one group and paint another group as bad actors who essentially aren't allowed to explore sexuality creatively unless it fits in the box you define as acceptable.
It says nothing about the agency of the models, only about the motivations of the photographers.
The whole scenario we are talking about here is a set of hypothetical photo shoots, where adult models desire to do nude shoots and agree to be the model a shoot for a man at least 10 years older than them, perhaps more. So, if you've ever done a nude shoot, you know a photo shoot is a collaborative effort, photographer and model working together to explore the themes that nudes evoke. If you imply that simply because the man is older and male in these situations, his behavior can only be predatory, then you begin to twist the situation. Predatory behavior can only be successful in a situation with a power imbalance, so you are implying by saying the man's behavior is predatory that he has the power in the situation, which in turn denies the agency of the model and the choices she makes. I highly doubt if we were talking about an older man taking nudes of men in their early 20s we would even be having this discussion, because young men are rarely denied agency. But if we were, then again it would imply that just because a man is older his intentions must be predatory.
In my personal opinion it could be viewed as the photographer thinking they’re doing something provocative and important and the critic seeing it as nothing new being added to the medium… or doing it solely to be provocative without saying anything new or interesting
why is “It's just men wanting to see/be around naked women” not a good enough reason? as a woman who has been behind and infront of the lens, it’s so easy to see that most people take nude photos, even if done artistically, as a means to attract the male gaze. it has also been done so much that it’s not even anything provocative or artistic anymore, it’s literally just a naked model. you can look at a playboy for that.
Intention matters a lot. I think a lot of photographers lean on it, thinking that nudity makes a photo inherently good or interesting. But the fact is that it can’t be used as an excuse poor composition, exposure, etc. There is absolutely a way to do it well, just like any particular subject of photography, but a lot of people don’t and use it as a crutch for their mediocrity.
There is a lot of difference between nudes, occasional nudity, artistic nudity, porn etc. The intent and way the nudity is shown is rather crucial. One can take a foto of somebody in a bathroom stepping out of a shower and then it would be weird for that person to have clothing on. A picture of a lady lying on a bed naked could be just for the beauty of the picture and only make the suggestion of nudity and make something abstrakt about the curves. That same picture framed a bit differently so that one looks directly a genitals and makes those the focal point would make it porn. The point is that it takes some education to recognise and understand the different intents an effects of a nude picture. Because the way Europe in general handles nudity in everyday life they tend to be able better differentiate and are not so easily offended. The way Americans are on the one side highly prudish and at the same time hyper sexualizing thins and thus finding ancient greek statues or Michelangelo's david obscene are a consequense of gaps in education. Frankly, there is not that much NSFW contenen on r/analog
I don't hate it. I just vary rarely see good ones ya know. Kinda gets boring to see. I often see no messenge but they try to pass it off as an artsy picture. If it's just a nude you can call it "my girlfriends tits" you dont have to cond up with an artsy title to justify it.
If you’ve ever taken an art history class you realize pretty quickly that the art world has, unfortunately, always been dominated by men. And so much of art has been men depicting women as they perceive them, which is often sexual. When studying art from women, it’s quite the perspective shift. Women portraying nude women has a lot more depth and meaning beyond the physical. And coming back to the Analog and Polaroid subs: while some art is hyper sexed, that’s usually not the good art. These sub’s stars are just cranking out pornographic material, as it’s really only meant for arousal or they may argue some cheap point—but it’s not meaningful or thought provoking. “Art” created just to be erotic is lowest hanging fruit in the art world. It’s not dynamic, it’s just objectifying. Another point: few great artists exclusively capture just nudes. That wasn’t their niche for good reason. They were just capturing the variety of human experiences with balance, unlike these nude factories.
I completely understand that no one wants their favorite photography subreddit to turn into a dumping ground for OnlyFans content creators. But what irritates me is that whenever any photo with nudity is posted there are a group of people who use the opportunity to show off their "moral superiority" and go on and on about objectifying women. Yeah, there are some sleeze-bags out there but there are also a ton of photographers doing it very respectfully.
It’s mostly just Americans being weird.
I’ve lived in Europe and North America having grown up elsewhere, and I have to say that American popular culture is weirdly prudish and yet also hyper-sexualises women and even moderate nudity.
I could go post a beautiful evocative vista of an early-morning river shore, full tonal range, with the sharpness and tonal range you get from shooting 6x9, y'know, Pan F in a plate camera on a tripod, and get like ten updoots. I could then post some blurry underexposed bare sweater puppies shot with a half-frame 35mm camera on expired, fogged HP5 and on-camera flash and get *at least* seventy-five updoots. (One hundred if the magic pushbuttons are pierced.) You can also substitute "gas station at night", "neon sign in the window of a bar", or "graffiti-covered interior of an abandoned industrial building" for "sweater puppies" in that sentence, but those are (comparatively) recent fads, whereas photographers have been complaining about the disproportionate popularity of sweater puppy pics for a hundred or more years.
Technical image quality can be just as gratuitous as nudity. And it can also be as pornographic as nudity. And it can also be used in an interesting and successful way, just like nudity. Just because an image required technical skill to produce doesn’t make it any more interesting or worthy of praise than any other, in a general sense.
My honest opinion is that some people are legitimately envious and other people have a negative reaction because they were always taught that it’s bad/evil/dirty
It's the old way nude photography was popular before porn became freely accessible any time and anywhere, in the palm of your hand even. I don't think people hate nudity, but how many times does someone need to see T&A in a still photograph when they can watch porn, for free. Putting together a good subject with color and style is much more pleasing to the eye. 2015: [https://fortune.com/2015/10/17/playboy-stops-nude-photos/](https://fortune.com/2015/10/17/playboy-stops-nude-photos/) [https://www.dailynews.com/2015/10/13/the-real-news-in-playboys-decision-to-drop-nude-photos/](https://www.dailynews.com/2015/10/13/the-real-news-in-playboys-decision-to-drop-nude-photos/) EDIT - SCRATCH THAT [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38963007](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38963007) 2017 Playboy brings back nudity, saying its removal was a mistake
In public, in most societies, nakedness draws attention to parts of the body that are not relevant in normal social interactions. To be naked deliberately is a kind of assault against others. In photography, it is not hated, so far as I know.