We see far more images of the female form in the media and on the web than the male, both clothed and unclothed, but does this mean that the male form cannot be equally as artistic or appealing to the artist / photographer, or to the viewing public ?
Some say that the female is more attractive and therefore as there may be more male photographers in the world so it would follow that there will be more images of the female form, but what about other artists such as painters, drawers, and sculptures etc where the gender spread is more even. I also suspect that in today's enlightened world there are still some reservations with a male form being displayed and in particular one male finding the naked male form attractive especially in the world of photography .. in the purely artistic sense, but is this not rather narrow minded ?. if a male or female artist wishes to study one particular gender form does this assume their gender preference or personal/social status ?
For a female to be a model is considered somewhat natural, possibly healthy to many, however a male model can be thought to be more vein, especially by other blokes, but thankfully the world is changing with more attention to clothes and also cosmetics for blokes being more acceptable and male models are not assumed to be anything less than a red blooded male. Have done a lot of outdoor work with nude females for print sale, and on several occasions women have said "now, if that figure was a bloke I would buy that " - worth taking note !
Certainly with regards to artistic full frontal nudity the female body is just about accepted in most cultures, some more than others, whereas the naked male is still somewhat taboo, a wee bit 'naughty', understandably as there is more on display? Working with the male form can be more challenging to keep things discreet, but this should not make the subject anything less of an art form. What it may require is an alternative approach to lighting and posture if we are to explore the subjects masculinity as many art nude images of the female are seeking to portray the form as soft and sensual, or maybe strong feminine, but not very often as masculine. However some images exploring a woman's masculinity can be stunning.
Certainly with regards to artistic full frontal nudity the female body is just about accepted in most cultures, some more than others, whereas the naked male is still somewhat taboo, a wee bit 'naughty', understandably as there is more on display? Working with the male form can be more challenging to keep things discreet, but this should not make the subject anything less of an art form. What it may require is an alternative approach to lighting and posture if we are to explore the subjects masculinity as many art nude images of the female are seeking to portray the form as soft and sensual, or maybe strong feminine, but not very often as masculine. However some images exploring a woman's masculinity can be stunning.
6 comments:
Interesting reading, Dave. I don't have much insight to add to your observations, despite pondering the subject myself.
I think you have pretty much described my own views on the matter.
There are more female nudes because there are more female models. There are more female models because the female body is more aesthetically pleasing to both genders (at least, this is the conclusion I have come to), irrespective of sexual orientation.
As a woman, I can always appreciate looking at a beautiful woman, portrayed artistically - as can (presumably) a man. I think it's technically harder to create artistic nudes of a man (though by no means impossible), simply because of the anatomy. As you say, a full frontal image of a nude woman still keeps the 'sexual bits' fairly discreet, so the image can be viewed without necessarily associating it with sex (and therefore, in the minds of some, justifiably making it 'art').
A full frontal nude of a male however, displays parts of the anatomy that are almost unavoidably associated with sex - at least in our society - making it difficult to view an 'artistic' nude, in a context that isn't sexual.
There is an argument to say that the male genitalia is not necessarily a 'sex organ,' but that argument becomes very difficult to uphold if it is photographed in an erect state - in which case it's difficult to view the content as anything other than sexual.
Again, that does not necessarily mean that an 'erotic' image can't also be art, but in our society at least, it is more comfortable for some viewers to disassociate art and sex.
(As an aside, some would argue that any depiction of nudity - male or female - is sexual, and inappropriate. We do, unfortunately, live in a society that only ever depicts nudity in a sexual context... however, I digress...)
I think photographing the male nude comes down to the same thing as photographing the female nude. It comes down to the image itself. The lighting, technical skill, composition and pose all contribute to whether or not that image is artistic. A snapshot of a man or woman, of any part of the anatomy taken for no other reason than exhibitionism, to post on internet sites for the sole purpose of titillation is, arguably, not art. A well lit, well composed and thoughtful photograph which was taken with the intention of creating art can arguably be called art - regardless of whether the subject matter is male, female or even human.
At least, that's my nutshell viewpoint.
I like the male nudes. As I mentioned, I think it is 'harder' in some ways to photograph them well, but by no means impossible, and you have captured them well. :-)
Interesting reading, Dave. I don't have much insight to add to your observations, despite pondering the subject myself.
I think you have pretty much described my own views on the matter.
There are more female nudes because there are more female models. There are more female models because the female body is more aesthetically pleasing to both genders (at least, this is the conclusion I have come to), irrespective of sexual orientation.
As a woman, I can always appreciate looking at a beautiful woman, portrayed artistically - as can (presumably) a man. I think it's technically harder to create artistic nudes of a man (though by no means impossible), simply because of the anatomy. As you say, a full frontal image of a nude woman still keeps the 'sexual bits' fairly discreet, so the image can be viewed without necessarily associating it with sex (and therefore, in the minds of some, justifiably making it 'art').
A full frontal nude of a male however, displays parts of the anatomy that are almost unavoidably associated with sex - at least in our society - making it difficult to view an 'artistic' nude, in a context that isn't sexual.
There is an argument to say that the male genitalia is not necessarily a 'sex organ,' but that argument becomes very difficult to uphold if it is photographed in an erect state - in which case it's difficult to view the content as anything other than sexual.
Again, that does not necessarily mean that an 'erotic' image can't also be art, but in our society at least, it is more comfortable for some viewers to disassociate art and sex.
(As an aside, some would argue that any depiction of nudity - male or female - is sexual, and inappropriate. We do, unfortunately, live in a society that only ever depicts nudity in a sexual context... however, I digress...)
I think photographing the male nude comes down to the same thing as photographing the female nude. It comes down to the image itself. The lighting, technical skill, composition and pose all contribute to whether or not that image is artistic. A snapshot of a man or woman, of any part of the anatomy taken for no other reason than exhibitionism, to post on internet sites for the sole purpose of titillation is, arguably, not art. A well lit, well composed and thoughtful photograph which was taken with the intention of creating art can arguably be called art - regardless of whether the subject matter is male, female or even human.
At least, that's my nutshell viewpoint.
I like the male nudes. As I mentioned, I think it is 'harder' in some ways to photograph them well, but by no means impossible, and you have captured them well. :-)
Beautiful images Dave.
As Rosanne said, male nudes can be tough. I've done my share of them. But here in the states, the market for them is so limited as to make them not worth the effort - and I think that's unfortunate.
Best -
As a male fine art model, I've found that I have more work than I can handle, partly because there are so few male models. I walked into a class not long ago and had one of the artist say, "Oh cool, not another skinny white girl!" I have several instructors that use me exclusively for their classes and private lessons, so that their students get experience drawing male models and can see more of the musculature, even though I'm not a body builder.
Bear
Very interesting article Dave, and I find my views coincide with yours.
Its a big job changing society's views, but we can all do it little by little.
Interesting post, I agree that it seems the male body is definitely shied away from, and it does seem as if the penis is a 'taboo' - even in nude photography where a male is depicted is seems the model/photographer go out of their way to avoid showing the penis, not sure why it is just another part of the body after all!
Post a Comment