"Cinderella Story"
Photo Manipulation by German digital artist PiXasso
Photo Manipulation by German digital artist PiXasso
Based on a photograph by Steven A Brown
Fashion photography employs retouching to create ideal Beauty along with a covert or overt eroticism. Fashion photographers pushed commercial work into the realm of fine art photography from Edward Streichen to Helmut Newton, bringing fashion photography its trademark eroticism.
Streichen, chief photographer for Vogue and Vanity Fair in the 1920s, enhanced fashion photography with dramatic lighting effects and glamour, portraying women in romantic and sexually alluring ways. Any flaws were retouched to make the image as beautiful as possible. The same effect is achieved today with digital retouching instead of physically altering film.
By the 1960s fashion photographer Helmut Newton turned the underlying eroticism in fashion photography from covert to overt. According to annedarling, Newton rose to fame and notoriety with his aggressive, dark, and edgy fashion work for Vogue. Advertising changed. It was "no longer peddling products; it switched into the realm of ideas." The effects of this shift emerge in the increasing number of fashion images today that show models fully or nearly nude.
A reader, thinking of the seemingly endless debates about art versus porn and what is good taste, sent these ideas about labels and art from Helmut Newton:
"Some people's photography is an art. Not mine. Art is a dirty word in photography. All this fine art crap is killing it already."
~ Helmut Newton
"I hate good taste. It's the worst thing that can happen to a creative person."
~ Helmut Newton
Photograph by Helmut Newton
In 1960, as Helmut Newton transformed fashion photography, Federico Fellini pushed film in the same edgy, surreal, sensual/sexual direction. Although Fellini's landmark film La Dolce Vita was banned for being "dirty," its then-shocking scene of voluptuous Swedish actress Anita Ekberg cavorting in Rome's Trevi Fountain created an iconic film image.
My posting of Steven A Brown's "La Dolce Vita" caught the imagination of two contemporary digital artists. From the photograph emerged PiXasso's "Cinderella Story" and Ricardo58's"Fontana de Trevi."
"Fontana de Trevi"
Digital art: Ricardo58
Digital art: Ricardo58
Photographer: Steven A Brown
So how do we sort out fit specimens for categories such as fine art, erotica, and pornography in our brave new digital world? The Newton quotes give us a cue. Why would anyone today, at this point in multimedia history, consider all nude work to be erotic? Why would anyone believe clothing could possibly conceal eroticism? What's porn to one person is art to another. Isn't it time to stop with the labels already and just enjoy any image that makes our hearts skip a beat or that causes us to think about an old subject in a fresh way?
20 comments:
people who droll over naked women and who are thoughtless and animals can not be taught and can not understand what is the difference, i have lived in a closed environment and believe me I KNOW! they just cant see what it is and even understand what it is, all the see is boobs and gentles which is really sad, i respect artistic nude and respect who has the guts to do it, and and you are damn right, even clothed people can be erotic! I HAVE SEEN IT! i still remember when i went to apply for a job in the green zone in Baghdad, i saw this Iraq interpreter ( she think she is ) she used to..........you know!, she was wearing cloths that if she walked naked she would have been less erotic, I was standing near an American soldier, me and him jaw dropped and both at the same time said : dear mother of God! and i said if she walks naked that would be better, and he answered : Damn Damn you are F**king right hummy!.
people just dont understand what is the different and some cant even be taught, it is a sad fact.
Anonymous, I thank you for the comment. It's sad to hear people's misconceptions can be so ugly.
'Scuse me, but I feel a rant coming on. Sorry, honor won't allow me to refrain.
Call rant.sourceOfMisogyny.commonCulture.photo (whoIsResponsible)
In one sense I agree with Helmut when he said he hated good taste, that it was a horrible detriment to creativity. On the other hand I'd like to sucker punch the bastard, throw him against the bar and go to work on him for failing to define just exactly what he meant by good taste. Who's good taste Helmut *smack* WHO'S GOOD TASTE? Answer me or I'm gonna hurt your wormy ass, not just humiliate it.
The image "The New Fashion" is a fine, fine photo, and one of the most offensive things I've seen in a long time, true pornography of the heart. It instantly brought to mind another fine photo I saw on devArt in the gallery of the Aussie model Dollybeck, one of her fetish images. I looked for it to give the title but apparently she's pulled all of her stuff down. Anyway, the image showed Dolly magnificently nude in platform high heels... vacuuming her floor ( *chuckle* and because of the heels so tall they had to add a third section to the wand to keep her from bending over to the point her breasts were hanging). The kick to the image was the vacuum she was using... a nude and rather pudgy little man curled fetal pig fashion on the floor wearing a gas mask playing a canister vacuum, the hose connected to the intake port of his mask. His existence was to suck up the dirt off her floor. The line between the two images, Helmut's and Dollybeck's, is unmistakable... the fashionable woman views men with contempt. CJ, thanks. You've just illuminated for me why I really, really don't like fashion photography. Fashion photography: a major power player in the developmental stages of the feminine mind. I'd rather see a fifteen head rolling orgy based on oversize silicon molded deformed and twice life size thank you very kindly. Not nearly as gross, and not nearly as much damage potential.
So Helmut took fashion into the realms of ideas rather than products did he? Quite possibly true, but what an idea he chose to substitute for basic humanity, much less good taste! Would anyone have the hutzpa to try and guess just how much misery he empowered into reality leveraging off the instinctive feminine desire to be attractive to a mate? I'm good at WAG (wild ass guess) numbers, and I wouldn't want to try, not on that one. But speaking as a man (now old, fat, out of shape and running patched hydraulics around his heart) who has lived downstream of that attitude for all of his life I'd be plenty willing to spend 30 of the remaining 90 seconds worth of combat power left in this old body to work revenge on any one of the perps.
Return // end of Rant
CJ, your final question is so very astute, and quite critical for the survival of humanity. We are all influenced by images, be they art or advertising. We have pretty much agreed I think to say the erotic is all things that support life, while the pornographic is all things which diminish and consume life. Why should we categorize images? So we can defend ourselves against the truly pornographic when it isn't wearing it's trademark of deformed sexuality! Sexual pornography is actually fairly safe stuff compared to pornography of the heart and soul. It's easily recognized.
Not a fan of Mr. Newton, Cyranos?
I think the model is looking at the dog in Mr. Newton's photo, and that is not the title he gave it. I'll fix that so as not to create any categorization problems.
I don't need a word to tell me when an image offends me. The moment I would say something is in bad taste, someone else would say they don't like my work. It happens.
Cyranos, on the good taste aspect of the Newton quote - who would you appoint to be the arbitrator of good taste in art? Would we have The Emily Post Book of Art Etiquette (heavens, I would hope not!!!). I can see how that would immediately kill creativity.
CJ, based solely on the image of his you presented (the first in my experience ID' to his name) the answer is not only no, but *!!~ no! I've seen many, many images carrying the same theme and vibe as that one, I have no idea how many of them he was personally responsible for. But you put him forward as a highly influential individual in creating that genre, his name will do for a convenient handle on the archetype.
The issue is not who, but WHAT. Who implies someone else has the authority to set what is good taste, essentially usurping the individuals' right to any taste (taste: the expression of self reflected in self chosen elements of the personal environment) to the same degree that individual accepts an externally defined authority on the subject... no doubt what Helmut was speaking of in the quote. Such tyranny as that is certainly a bane on the individuality which is the source of creativity, the part I agree with.
The part I'll dispute, dispute with great prejudice as they said in the movie, has to do with the history you delineated concerning the transition of the 60's from fashion as essentially product placement advertising to attitude association advertising, a transition you implied was heavily influenced by Helmut Newton's work. What attitude did he, and his contemporaries, choose to present to the world during the watershed 60's in Vogue and Vanity Fair, two heavy hitters among the dreamweavers working the female side using dreams of the sophisticated and successful life to sell the products advertised within? The attitude presented to the world by the most bitter of women: the aloof, the distant and emotionally cold, the cannibalistic and the sterile, the heartless users (I didn't say whores, I just thought it real loud) demanding the materialistic as their price to simply recognize the humanity of anyone and everyone they came in contact with. All of it leads directly into fashion as the servant of the usual results of such attitudes: the emaciated, the emo-unstable, the professional victim, the sterile. No CJ, if that was his contribution to the world of photography, and through photography's influence his contribution to the life and times of the world then no, I don't like what was done.
If you want to call me an ignorant buffoon in such realms that's fine, I am. I never saw any value at all in their offerings. If you want to call me a loose cannon I won't argue in the least, I am. But please don't mistake me for some 12 pound muzzle loader broken loose from the recoil ropes on a British man 'o war sailing in the eighteen hundreds. I'm not. I'm much more akin to a sentient self aware and totally rogue Aegis fleet air defense system riding say, umm, the USS New Jersey trying like all get out to talk the sixteen inchers into joining the cause so some seriously heavy ordinance can be delivered at range. If the attitude of that photo isn't broken it very well may prove the turning point leading to the demise of more than our culture.
Ah categories. How I love them. >__<
Honestly, art is art. Who the hell came up with this categorizations anyways?
Fashion photography and glamour is always going to be a retouching sense. Look at the sizes of the billboards they plaster these images on. Would you sell beauty products to 99.9% of the world if there was something "wrong" with the model? No, I don't think so. And if you did manage to sell, your sales wouldn't be sky high. This is the trouble with society.
We have this image.
God only knows who started said image, but it's the one that says "imperfections are not beautiful, and we can't sell our high-priced shit that way." Okay, so maybe they didn't say it quite like that, but you get my point. This image is the core of advertising (something of which I got into when I was interviewed the other day), and sadly it's the theme that works. So, highly manipulated, edited, brushed, and glossed photos are always going to be a part of fashion and glamour. Why? Because society says so.
So how do we sort out fit specimens for categories such as fine art, erotica, and pornography in our brave new digital world?
We don't....at least not well. Or we let the people who sit on their thrones attempt to decided. But with billions of people in the world, it's hard to please every individual soul. What I consider fine art, erotica, and pornography could be very different from someone else's point of view. Especially the pornography part...but I'm just going to stay away from that rant, you'll have me here forever.
Why would anyone today, at this point in multimedia history, consider all nude work to be erotic?
Well, when you Google "Erotic" you come to this definition: "Of, relating to, or tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement."
There are people who read that and decide that all nude work does that to them. They get aroused. They find their excitement or their sexual desire through an image. So they figure that nude = erotic. But again, that's an opinion, I personally don't see all nude as erotic. There are certainly things that could arouse sexual desire, but many images that I see/come across on a day-to-day basis do not.
Why would anyone believe clothing could possibly conceal eroticism?
Society. It paints ugly pictures, and ideas into our heads when we are small. Clothed people = unattractive. Unclothed people = sexual desire. However, I think now most Fashion magazines have been able to change that idea some. No thanks go Guess Jeans with their nearly nude models though.
Isn't it time to stop with the labels already and just enjoy any image that makes our hearts skip a beat or that causes us to think about an old subject in a fresh way?
High time.
Gonna go with my personal take on this: to me, the issue is not erotic content but CONSENT. I accept (and often enjoy) anything, however explicit, about consenting adults. Anything without consent, to me, is unacceptable.
As for whether it is "art": if the creator says so, it is. It may still be BAD art. "Non-art" is that which is purely utilitarian, or which the creator assures us is not intended as art.
My word, as you are wont to say, Josefina. I agree with everything in your comment. I am really sick of those who label everything! I've had them down my throat today.
To those who label, I say: Get over it. Have a good bowel movement. Get rid of that anal fixation!
As to those who blame fashion and beauty photography for every damn ill in this world, I say: People vote with their money. Advertisers kill ads that would kill their sales. This is what people want. Unless you want to live on welfare, you have to make money in this world. It's not flat-out unethical to promote and sell a needed or desired product.
You make good points, Josefina. Every age has formed its feminine ideal, and it has varied across the centuries when we had no mass media or advertising as we know it. The fact the goddesses had a beauty contest to determine who was the fairest of them all tells you how far back humans had competitions to choose the fairest, most beautiful woman.
Throughout time the desire for physical perfection has driven both men and women. It's nothing new. I could say more, but I'm tired of arguing with people this late in a bad day.
Chronophontes, I like your criteria of consent. I like it a lot.
Both points in your comment really make sense. Thank you!!! We have to let go a little bit regarding judgement of subjective areas such as art, writing, drama, and so on. No one of us can judge acceptable content or quality for everyone else.
My good Doctor,
Once again, you provide a thought-provoking journal entry.
I recall when in the Eighties the Supreme Court ruled (or washed its hands) that there could be no definable difference between 'Erotica' and 'pornography.' Some of Newton's work was on the chopping block, as I recall. I'm not a fan of his work, but I respect his pushing of boundaries and odd concepts.
We are now in the midst of politics not only defining which scientific beliefs one holds, but also of moral conduct and religion. This only serves to blur the line between art and porn even further.
We are afraid of our own shadow these days. Everything is at the least a potential threat. Where it's perfectly acceptable to show car crash victims during prime time, but it's not okay to see a bare backside. I don't want to be one of those parents who would rather let their children watch wholesale violence than some sort of nudity, no matter how trivial. Children don't know the human body in itself a work of art and nothing to be ashamed of, they are taught it, just like they are taught a certain kind of people aren't okay to be around and are in fact blamed for everything that's wrong in the world.
I've gotten off-topic, I apologize.
In the end, I don't believe we were meant to quiver our lives away in shadows, wrapping sorry and worry about our shoulders like a leaden coat. Art V. Porn is just one more drop in the bucket.
Thank you for your patience (as usual) in my reply.
People who choose to label, are those who chose to live by the damn "rule" book.
They need to get the high heel out of their ass and move on.
Ah money. Another brilliant topic, that I shall also stay away from. *sigh* Advertisers are just special people who know what sells, and make it sell. It's all because of the money.
And we learn when we are young too, what beauty is. Look at Snow White. The Evil Queen: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all." Then we get 3 year olds quoting that...and well, look what happened to America. >_<
Physical perfection desire is always going to be there. As long as we have an "image" and as long as we have advertising, we aren't going to be kissing that thought goodbye anytime soon. I agree, I spent the majority of my day arguing, and it is late.
People just need to get over the "set" rules of things, and learn to live a little. That shouldn't be too much to ask! Sheesh!
You're not off topic at all, my friend. I'm a little weary this late in a day arguing with a lot of people about labels and inflexible rules and not understanding that art is subjective and falls into blurred lines because it is a timeless, living thing.
We humans are mutable. Great art endures, no matter our personal and prejudiced opinion of it.
Haha. Josefina, you've been arguing with people all day too? I like the high heel up the arse image.
Oh wait. Is that offensive? Is it, uh, bad taste?
sometime I think the difference is in the real emotion and in the selfless, in the unselfish of the photo. in your photo I don't see any attempt to "force" my sex mood. Your photo is honest: may be I turn on or maybe not, but it's on me. In porno, the photo is made "only" to turn me on: it can be a great photo, but it is selfish.
oh that dangerous field I love Helmut Newton and ways he walks on edge.
Thank you so much for the great comment. You make a great point about art vs. porn. And I agree about Mr. Newton! He rocked it and changed the world of photography!!!
"The fact the goddesses had a beauty contest to determine who was the fairest of them all tells you how far back humans had competitions to choose the fairest, most beautiful woman."
And even then, as I recall, they offered gifts to buy his vote. "...there is nothing new under the sun." 'Nuff said.
I truly believe that too also, Jochanaan. There is nothing new under the sun.
My first reaction on seeing this post was "This again?!" *lol* On the other hand, my own views have evolved somewhat in recent years. What I call good art, many of my Christian brothers and sisters would call pornography--yet their labels show how little they understand the arts.
But art can be bad in several ways. It can be technically bad, without redeeming qualities of soul; it can be sterile even when technically perfect; or it can serve a terrible purpose. It seems to me that what I have taken to calling "commercial pornography" is mostly bad in all three of those ways. It is art by the strictest definitions--yet it is bad art.
Jochanaan, I think many of us share your response - THIS AGAIN?!
Yes, this again. It never ends because our individual and collective views keep changing. For individuals, experience teaches, among other things. For the collective, changes reflect political, philosophical, and religious "trends."
As of late, I am weary of labels. I want to respond to works of art on an individual basis.
Post a Comment