Nude photography and arousal.

<p>I just wanted to pose a question about nude photography. Is it possible to take nude photographs and not get aroused. And if you are aroused, how does it effect the relationship with the model and the photograph. Yes, its a broad question. Maybe it needs to be narrowed but I pose it as a thought to consider. Thank you. K.</p>

<p>I understand that male gynaecologists do not get sexually aroused while exploring the groins of naked female patients. My doctor for many years, a woman (I am male) never jumped on me when I was in a state of undress.</p>

<p>It's just filling the frame, you think about the photography if that's what you're doing.</p>

<p>Mukul, good point but can you realistically compare a male gynecologist to a photographer who is studying the female body and form, attempting to make a work of art out of the experience? Cannot art be erotic and if so, how does the photographer relate to the eroticism. Let's hope male gynecologists don't see their patients as works of art in the sensual sense at least by looking at their groin.</p>

I'm concentrating on lighting and shadow. Is her hair in her face. Is her lipstick smeared. How much body make up on

everything is too much, can I photoshop that much out. Framing the shot. Shutter speed, aperture, and strobe/flash

power. "suck in your gut, exhale, stick out your chest". How many more shots left on this card. Say something funny

so she laughs candidly. Etc...

 

Maybe when I was younger, but not now really. I'm thinking of other things.

<p><br /> As far as not being arousal when shooting. This depends. Chances are the technical side of the shoot would distract from this.</p>

<p>Steve, I think maybe it's fine to be aroused. Maybe it's just human. Maybe that's in part why some photographers prefer the nude. There is the technical aspects that Richard mentions but can arousal make for better art and why shouldn't it. K.</p>

<p>Of course art can be erotic: but the photographer is a worker-creator, not a viewer-consumer. Here is one difficulty with your question. What happens if the nude model is the photographer's girl friend or wife?</p>

<p>Great question, Katie. I've done little nude photography, but cannot imagine doing it well if you are detached from the erotic. Sure we can talk about, say, the female form, curves, textures: but ALL of that is sexy. </p>

<p>In fact, I'll have to check on this, but I'll bet even gay male photographers find an element of eroticism in photographing nude females. (Are we not supposed to capture images of things that fascinate us in order to do it well?)</p>

<p>I agree Warren. I think you cannot be detached from the feelings and emotions that your subject inspires, especially when it comes to nudes. There is a beauty that comes from taking nudes, that can be sexy, erotic or otherwise. Why would people have to deny it or minimize the effects it has on the photographer. To do so would appear to deny yourself the fullness of the experience. My question in part has to do with how do we allow ourselves to be honest with what we feel and how this effects the art.</p>

<p>Mikul, although the photographer can be considered a worker-creator, there appears to be other facets to this work. Not everyone chooses to make a living taking nudes and even those who do, are choosing this work because it is satisfying in various ways. Is that not true? K.</p>

<p>Mikul, although the photographer can be considered a worker-creator, there appears to be other facets to this work. Not everyone chooses to make a living taking nudes and even those who do, are choosing this work because it is satisfying in various ways. Is that not true? K.</p>

<p>Suprisingly, I don't find the photograpy <em><strong>itself</strong></em> erotic or arousing at all....<em>at the time of the shooting.</em> The work itself demands all the attention. but, later, the remembrances of the event can be more personal....Robert</p>

<p>You do bring up an interesting point Robert. K.</p>

Katie, you seemed to be biased while your original attempt at the question did not /seem/ to be.

 

And, could this be moved to that other philosophy forum?

<p>It's probably reasonable to say that some photographers (or painters or sculptors) are sexually aroused while others are not. It is wrong, I think, to describe an artist-worker's focussed, concentrated, single-minded work on a possibly arousing subject as dishonest because it leaves no space for arousal.<br>

On a photographer's work improving because of sexual arousal, I can only extrapolate from the best known work of Masters and Johnson. An intensely aroused photographer is likely to be shivering and twitching and irritable such that a lens would probably be dropped rather than, er, mounted.</p>

<p>My doctor, a woman, did however once so appreciate the texture of my testicles that she called in an intern to observe them as well.<br>

Some of us, well....</p>

<p>I too have been repulsed by the sight of porridge congealed into balls.</p>

<p>Nude photography is not a problem for me, have done it several times, but I insist on wearing my socks as its handy to have somewhere to shove a spare card or two, mind you it has been suggested to me several times that architectural photography's maybe not the best example to demonstrate with.</p>

<p>Thank you Mukul, I've just sworn off porridge balls for the rest of my life.....</p>

<p>As a photographer of nudes I have never gotten physically aroused while working. As others have said, there is too much to be thinking about related to getting the best image on film. There have been times that the light will fall just right on her body or I'll see an expression that generates a strong reaction. I'll make exposures then pause and tell her how beautiful the moment was.<br>

By the way, this has been the subject of endless message threads on the various model/photographer casting sites.</p>

<p>Now that I think about it the arousal, such that it is, seems to be running in background mode, as it were, that is, I am excited about the prospect of producing erotically charged pictures but, as Mark says, at time of shooting there is too much to think about. That said, it is probably just as well since arousal 'in foreground mode', if I can use that expression, would be detrimental to the photography. It seems to be a kind of detached arousal. There's probably a doctoral thesis for somebody in this question.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Why would people have to deny it or minimize the effects it has on the photographer. To do so would appear to deny yourself the fullness of the experience."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Skydivers take pictures presumably to document an adventure, not fear, which many viewer might interpret. In the same way, nude photography is often intended to express beauty; eroticism is in the viewer's mind. To infer an motion to a photographer from a viewer is simply not always correct. </p>

 

<p>As i think about it, maybe it's not arousal but some other form of interest. You can find beauty in the human form and that may be in part why people photograph the nude. Where that interest comes from can be sexual/erotic but maybe an appreciation of beauty is also in play. I take a look at some photographers here that do nudes and many are tasteful and imo respectful of the models. I can't qualify that statement, it is just a feeling that I get compared to those photographs that just show someones jugs. Maybe that is artistic or beautiful but I have a hard time seeing it that way.</p>

<p>Michael, it appears that some photographers can effectively put their feelings into the background, it doesn't mean that they're not there, as people here have alluded. But doing that DOES allow for a fullness of experience, it does not deny feelings, it just puts them in their proper place. I think some of the respondents nailed this question.</p>