Do you consider this...art? NSFW Link.

[JoeW]

Yes, it's art. It's best evaluated as a series rather than individual photos. Some particularly good art is to have something atypical or out-of-place in a setting. Dali took it to extreme (where everything didn't fit). But she takes a cliche (a store employee dressing a dummy in the store window and twists it by making the employee nude (and the dummy clothed). Or has someone matter-of-factly on the subway nude. Or hanging out on the street corner with the rest of the gang (but she's the only one nude). If you've ever taken a picture that focused on a color or pattern that stood out jarringly from the surroundings, you've done something similar. And yes, it's more popular b/c she's young and attractive. But it could just as easily be done with older or obese individuals...imagine an obese woman doing the NY runway during fashion week. Or an old geezer with a cane dressed as a chippendale. Is this really NEW stuff? No--it's a variation on what some others have done. Is it brilliantly posed? No--I don't think there's the attention to detail it calls for, she's just taking a concept and shooting it rather than using settings and props that would further the concept (for instance, the subway shot...she's nude...imagine if in the same shot you had two guys starting at the chest of a clothed but attractive woman on the other side of the isle. Or her pose with the rest of the gang on the street...they could have all been whistling, harassing, and making gestures at an attractive woman walking by who is trying to ignore them. The homeless shot would have been far more effective if you have 3-4 guys in suits walking by as if she doesn't exist...making the point of here's an incredibly attractive nude woman but the homeless are invisible to people so they don't notice her). But yeah, it's art, just not brilliant art or technically impressive art or ground-breaking art.

 

[bribrius]

I dont mean to imply that there are problems with being beautiful, even by modern standards, but....
when you have to take an 11 year old girl to the hospital because she cut herself so deep it cut her tendons because she thought she was "too fat" to ever be liked by anyone....it really changes your perspective.
an 11 year old...clinically depressed and suicidal. ELEVEN. that girl shouldn't have had a care in the world. instead, she wants to die because she cant look like the women in magazines or television.
like it or not, the bar has been raised, and its far too high for a game of limbo.

sounds like you have a lot on your mind. Troublesome. People are naturally attracted to beautiful people. It long since spread to the commercialization of beauty for advertising and consumer sales. And on a immediate level, most of us shooting photos non pro look for pleasing things to look at and photography. We choose the prettiest flower, the prettiest butterfly, the prettiest person. As having something more pleasing to the eye is natural inclination. I don't have the answers. But it does seem you have a lot on your mind. Sorry.

 

[tirediron]

...The homeless shot would have been far more effective if you have 3-4 guys in suits walking by as if she doesn't exist...making the point of here's an incredibly attractive nude woman but the homeless are invisible to people so they don't notice her). But yeah, it's art, just not brilliant art or technically impressive art or ground-breaking art.

That's the bit.... I couldn't figure it out for myself, but Joe nailed; this is the (IMO) critical, missing element that would have made these 'real' art!

 

[bribrius]

Yes, it's art. It's best evaluated as a series rather than individual photos. Some particularly good art is to have something atypical or out-of-place in a setting. Dali took it to extreme (where everything didn't fit). But she takes a cliche (a store employee dressing a dummy in the store window and twists it by making the employee nude (and the dummy clothed). Or has someone matter-of-factly on the subway nude. Or hanging out on the street corner with the rest of the gang (but she's the only one nude). If you've ever taken a picture that focused on a color or pattern that stood out jarringly from the surroundings, you've done something similar. And yes, it's more popular b/c she's young and attractive. But it could just as easily be done with older or obese individuals...imagine an obese woman doing the NY runway during fashion week. Or an old geezer with a cane dressed as a chippendale. Is this really NEW stuff? No--it's a variation on what some others have done. Is it brilliantly posed? No--I don't think there's the attention to detail it calls for, she's just taking a concept and shooting it rather than using settings and props that would further the concept (for instance, the subway shot...she's nude...imagine if in the same shot you had two guys starting at the chest of a clothed but attractive woman on the other side of the isle. Or her pose with the rest of the gang on the street...they could have all been whistling, harassing, and making gestures at an attractive woman walking by who is trying to ignore them. The homeless shot would have been far more effective if you have 3-4 guys in suits walking by as if she doesn't exist...making the point of here's an incredibly attractive nude woman but the homeless are invisible to people so they don't notice her). But yeah, it's art, just not brilliant art or technically impressive art or ground-breaking art.

excellent points and very insighful. She could have done much more with this than what she did. So it falls short imo.

 

[pixmedic]

 

[bribrius]

View attachment 97722

well it is a tough topic. we were raised very religious but very secular and liberal. In dealing with cases of vanity such as a serious infraction of a dress being to short on sunday we dragged them out into the woods and burned them for a witch, stoned them to death or gathered large stones for the piling ceremony. It did seem to curb the appeal of vanity but such things almost never happened and were rare occurrences. As i said we were fairly liberal. Those days are gone now with societal changes, but also quite frankly such activities as gathering wood were a lot of work and stones aren't always light so it hardly ever seemed a worthy endeavor.

 

[rexbobcat]

There is an implication that there is a consensus on what is beautiful. While certain aspects have been shown to contribute to human attraction (symmetry being one), culturally, it's so broad that the assertion is almost pointless.

The Greeks thought roundness and "curviness" were the pinnacles of female attractiveness. It was a sign of fertility, status, wealth, and health.

That's why I sometimes have to ask myself, when evaluating a photo: "Am I judging this photo on the quality of the aesthetics and conceptual execution? Or am I putting too much weight on who or what the subject is..."

 

[bribrius]

There is an implication that there is a consensus on what is beautiful. While certain aspects have been shown to contribute to human attraction (symmetry being one), culturally, it's so broad that the assertion is almost pointless.

The Greeks thought roundness and "curviness" were the pinnacles of female attractiveness. It was a sign of fertility, status, wealth, and health.

That's why I sometimes have to ask myself, when evaluating a photo: "Am I judging this photo on the quality of the aesthetics and conceptual execution? Or am I putting too much weight on who or what the subject is..."

That is a good question to ask. part of my own basis for such things was looking through earlier works (of nudes as well) photos and paintings. The subjects seemed less apparently sexual in most of those imo, as we see them portrayed now. Also the bodies, as you mentioned, much different in most cases. however the works themselves seem to stand on their own. Which says a lot. Course part of that was also for "shock" it is just as that it is much harder to "shock" now.

 

[weepete]

The only one that I think has any merit at all is the "Need $$ for new wardrobe". I think you could qualify that one as worthy of consideration as art. I have my doubts about how intentional the messages are that I get from it though. The rest are just gimick with no substance.

 

[qleak]

There is an implication that there is a consensus on what is beautiful. While certain aspects have been shown to contribute to human attraction (symmetry being one), culturally, it's so broad that the assertion is almost pointless.

The Greeks thought roundness and "curviness" were the pinnacles of female attractiveness. It was a sign of fertility, status, wealth, and health.

That's why I sometimes have to ask myself, when evaluating a photo: "Am I judging this photo on the quality of the aesthetics and conceptual execution? Or am I putting too much weight on who or what the subject is..."

Why does art have to do with beauty? Sometimes an emotional response to discord and ugliness is just as valid of a statement.

 

[JacaRanda]

There seems to be a consensus that she is attractive. How in the world does that happen in this world / forum of disagreements?

As photographers it is our job to be able to recognize beauty and study each attribute of our subjects from a professional and artistic standpoint. Some of us probably would like to study this subject further.

therein lies the problem with modern society.
"experts" sitting atop their perch, looking down upon the masses and deciding what is "beautiful" and what is not.
It has permeated magazines, television..pretty much everything. You only have to look at a magazine rack or tv commercial to see. Then we wonder why our children have self esteem issues when they don't look like the Photoshopped models that they are told are the "standard" of beauty.
Heck, even what society considers the "standard" in beauty has changed over the years.

Man, I really (dig) on most things about the 60's but they missed on the body type. I may have to toss out my last dashikis and afro pick with the peace sign.

 

[Derrel]

I watched the video and thought whoever chose the model for the "goldern Era of Hollywood" idealized body type was utterly full of crap....no WAY the actresses were anywhere near that chunky and pudgy...somebody seriously needed to have done some actual research on the Hollywood actresses of the Golden Era...their body weights were 25 to 30 pounds below that woman, who's at about 170 pounds and very doughy...
seriously....not even close at all.

 

[rexbobcat]

I think the issue with the video is that it's most likely produced by a bunch of 25-year-olds.

So it's basically looking at the past through rose-colored glasses while subtly taking a stab at contemporary ideals, because, well, you have to have something simple to rail against.

We live in the age of sexy, sexy hyperbole.

 

[deeky]

Anyone notice that this off-site link is the first and only post by the OP?

I think the best work of art here was when the OP cut off a slice of SPAM and cooked it up so pretty that none of us has been able to stay away.

 

[DanOstergren]

The only one that I think has any merit at all is the "Need $$ for new wardrobe". I think you could qualify that one as worthy of consideration as art. I have my doubts about how intentional the messages are that I get from it though. The rest are just gimick with no substance.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar shot in a David LaChapelle photo book.