|
|
|
When I photograph the female nude, I approach it from my own philosophy. It will not match everyone else's point of view. I cannot claim it is superior to all other points of view. I can only claim it as my own. The human body is beautiful. Can we all agree on that? It is beautiful in its own right, as though it were a tree or a rock formation, for its visual qualities. It is also beautiful because the object is of the same kind as the observer. The human being is the only animal capable of introspection, of appreciating beauty, and therefore of seeing beauty in its own species. People say that it is inappropriate to look at a person as an object. They are almost right. It is wrong to look at a person as only an object. We must realize that people are objects, however. They are certain sizes and shapes and colors and textures— qualities that they share with many other kinds of objects. Celebrate, do not deny, that humans have bodies. By all means, look at humans as objects. But do not look at them as just objects. A natural question is: Why the female nude? This question is really in two parts: Why the nude? and Why the female? Rather than ask why the human body should be unclothed, let us ask why it is ever clothed in the first place. Certainly there are good reasons for doing so in various times and places. But to portray the body in its greatest splendor, what shall we add to it? What kind of fabric shall we use that will improve on human skin? What cut or style or fashion shall we choose that will outperform the grandeur that is given us in nature? There is beauty in clothing the body, but ultimate beauty is found when nothing is added, but everything that can be taken away has been taken. Why then the female? Is it because photography is a male invention, and a field still dominated by males? Not so. In the first place, the male nude is also a suitable subject. The male body is perhaps the second most beautiful thing in the world. If you doubt it, go and look at Michelangelo's David. But there is still something special about the female body. Even female photographers portray the female nude. Ruth Bernard's figure work is among the best in the world. It is not politically correct to say so these days, but the two sexes are not perfectly symmetrical. They have their own strengths and weaknesses. As for physical beauty, both sexes have it; but the beauty of the female is different and (dare I say?) greater. Is there a place for the erotic in the depiction of beauty? There may be. But if this is the photographer's primary focus, he has lost his way. Beauty is not sexiness. You will never see me photograph a woman in high heels and a bikini. Either one is silly enough. Together they are intolerable. Fancy lingerie, excessive makeup, overdone hairdos, fetishist clothing— all these are unnecessary. They are more than unnecessary; they actually detract. These elements can all be used in creating art; but they rarely result in the best images that could be created. A good principle to remember is: Less is more. If we are photographing the figure, let us photograph the figure. We do not need all the extra trimmings that are added to the female body in the pulpy "men's magazines." I could go on forever, but I will not. I will let the images speak for themselves; and I hope that as my skill continues to improve, that they speak more loudly and clearly.
|
