Nude Controversy
May 29th, 2008
I had an interesting comment today on my controversial blog post, “Enraged Feminist vs Utah’s Sexy Dancers.” Here it is, with my response:
I know that the girls are comfortable with the photography. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be shooting. However, I do know that Eric takes nude photographs, and I have to ask why. What is the reason for nude photos? They aren’t sold, so there goes the “sex sells” argument. So why are these girls being asked to take off their clothes? If the claim is “for artistic purposes,” I would have to truly question that motive. There is a fine line between art and pornography (which can be defined as, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal), and I think some of the near nude (and the nude shoots) really fall into grey territory. – Mr. Anonymous
Mr. Anonymous,
I am building collections of intimate portraiture, both nude and implied nude that I hope to compile into high quality books and fine art giclee prints. These collections will be marketed to fine art collectors — NOT to porn sites.
There is a long history of nude art, and many of the world’s most famous and celebrated portrait artists have done nude work. Would you say the same about their collections?
FYI, nobody yet is privy to my full nudes collection. I have never released some of my best nude work, and don’t intend to until I have enough of it to do a high profile gallery showing and publish my first book of nude works.
My nude collection is not simply made up of skinny model types. Also included are full figured women, and many people who do not fit the standard definition of pretty girls according to Cosmo. One of the things I hope to accomplish with the collection is to redefine the concept of “sexy girl” to extend beyond the skin deep beauty concept — to capture the essence of a sexy personality. A woman’s ability to feel sexy empowers her.
My beautiful wife is the driving inspiration for my nudes collection. She is an outstanding, sexy woman who has struggled her whole life with self esteem issues because she doesn’t fit typical “sexy” stereotypes… but she is very sexy to me! I want her, and women like her to understand that they too are worthy of love, devotion, admiration, desire, and even lust. I think that women need to feel lusted after once in a while. Sex and procreation are essential to the continuation of the human race. As a spiritual person, I treat sexuality with sacred respect. Love and lust are powerful forces that speak to the core of our self worth as human beings, and everybody should have the right to enjoy them.
When it comes right down to it, I am a male feminist. I want to empower women. I want to build their confidence, and give “regular girls” hope that they don’t have to look like a supermodel to be desirable, capable, and powerful creatures. That is the essence of my nude work. That is the positive message I hope to share through the collection and publication of that work. Some people will have issues with my collection. I expect it to be far more controversial than my collection of nightlife dancer photos. I guess that’s the price you pay when artistic integrity means more to you than making the critics happy. I’m willing to pay it, because I’m passionate about my work, and I think the message I’m trying to convey is an important one with the potential to help a lot of people.
I really hope that my wife, and women like her will be able to see it for what it is, and feel uplifted by it. Maybe that’s silly. Maybe it will backfire. I can’t worry about that, though. I am driven to express myself creatively, because I am a creative person. That’s how I communicate. I hope that some people will get the message, but I’m not going to stop just because others don’t.
To my beautiful wife, Maria: I love you. I hope you can see that my art is an expression of my love and admiration for you.
Sincerely,
Eric Hamilton
Tags:
My first question would be “What’s wrong with consensual sexual arousal?” If the object of the photograph knows that the picture will arouse others, what’s wrong with a basic natural instinct (on both the subject’s and viewers part)?
You are a feminist? Man, I fucking hate feminists. You nazi.
“When it comes right down to it, I am a male feminist. I want to empower women. I want to build their confidence…”
Yeah, because they need a MAN to do that for them. Need a man to protect them from the industry created by corrupt men who used women to corrupt women for the purposes of corrupting men so that we no longer have the ability to corrupt women.
How do you like them apples?
Keldwud,
At least I’m not an attention whoring troll.
Glad you’re back in town!
- Eric
Why is the kind of sexist crap tolerated, how is it possible for any woman to know what is proper or correct for any other person?
The Supreme Court of these United States cannot agree on a definition of pornography and yet this woman is flying in the face of the law of the land with every word she writes.
This so old man, nobody is to question your motives, and you owe nobody an explanation. I don’t recommend getting into the feminist discussion unless you really, really know what you are talking about, the male feminist is an oximoron, the male equalitarian would be the term i’d use, I also hate the way things have been lead for all of humankind history but when it comes down to being human, women don’t really need our help, and if they do, they should be the ones asking for it, so far, I’ve never heard of feminists asking men to help them in their feminist cause beyond being equalitarian.
As for the nudes, don’t worry whatever the reason is behind them, things are just they way they are now, and they will stay that way for a long time.
Feminism is a “belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes”, according to the American Heritage dictionary. The belief that men cannot be feminist is itself sexist.
At any rate, I’m not out to support the feminist cause so much as to show people the beauty that I see in women who wouldn’t be considered for the pages of Maxim or Playboy.
Well let me start off by saying I am female and I would never want to be labeled a Feminist… sure I can fix a great many things MYSELF around the house I can change the oil even myself… but what im wondering is why the hell would I want to? This is all crazy I dont think that this feminist crap is anything but that crap…I have no problem stepping into that ring with one either and taking a swing. All the things that pop into my head Id like to say overwehlm me. Men are afraid to be what they are MEN and that is just sad, honestly I hope to God my daughter can find a real one out there that hasnt gotten totally neutered by society. And as for nude photots done well can be anything but art is also beyond me. I fall into that full figured woman catagory and I for one appreciate what this man is trying to do… I have no problems with myself particullarly but I know a great many woman that do. I for one am a real woman and I have got no problems with being around real men.
One reason why women have dominated the nude genre in every artistic medium in Western art for millennia is, quite simply, that they’re nicer to look at than men! The problem lies, however, in the fact that women in Western art have been made to appear, men to act (Berger, 1970) and people feel uneasy with the apparent passivity of the female nude. Are they being exploited, knowingly or unknowingly? Who knows? But they look as if they are, and this can lead to all kinds of confusion about definitions (legal and otherwise).
Take a look at some of the great female nudes, just in photography, Stieglitz’s earthy O’Keefes, the sculptural Mapplethorpes, even the highly stylised Helmut Newtons (I’m not a fan, I confess) and then ask yourself how exploited / exploitable the subjects were.
I don’t know what a ‘real’ man or woman is or how you define ‘real’ sexes (unlike Jewel above), but my ex-wife has posed nude on several occasions and both of us found the experience moving. The only one with a problem was me – nude photography is hard! It requires a lot of thought – before, during and after the shoot.
1. I’m male, and I’m feminist, but never identify as a “male feminist”, because male’s my nature, and feminist is my values/action.
2. differentiate between food & junk-food:
erotica grows relationship & wholeness
( whether it is verbal, as female-erotica tends to be, or visual, as male erotica tends to be )
pr0n reduces relationship & wholeness, substituting sensation
( whether it is cheap “wromances” or playboy, if it conditions the experiencer to dumbed-down others, it’s pr0n, not erotica )
3. the “fashion industry” does more harm to women’s lives than does “playboy” magazine ( even with playboy’s bogus “women” made of silicone & airbrush/photoshop ).
The fashion industry values stylized used appearance, not Woman.
It prefers anorexic models, partly because of the 300mm lenses used ( to make the photographer look Important ), but which require anorexic models to compensate for the telecompression.
It screams into girls that they aren’t worth anything as someones, only as appearances.
4. the main reason female nudes are so much more numerous than male nudes, is because female porn is verbal:
Harliquin has put out more books than any other publisher, ttbomk.
For some reason “feminists” insist that sexuality is evil if it’s in the male-visual style, but not if it’s in the female-verbal style.
Idiotic, shallow, but true.
4b. the *other half* of the main reason female nudes are so more numerous than male nudes, is because males are pushier than females, so, though women enjoy visual porn, it has to be done in the style women *like*!
Look at the renditions of maleness done by males: block-like, aggressive, mean, fighter, etc.
Look at the renditions of maleness done by/for females: “Fabio” on the wromance books, a long-haired gentle “hunk”, who gradually ravishes woman… blah blah blah…
Since males generally are SO committed to blocking women from equality ( the “glass ceiling” e.g. ), woman-rendered maleness doesn’t get shown much, does it?
Where would it be published?
a *woman* owned publishing-house?
Which one?
Penthouse? Playboy? Conde Nast publications? Pop Science? Ziff Davis conglomerate?
See a trend here?
Anyone who opposes male contribution to female excellence/wholeness isn’t “feminist”, they’re prejudiced.
Anyone who contributes to female excellence/wholeness IS feminist, whether they admit it or not.
SHOWing woman how her wholeness IS valued/treasured, is one of the countless healing contributions needed.
SHOWing males how wholeness doesn’t threaten, how it enriches, is a good thing, too little done.
Finally, most of this is all the result of the white/anglo body-uptightness culture:
this isn’t an issue in a nudist colony!
Only in cultures that commoditize women on appearance, can modified-appearance be considered capable of controlling women.
( some cultures commoditize men on appearance: the stylization shows that way, too )
In my experience, as you get older, more mature and into a loving relationship, it’s possible to look at a nude woman and not feel sexually aroused. A woman’s body is, to me, an object of beauty; as are a golden sunset, a perfect rose and any other feature of nature you choose to name. Yes, society has pushed me into believing the stereotypical view as man the hunter and women the physically weaker sex. Therefore, I see a finely honed male body and consider it not attractive but pleasing to the eye – an object of power and strength yet able to perform acts of grace, poise and gentleness. But when I see a woman body builder – with the same biceps, deltoids and quadriceps (they’re the ones in your legs) – I find it ugly and unattractive. By the same token, a skinny super model, with arms so thin, you can actually see the bone structure is, to me, truly repulsive. My point is, beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder (or to put it another way) everything depends upon your point of view. One man’s artistic nude may well be viewed as porn by someone else, you’re never going to get agreement on the subject and yet the debate still rages on. Yes, Mr Anonymous if you feel uncomfortable looking at these images, and you were unable to go about your daily business without them being continuously in your face, I can understand why you may have issues. But most of Eric’s work is private to Eric. He’s treating his models with respect, they are comfortable and willing to pose and nobody is forcing you to look at them… So I really can’t see your problem.
Two other points I want to clear up about my post above – because I know that some of the things I’ve said are bound to set the accusations flying…
1)I think a Leopard, a Porsche 962 and the Guggenheim Museum are also objects of beauty. Do I have sexual feelings about any of them? No. Therefore am I homosexual for considering the male form an object of beauty and can look at a photo of a nude woman without getting aroused? No – I’m a happily married man who loves his wife and is totally comfortable with his sexuality.
2)Yes, I am aware of the fact that I used the term “object” when referring to a woman’s body. Does this mean I see woman (or their bodies) purely as objects? No. You’ll also note, I refer to the male form in the same way. I’m simply using the word because it suits my needs for the message I’m trying to convey – if the ardent feminists out their read too much into my choice of words and over analyse the semantics then…Well frankly, I can’t be bothered to argue. Whatever anyone says or does is bound to offend someone somewhere and I refuse to dig out a thesaurus at this time of night.
One last point. Why’s everybody bashing Playboy? Compared with some of the magazines available over here in Europe, Playboy is pretty tame. In fact, I’d go as far to say that at least 60 – 70% of the shots in an average Playboy issue are, in themselves, works of art. As an armature photographer, if I could create photographs of that standard – I’d be proud. But then perhaps us Europeans have a different point of view