I must agree and help with this NO NUDE policy. I think your doing it for all the right reasons and in the right way. I think being anti-nude site is like being a anti-drug abuse site. Both will eventuly hurt the user. Public Nudity cheapens the one who does it and dulls those who see it. The only time I have seen public nudity was about 12 years ago when I wondered on to the wrong section of a public beach. After being greatly embarised I realized that the nudes were also ugly! I don't understand why those who are ugly under the clothes want to show it off. I could almost understand it if the person had a great body to show off, but they were the worst!

-- Andy Clements (a_clements2@juno.com), October 04, 1999

Answers

What "No Nude Policy" are you talking about?

-- J.L. Kennedy (jlkennedy@qnet.com), October 04, 1999.

See Resnick's articale on the B&W World home page.

-- Andy Clements (a_clements2@juno.com), October 04, 1999.

No nudes are good nudes? Hmm. Most nude photography, especially that found on the net, is frankly awful, and I would endorse Mason for that reason alone.

I haven't read Friedman's book, but it has always seemed to me that much public nudity increases unhappiness by promoting ideal, steroetypical (actually, not typical at all) body shapes. I know that neither I, nor anyone I love, will ever be that shape. I am encouraged to aspire to a shape I cannot achieve. One cure for this would be, paradoxically, MORE public nudity, of real naked human beings. We might then discover that where we used to find ugliness (non-compliance with the ideal), there is beauty. Such nudity would hardly be confused with pornography, I suspect.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), October 04, 1999.

I have to agree. Most of the nudes ("figure studies"?)on the net that masquerade as "art" are crap. This forum will continue to be one of the best by leaving that whole segment to others.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), October 04, 1999.

The URL for the article in question is http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/ ramble1099.html.

Cheers,

Mason

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), October 04, 1999.

Artists have rendered the human form, unadorned, for over 17 thousand years (Venus of Willendorf), and people have been naked outdoors in mixed company for way longer than that.

So it doesn't really matter in the long run what inhibitions may be in force here, it's a flyspeck in the big picture.

My family went to Guadeloupe, a French Department in the Carribean and enjoyed being semi-naked in the sun a great deal. I don't think anyone even gave us a second glance. We were a few in the multitudes.

Get over it or stay away from those beaches, out of the galleries and museums and off the internet, cause guess what?... everybody is naked under their clothes.

I think more public nudity would eventually destroy the super normal ideals that cause so much self loathing in the "ugly" (read "most of us") by delivering a much needed reality check, especially for the guys.

Now can we get back to photography?...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 04, 1999.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the cure would be more public nudity. The same argument has been made against gun control. If everyone carried a gun, there would be much less shooting.

-- J.L. Kennedy (jlkennedy@qnet.com), October 05, 1999.

I think Mason's policy is excellent, and I concur with other posters about the gross lack of anything approaching quality nudes. I was flipping through Yahoo! last week, and I came across what some "highly regarded artists" call nudes. I thought the result was a waste of good film. I came across one of Leonard Nimoy's nudes, and I thought that was good. Overall, though, I say keep the clothes on.

I wonder how many people have nude portraits (of themselves) on their walls. Vanishingly few, I guess.

-- Brian C. Miller (brianm@ioconcepts.com), October 05, 1999.

But how is this policy going to be handled? Where will the line be drawn between what is nude and what is not? A bare chested man, is that nudity? Certainly most people would find a picture of a bare chested woman nudity, so is nudity here going to be defined as something that can have sexual context? What about a picture of a womans bare back, above the waist, is that nudity too? I have a book at home with a picture of an arm pit in it, would that be considered nudity?

I'm just curious where Mr Resnick will draw the line here, will it be up to your own taste Mason or do you have some kind of definition of nudity?

Cheers to B&W world for being such a great forum. /Peter

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), October 05, 1999.

Great question, Peter!

I will continue to avoid linking to nudity in all of its forms. Yes, I would consider all of the examples you list as nudity. Except for the armpit. That's just gross. :-)

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), October 05, 1999.

I hardly think this is an "anti-nude" site. My understanding is that nudes are not allowed simply so prudish folks will not be offended. To clarify Mr. Clements' understanding of why people like to go nude--most nudists are not out to show themselves off, but to reclaim a bit of their natural freedom. Being nude is healthy, and so is accepting your body as it is. Why should anyone be ashamed of who and what they are? NOTE: This post has been edited --M.R.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), October 05, 1999.

Oddly enough, that's not the first time I've heard nudity equated with gun violence. I still don't get it.

The point I was making is: More awareness of how most peoples bodies actually look, might make people less anxious about how their own bodies look in comparison. As it is now, only "beautiful" people can be naked. Everybody else should be ashamed. What pointless distress. "Cosmetic" surgery, depression and eating disorders are the result.

Unfortunately most of the photography of unclothed people on the internet does tend to be dreck that needs addressing. Couldn't you allow links with a warning? There's nothing I enjoy more than criticizing the political and social aspects of "nude photography" or "figure studies". The technical and compositional aspects are usually either ignored by the photographer (self inflicted blindness by ulterior motive) or exalted to the exclusion of socio/political issues, not to mention metaphorical possibilities.

I was recently engaged in this sort of activity at the Photo Critique Forum at this bulletin board... They didn't like my attitude...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 05, 1999.

Tom wrote:

"Unfortunately most of the photography of unclothed people on the internet does tend to be dreck that needs addressing." and "Couldn't you allow links with a warning?" and shortly thereafter wrote "The technical and compositional aspects are usually either ignored by the photographer (self inflicted blindness by ulterior motive)..."

With so much excellent work (non-nude) available, why should I link, even with a warning, to what you yourself call "drek" and which ignores technical and compositional aspects? It's supposed to be a top ten, remember?

Your post confirms one of the three reasons I've established this policy for B&W World. Thanks!

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), October 06, 1999.

you've been brain-washed my friend.....you need a hooker and a joint.

-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), October 06, 1999.

Dear Mason you are a prude. Whats art in one persons eyes is trash in another. So who are we to judge anothers persons eye for art.

-- Larrye Edye (WA4GMS@webtv.net), October 06, 1999.

Larry, I'm not interested in labeling photographs trash nor art. I'm just trying to give web sites with outstanding photography some free publicity--which I think is what has made B&W World so popular.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), October 06, 1999.

No Nudes is Bad news

This is, I feel, I very interesting point. I'm afraid that I have to agree with Tom - Excluding every nude means you're excluding some great photos along with the bad.

Fair enough, Mason, that you are the owner of this page and ultimately have executive decision. However, if your arguments for banning nudes are simply that the photos are bad, then you might as well ban most, if not all of the photos on the net. Sure as eggs someone somewhere will hate them. A lot of the photos on the top ten I dislike.

If you are following the morality issue, why not ban documentary photos of war as well? Becuase surely dead bodies and pools of blood are a lot more offensive than somebodys back - intact, and with no visible wounds??? I feel that once you start this censorship rollercoaster you cannot stop it, there is something offensive in a hell of a lot of photos.

Fair enough ban pornography - blatant exploitation of genitalia, but why ban something that has been explored for centuries. In fact, How can you justify censoring a subject that has NEVER been banned before? Even in the most puritanical times, paintings, sculptures etc of nudity were never banned from public display. In fact, as far as I am aware, the closest any culture has come to censoring nude art is banning the display of pubic hair.

Most of the photos that are offered up to a photography discussion board are going to be pretty tame anyway. I really can't see Larry Flynt posting something that says " Hey check out the exposure on this one, that must have been a huge aperture, hey boys."

I hope that sentence doesn't get edited either, because It's a demonstation in point. Nothing in that sentence is offensive unless you choose to take it as such.

I am Canning the Banning. Free expression is important- it's in a lot of consitutions, (Not Australia's though how 'bout that) So include a warning, and Let people choose for themselves, because I assume we're all big girls and boys and can decide for ourselves - Do I want to look at somebody's back boob bum armpit?

Thanqs for your time and thanqs for an otherwise great set of pages.

HUw (Is still famous despite his critics) Crosby.

-- Huw Crosby (crosby@magna.com.au), October 07, 1999.

Huw raises a good point. I can't answer for Mason, of course, but many of you know that I faced a similar problem in Philosophy of Photography. I agonised for days. Was I entitled to ban any category of picture, knowing that some Americans would bleat about the First Amendment? Would I allow child pornography? Whose sensibilities should I respect: Moslems or liberals? Would I be as liberal as, say the French? I settled on disallowing all nudes (yes, by my arbitrary definitions), but allowing links. This was because I didn't want to exclude anyone from the discussions, and I gather Mason has a related feeling about youngsters.

I also discovered that, whatever my policy, I was bound to upset some people. I personally like nudes. I even like some of the bad ones, but personal likes and dilikes are sometimes hard to reconcile with running a web forum.

Is it a shame that Mason's rules exclude images of the quality of, say, Edward Weston? Yes, of course. Is it possible to draw a line that isn't, somehow arbitrary? No.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), October 07, 1999.

So what if a free site bans nudes? Big deal. I'm not paying for this site, Mason is. It's his bill, and he can choose modesty if he pleases.

It doesn't matter one way or the other. There are plenty of other free photography forums which have discussions about nudes, and display photos featuring undressed people.

I spent a bit of time on a forum which hosted images of nudes, and had discussion forums directly under the picture in question. I noticed something about the usual conversations: "Ooh! Nice exposure! Nice print!" and not a word about why the nude was posed in such and such a way, or a comparison between the pose and something someone famous had done, or anything like that. One poster had put up a series of nude self-portraits. Based on the comments, I was sure that the people on the forum weren't viewing the same images as I.

So what that Mason doesn't allow stuff from, say, Weston or whomever famous? It isn't a loss. Weston is dead, and his stuff is well published. It isn't like someone is going to exclusively post the most fantastic nude of the millenium, which happens to be an unknown Weston. No, no such thing.

There is plenty of alternate coverage.

-- Brian C. Miller (brianm@ioconcepts.com), October 07, 1999.

I am all in favor of free speech and have seen some (a very few) black and white nudes that were great; Edward Weston's pictures of Tina Modotti (but not his ones of Charis). But I wouldn't have nekked wimmen on my site either, because my Mom wouldn't like it. To be fair, Mason should also ban pictures of women who are excessively clothed such as those with only their eyes showing.

-- Jay Arraich (jay@arraich.com), October 07, 1999.

Mason, I thought the point of criticism was to improve and inform anyone engaged by art, and thereby improve the art itself. ("improve and inform"...Sounds like the best attributes of the internet, too)...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 09, 1999.

Response to the NO NUDE policy

Unfortunately Tom, a lot of criticism is made by professional "critics" who have limited talent of their own...although I don't think that applies to anyone in this group! :-)

In any case, the kind of criticism you speak about--the best kind--is why I started the URL Review forum, as a space for sites that may not yet be ready for the top ten, but can be improved through constructive criticism.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), October 09, 1999.

Many excellent and well respected critics do not practice the art form they observe. In fact I suspect the motives, concious and otherwise, of artists professionally criticizing the work of their contemporaries. I have observed a lack of critical distance influencing their perceptions. That's not to say these observations aren't interesting, but may not be very objective.

I think I'll propose this as a topic in the Philosophy Forum.

I take it you read the criticism I offered and was given in the General Critic site. Your reference to ""critics" who have limited talent of their own..." could have been lifted from that conversation, except your diplomatic sensibilities are finer than that of those participants (myself included)...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 11, 1999.

As a woman, a daughter, a mother, a sometimes-teacher of young children and a photographer who is sick, sick, sick to death of the exploitation of sexuality, I AM STANDING AND APPLAUDING BETWEEN WORDS at your no nude policy!

You have raised the bar and I think that's wonderful! Lea (Owner, Whiny Dog Press, featured in the Top Ten List some time ago.)

-- Lea Murphy (LMurphys@aol.com), October 24, 1999.

This is just my own feelings about nudes though I applaude your "no nude policy because this isn't the place for nudes anyway. But I like nudes. Men and women. And I don't hide behind any veiled art speak. "I like nudes". I like to look at them just as I like to look at a good picture of a sports car. I desire a nice Austin Healy 3000 and I would like to look at a nice looking woman. What's so wrong with that. If it weren't for the appearance of your mother, and father for that matter, you wouldn't be here. I don't ever become involved with a woman out of admiration for her mind alone. It's nice to have some good conversation but if she isn't pleasant to look at, forget it. She doesn't have to be georgeous, but it helps. Just human nature. And as far as nude photography, I see lots of male models. Does the mother/wife/daughter/teacher of children oppose these images the same? Does she dislike Edward Weston's or Ruth Barnard's nude images? And is it exploitation? Who's being exploited? The model who freely poses for the creation of a photograph or statue or painting? Do you feel exploited? I hear about all the exploitation of the woman in this country but at the same time I also see what most women are wearing. Check out your nearest high schoool or discotech/night club. Is nude photography exploitation or is it just another genre that is used by those that enjoy it? Discussion please. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), October 24, 1999.

Whoops! Mason just linked to a site that contains nudity :-)

No, I'm not giving any clues... But it is a site with great photos, nudity or not.

Of course, if Mason want to know which site it is I will tell him.

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), December 02, 1999.