I have met many people on the Internet. I have not met any of them in person. One recently reached out to his “friends” for support. In true Internet fashion, people who don’t know each other except through Internet communications, support each other. This is one of the truly great accomplishments of the Internet.
This friend, Gregory, is a photographer who specializes in all kinds of photography including fashion, family, portrait, still life, and landscape. Some of his portrait photography includes nudity. I did not say pornography; I said nudity. He recently received some negative feedback regarding his participation in nude photography. He was very upset and was wondering if he should even continue with his dream. Keep in mind that this is just part of his business, or I should say his art. It is not all that he represents.
I was informed that he received this negative feedback from some family members as well as from some models on a modeling site. This modeling site tries to match up the models with the photographers. Gregory is a member of this site to try and find new talent.
First, if your family wants to criticize you, I guess they have that right. If you come from a very conservative background they may never understand your art. All you can do is try to explain your point of view and either they get it or they don’t.
- Second, anyone modeling today, and who uses an Internet site to advertise themselves, cannot be so ignorant as to think that nudity is not part of modern photography. In fact, this specific site, of which this naysayer was a member, contains all kinds of nudity at varying levels. Pornographic images are not allowed but nudity, meaning breasts and buttocks are allowed. But someone who is a member of this site is criticizing Gregory for participating in nude photography.
- Are religion and its politics at play here? No religion teaches you to criticize, they teach acceptance. So why does the religious right criticize in the name of their religion. The reason I mention this is because Gregory indicated that the criticism references a “born again” approach to life.
This is plain hypocrisy. And where does the hypocrisy come into play? First, we are all born naked. Clothing, when speaking in terms of the history of humans, is a relatively new concept. It was brought about by either our need to stay warm, or by pressure from society. PLEASE READ MORE HERE
Historically, art has included nudity to express everything from purity, vulnerability, sensuality, and the simple beauty of the human form. As children, we suckle our mother’s breast for nourishment and survival but we are not allowed to look at them as adults? The merging of human genitalia in an act of love is what gave each of us life, but we’re not supposed to know what they look like? And as far as I am concerned, a butt is just a butt. Some are prettier than others.
So to put this to rest, we are hard-wired as humans to respond to the beauty of the human form. Humans are very visual creatures. Is there any wonder why art may contain nudity?
I have provided a link to Gregory’s site on my links to the right (or click here for http://www.gregorygore.com). Please visit him and give him some support. I don’t believe that the images you will find there are offensive and keep in mind that art is subjective and you might not like all of them anyway, nudity or not. But, most of the images don’t contain nudity at all. And Gregory has taken steps to prevent the casual browser from being exposed to nudity if they don’t want to see it. So can we all just give Gregory, and everyone else out there who is expressing himself or herself through photography, a break? These are just pictures.