Glamour Photography

  • Thread starter Thread starter ismael4good
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
“appreciate the human body” how? Where? It’s bad enough that beautiful women allow themselves to be exploited and oversexualized. I’ll mention one magazine cover where a beautiful actress posed in a modest dress and with minimal makeup but she obviously did not wear a bra, and allows immoral photos of herself to be published. Another beautiful actress posed on a magazine cover but she allows herself to be photographed in purely sexual ways as well.

You can’t separate the two. There is nothing sad about our society in this regard. The sadness should be directed at those who compel people to do these things, and expect us to pay money for it. Don’t buy it. Don’t buy into the thinking behind it.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
You either disregarded my post or completely misunderstood me. Regardless, I have stated my point and I am now withdrawing from the thread. People can interpret things how they’d like.

The beauty of the body is lost because of the sexual revolution and the masses giving up on chastity. Those who can appreciate the body in it’s purest form as art (in painting, sculpture, and sketch) while remaining chaste are part of a dead/ dying ancient culture. To be clear, I do not know how I feel about the photography of nudity because I don’t know how much artistic value can be brought into it, and I don’t know if it can be done in a non-sexual way. I don’t have a formed opinion on nude photography because I have been raised in a culture where it’s only means have been to use it as sexualizing and objectifying women. There is a line between the appreciation of beauty and turning a woman in an object of lust. That line has been crossed and many perspectives have been changed because of it- mine included.

Ite in pace,
Joshua C.
 
There are life drawing classes still going on. There is nothing wrong with the nude human body, per se. However, for too many, it is not shown and perceived in its wholeness. It is shown in degrading and disrespectful ways.

Those of us in the arts need to communicate this to the public clearly. Yes, your son who wants to be an artist will see male and female nudes. However, once he understands human anatomy, he needs to be respectful of the dignity of the whole person as he perfects his craft. And physical beauty is part of a whole person who also attracts by her modesty, her personality and signs of self-respect regarding clothing and behavior. At one time, this was the norm for beautiful women.

We need to teach this to our young men and young ladies.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
“appreciate the human body” how? Where? It’s bad enough that beautiful women allow themselves to be exploited and oversexualized.
Click to expand...
I am not qualified to list exhaustively every way of appreciating the human body artistically. I agree that sexualization is bad. What we need is an appropriate appreciation of the human body.
I’ll mention one magazine cover where a beautiful actress posed in a modest dress and with minimal makeup but she obviously did not wear a bra, and allows immoral photos of herself to be published.
Click to expand...
I get your point, but not wearing a bra is not inherently immodest (especially if one is stationary).
 
What we need is to educate young and old to respect the whole person, not just her body. There is no actual need to create a venue outside of art class to appreciate the human body. None.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
What we need is to educate young and old to respect the whole person, not just her body. There is no actual need to create a venue outside of art class to appreciate the human body. None.
Click to expand...
The human body can be incorporated into a variety of artistic media – literature, film, painting, etc. Let us encourage responsible and appropriate use of the human body, i.e. as artistic glorification of God’s greatest creation. If you get nothing out of it, that is fine. Fortunately, you are not the arbiter of art, so your own preferences and artistic myopia need not apply to the valid diversity in creative thought.
 
There is a fine line between what some people like to call art and what is, realistically - pornography.
 
Baelor said:
The human body can be incorporated into a variety of artistic media – literature, film, painting, etc. Let us encourage responsible and appropriate use of the human body, i.e. as artistic glorification of God’s greatest creation. If you get nothing out of it, that is fine. Fortunately, you are not the arbiter of art, so your own preferences and artistic myopia need not apply to the valid diversity in creative thought.
Click to expand...
This is Catholic Answers. The dignity of the human body is inviolate. Einstein wrote about the limits of something, human stupidity was not limited. Human exploitation should be added to that list.

Art, today, especially fine art, has no definition. It has no reasonable limits and therefore, is an invalid arbiter of anything. When I was in college, someone got some asphalt, put a pile on the floor, a warning sawhorse, and a lantern, and it was exhibited as “art.”

Every single excuse will be used to present porn as art just because one of the priests of the art world - called an art critic - gave it his blessing.

Most of my friends are artists and writers and I’ve associated with fine artists. The company I work for is an arbiter of any art that comes in. We do get to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Today, in general, art is not this pure spring where something worthy of being called art comes forth. It’s a common myth.

Peace,
Ed
 
AdamPeter said:
There is a fine line between what some people like to call art and what is, realistically - pornography.
Click to expand...
Correct. And we, meaning all of us, need a common standard. In the early days of “modern” porn photography, for example, there was a slight connection to photographing a model as an artistic expression, as glamour photography, and for the express purpose of photographing nudes for the purpose of art instruction. If you look at the books coming out that showcase the glamour art/paintings from around the same time period - it was very, very clear that the goal was not just presenting human beauty but to tittilate the viewer. Period. The words lewd and lurid come to mind, and this includes some paperback book covers of the time.

The difference between circa 1952 and today? To show a little more, then a little more and then a little more. To put some of the same glamour models into burlesque and even porn films. That was the goal all along.

There is nothing wrong with the nude human body, but artists and photographers today, have little reason to publish nudes as examples of the human form. The porn industry has gone way beyond any good intentions that existed in the early 1950s. They aren’t in the business of selling art instruction books or books about classical painting or sculpture.

Fortunately, there are good human anatomy books out there.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Correct. And we, meaning all of us, need a common standard. In the early days of “modern” porn photography, for example, there was a slight connection to photographing a model as an artistic expression, as glamour photography, and for the express purpose of photographing nudes for the purpose of art instruction. If you look at the books coming out that showcase the glamour art/paintings from around the same time period - it was very, very clear that the goal was not just presenting human beauty but to tittilate the viewer. Period. The words lewd and lurid come to mind, and this includes some paperback book covers of the time.

The difference between circa 1952 and today? To show a little more, then a little more and then a little more. To put some of the same glamour models into burlesque and even porn films. That was the goal all along.

There is nothing wrong with the nude human body, but artists and photographers today, have little reason to publish nudes as examples of the human form. The porn industry has gone way beyond any good intentions that existed in the early 1950s. They aren’t in the business of selling art instruction books or books about classical painting or sculpture.

Fortunately, there are good human anatomy books out there.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I totally agree…I have worked with some excellent Catholic Sculptors & Painters and their aim has always been to very carefully portray the subject in the image and likeness of God - This is essential to keep in mind when talking about art in this context.

It’s not a matter of prudishness - It’s a matter of treating an art model with te dignity afforded them.

Also - most artists I know who work in this field study human anatomy for years. I doubt the same can be said for glamour photographers or porn producers.
 
Correct. The "prude’ label comes up and we should be ashamed? There were name glamour photographers in the 1950s before hard core pornography appeared nationwide about 20 years later. So it was easier for the general public to consider true glamour photos as having some artistic character or merit. The public did not know what was to come. Other publications appeared at the time which were designed for art students and showed the model in totally unprovocative poses, just as you would see in life drawing classes today.

In most cases today, the fullness and dignity of the model in her whole person is buried under a layer of lust. But there are some great painters out there who understand, as we did in the 1960s, that you could look at and admire a beautiful woman but each person had to respect the other even if they were strangers. And as young men, when we saw a beautiful woman, the thought was: “I wish I could marry, or date, a girl like her,” because we saw her in her whole person with dignity, and not something unmentionable.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
This is Catholic Answers. The dignity of the human body is inviolate. Einstein wrote about the limits of something, human stupidity was not limited. Human exploitation should be added to that list.
Click to expand...
This is Catholic Answers. The dignity of the human body is inviolate.
Art, today, especially fine art, has no definition. It has no reasonable limits and therefore, is an invalid arbiter of anything. When I was in college, someone got some asphalt, put a pile on the floor, a warning sawhorse, and a lantern, and it was exhibited as “art.”
Click to expand...
I never claimed that art is an arbiter of anything. That people attempt to pass tackiness or the absurd off as art does not mean that art does not exist today. Incorporating the human body into an artistic medium is not sinful, and whether you think that it is appropriate or not is irrelevant because you are not qualified on any level to dictate universal norms on morality in art unless you have been vested with authoritative power by the Church.
 
edwest2 said:
Your comments reflect radical feminist thinking. You know, starting in the 1970s, the National Organization for Women could have educated both men and women regarding the very real problems that existed between some of them. Instead, they chose not to. In the 1970s, the millions of dollars put into hiring models, filmmakers, and photographers, and for printing and distributing magazines and films showing mostly women being graphically treated as sex objects should have encouraged NOW to protest Adult Bookstores, Topless Bars and Strip Clubs, but they chose not to. While at the same time, calling men “male chauvenist pigs” because they treated women like ‘sex objects.’

But, you know what? What was considered dirty and sinful, gradually became more and more prominent in the mainstream media, including movies and TV shows.

What did NOW actually do? They convinced some women that all men were the enemy. That they were out to control and abuse all women.

The blame does not lie in men approaching you because they find you attractive - the radical feminists, the so-called Women’s Movement - failed in its duty – in its real opportunity – to convince men that women should be treated with the utmost respect, and that knowing you have a boyfriend matters.

They lied. Thanks to the internet, women, especially women, are being exploited as in no time in the history of mankind.

And they rejected, along with the media, the things I was taught in the 1960s:

There was dating. No sexual intercourse allowed.
There was going steady if both parties were agreeable.
Then, if trust and understanding and compatibility existed, it could go on to courtship.

Still, no sexual intercourse.

You showed affection for each other. I bought my last girlfriend flowers. I opened doors for her. We sent each other amusing and affectionate cards. Aside from appreciating how she looked, and her comments about me, we just enjoyed each other’s company, no matter what we were doing together.

Then, if things were still going well. There was engagement where you shared your hopes, dreams and expectations with each other. The man then sat down with the young lady’s father, who had been his age once, and was asked the practical questions, since he fully understood youth and hormones and the partially intoxicating nature of it all.

Then, there was the marriage ceremony, and it was drilled into our heads: no sexual intercourse until after the ceremony. And the father told his daughter: “If you have any doubts, you don’t have to go through with this. I’ll back you up.”

Today, it’s have sex first, or live with her and have sex, or at least, take her for a ‘test drive’ to make sure the sex will be good after the ceremony.

Real love is sacrificial, a giving of your whole self to the other whole (meaning more than her looks) person.

Now it’s a guy walking into work and announcing to everyone: “I got laid last night!”

Glamour photography is dead. It died the moment gynecologist type photos were published in large quantities. Oh sure, regular clothes, undergarments, all that’s fine. But what’s the market for fetish photos - male perverts?

Too many men are convinced that like the absolutely beautiful actress I saw on TV, a sexual encounter is ‘just sex,’ like going to the bathroom. So, if you see another guy you like, it could be ‘just sex’ again. You see? That is the wrong mindset being promoted 24/7. Human dignity requires respect for the opposite sex, not her exploitation.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I see, its all the fault of those nasty feminists that women now have standards of how they expect to be treated. And don’t try to tell me abuse doesn’t happen, or that “good girls” who marry the first man they sleep with aren’t a victim to it. I did everything right and it still happened to me.
You see, men like you are the very reason that I have never dated a Catholic man. (Other than my abusive ex, who was lapsed, yet strangely, his backward views about women still stood.)
The sex I had within marriage was what actually made me feel cheap, dirty and used. Then after I left him, I did something I had never considered before: jumping into bed with a perfect stranger. Yet this was different: I felt valued, cared for, adored even! Needless to say I fell hopelessly in love with that man and have not looked back since.

They told me: sex within marriage would fulfil me and that casual sex would make me feel cheap: they lied.

I can see exactly why you feel entitled to say that I am “wrong-minded”. You would not dare to say it had I been male. What you call “radical feminist thinking” is in reality just expecting good manners and equality.
 
You see, when a woman is born outside of marriage to begin with, she witnesses her mother being ostracised by the Catholic community in her town.
From this, she learns that Catholic men will treat her as a second-class citizen and expect to get away with treating her far worse than an atheist. Just think of it as if I had “SLUT” written on my forehead since before I was born.
And I swear down, if ANY of you start criticizing my courageous mother who through her work in Child Protection and for UNICEF in addition to caring for her elderly parents has made the world a better place, I will av ya!
The commandment I choose to follow is “Honour thy father and mother” which if you ask me is one hell of a lot more important than “thou shalt not fornicate.”
 
stiffkittenbabe said:
I see, its all the fault of those nasty feminists that women now have standards of how they expect to be treated. And don’t try to tell me abuse doesn’t happen, or that “good girls” who marry the first man they sleep with aren’t a victim to it. I did everything right and it still happened to me.
You see, men like you are the very reason that I have never dated a Catholic man. (Other than my abusive ex, who was lapsed, yet strangely, his backward views about women still stood.)
The sex I had within marriage was what actually made me feel cheap, dirty and used. Then after I left him, I did something I had never considered before: jumping into bed with a perfect stranger. Yet this was different: I felt valued, cared for, adored even! Needless to say I fell hopelessly in love with that man and have not looked back since.

They told me: sex within marriage would fulfil me and that casual sex would make me feel cheap: they lied.

I can see exactly why you feel entitled to say that I am “wrong-minded”. You would not dare to say it had I been male. What you call “radical feminist thinking” is in reality just expecting good manners and equality.
Click to expand...
My posts are meant to be read by all. I did not use the the words “wrong-minded.” I would say the exact same thing to a man.

Feminists never asked for equality. They asked for power, which simply means: I can make you do what I want. If you don’t like it, there’s the door. Adversarial relationships where one seeks control, not mutual trust, are simply wrong.

Peace,
Ed
 
stiffkittenbabe said:
I see, its all the fault of those nasty feminists that women now have standards of how they expect to be treated. And don’t try to tell me abuse doesn’t happen, or that “good girls” who marry the first man they sleep with aren’t a victim to it. I did everything right and it still happened to me.
You see, men like you are the very reason that I have never dated a Catholic man. (Other than my abusive ex, who was lapsed, yet strangely, his backward views about women still stood.)
The sex I had within marriage was what actually made me feel cheap, dirty and used. Then after I left him, I did something I had never considered before: jumping into bed with a perfect stranger. Yet this was different: I felt valued, cared for, adored even! Needless to say I fell hopelessly in love with that man and have not looked back since.

They told me: sex within marriage would fulfil me and that casual sex would make me feel cheap: they lied.

I can see exactly why you feel entitled to say that I am “wrong-minded”. You would not dare to say it had I been male. What you call “radical feminist thinking” is in reality just expecting good manners and equality.
Click to expand...
I would love to hear more about how being Catholic and chaste makes a man a worse dating prospect. Please, flesh this theory out for me. If I’ve been doing it all wrong, I’m counting on you to set me straight! 😉
 
stiffkittenbabe said:
…The commandment I choose to follow is “Honour thy father and mother” which if you ask me is one hell of a lot more important than “thou shalt not fornicate.”
Click to expand...
I think that you are very confused it is not an “either or” situation it is both. Just choosing to prefer one commandment and to follow it while ignoring and violating another one does not make you a rightful person.
 
Havard said:
I would love to hear more about how being Catholic and chaste makes a man a worse dating prospect. Please, flesh this theory out for me. If I’ve been doing it all wrong, I’m counting on you to set me straight! 😉
Click to expand...
I could shed some light on that for you…😃

Just teasing of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top