Nudity

[cuteshoes215]

yea the doutzen nude does look kinda porny. if they were going to shoot like that, they should have shot it in black and white to make it look more artistic rather than hubba hubba. darla baker has done a bit of nude/racey stuff lately. it's a little bit surprising but at least it's tasteful.

on the off topic, please give cocktails and commentary a read. i love reading it and have the feeling they don't have many readers because it's not well known.

 

[matthaeus123]

I think Doutzen still looks pretty classy in those pics.

 

[crow_watcher]

Stephanie Seymour was one of the "hot" models starting in the late 80's. I've kept a collection of black and white supermodels pics from long ago.
The second and last pics are my favorite Black and White nudes of her.


http://img157.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stephanieseymour02st4.jpg
http://img154.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stephanieseymour04pw8.jpg


popular pic by Patrick Demarchelier
http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stephanieseymour12sf0.jpg
<various pics from my collection>

 

[robot]

giselle by sante d orazio

http://www.santedorazio.com/

.........

 

[matthaeus123]

never seen that before. I thought Gisele doesn't do nudity. lol

 

[bismarck]

for me, the difference between art and p*rn is (this'll sound a bit obvious) the intention behind it, and I think that the intention 99% of the time is pretty obvious in the image itself. You don't have to talk to the artist or get an explanation; the picture itself is a message, and when it's p*rn, it says, "F*ck me." All the tasteful nude pictures usually celebrate the female body. Not only are the women in the picture beautiful, but they are posed and presented in a way that accentuates and adores their beauty, in a way that puts them above being mere sex toys (like the covers of FHM etc are) and into the realm of goddesses. Documentary/National Geographic type pictures, fall in the middle; they just record, their message is pretty straightforward.

Recently there were nude photos of Snejana Opnoka posted on the web, from her less famous days. I find her so beautiful and not at all like a provocative p*rn star-esque girl, but those pictures of someone who usually appears classy were definitely pornish. They had the feel of, "I got a girl off the streets, got her naked, took some pictures, and then had sex with her because she was too young to know better." Not all nude girls in bathtubs are p*rn, but it's kind of like the difference between "we made love" (usually a cliche phrase, but couldn't think of a better one) and "I did that stupid ho."

I think the people on tfs, at least the registered members, are smart enough and mature enough to view nudity, in whatever form. We're not provoked by a nipple here and there, probably because we see so much of it in fashion as it is . I'm kind of on the shelf about allowing requests for nude model pictures on the thread, because I know my fellow members can handle it, but maybe not some random person on the internet. Although, one couldn't request the pics if he wasn't a member, so perhaps it's okay.

 

[capt_bob]

for me, the difference between art and p*rn is (this'll sound a bit obvious) the intention behind it, and I think that the intention 99% of the time is pretty obvious in the image itself. You don't have to talk to the artist or get an explanation; the picture itself is a message, and when it's p*rn, it says, "F*ck me." All the tasteful nude pictures usually celebrate the female body. Not only are the women in the picture beautiful, but they are posed and presented in a way that accentuates and adores their beauty, in a way that puts them above being mere sex toys (like the covers of FHM etc are) and into the realm of goddesses. Documentary/National Geographic type pictures, fall in the middle; they just record, their message is pretty straightforward.

Recently there were nude photos of Snejana Opnoka posted on the web, from her less famous days. I find her so beautiful and not at all like a provocative p*rn star-esque girl, but those pictures of someone who usually appears classy were definitely pornish. They had the feel of, "I got a girl off the streets, got her naked, took some pictures, and then had sex with her because she was too young to know better." Not all nude girls in bathtubs are p*rn, but it's kind of like the difference between "we made love" (usually a cliche phrase, but couldn't think of a better one) and "I did that stupid ho."

I think the people on tfs, at least the registered members, are smart enough and mature enough to view nudity, in whatever form. We're not provoked by a nipple here and there, probably because we see so much of it in fashion as it is . I'm kind of on the shelf about allowing requests for nude model pictures on the thread, because I know my fellow members can handle it, but maybe not some random person on the internet. Although, one couldn't request the pics if he wasn't a member, so perhaps it's okay.

OK - but nudity is not p*rn. In the narrowest sense, p*rn is a graphic depiction of various acts of sexual intercourse, etc. Of course to some up-tight prudes just about all of fashion is p*rn.
But to speak of nudity done cleverly, certainly here in the USA (an up-tight country full of prudes) Victoria's Secret has regularly taken nudity to the very edge, without ever stepping over the line (i.e. actually showing a nipple, a secret garden, etc).
Consider the following: an eye-popping ad - a double page spread from no less an august publication than the NY TIMES ("all the news that's fit to print." - indeed), Oct. 2006. It must have been a heck of a job posing this shoot - getting all the arms, legs, bodies and... just right!
My scan - done in sections and stitched - almost (but not quite) perfectly.
I did quite a few different versions to get it just right. Such a spectacular shot demanded extra effort!
Click on thumbnails for BIG pix.
Selita, Karolina, Alessandra, Heidi, Gisele, Izabel - NOT A STITCH! WOW!

The same ad - laying on the floor and shot with a camera from above:

 

[bun-bun]

OK - but nudity is not p*rn. In the narrowest sense, p*rn is a graphic depiction of various acts of sexual intercourse, etc./quote]

Nudity can definitely be p*rn. Here is a basic definition of p*rn*gr*phy from dictionary.com:

por·nog·ra·phy

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

Under that definition, can your Victoria's Secret example be considered p*rn*gr*phy? You would say it does not, because VS primary purpose for the image is to sell a product, not arouse. But I say VS is trying to arouse, and the image itself can be used as arousing material. Gisele covering her breasts in that manner, Heidi's gaze, it can be very easily arousing to some people.

 

[crow_watcher]

^ We could debate what is p*rn to the cows come home. You could also debate what the definition means because what is "sexual arousal" to some may not be to others. What I've seen on this thread is not what I considered "p*rn". What could be the issue is many can't accept the fact some would be aroused by a nude pic, but isn't that normal? I mean, normal in the sense there's no malicious intent. Anyway, don't think the mods (some of them) on here would wantto see a debate on this subject here.

 

[capt_bob]

OK Bun-Bun and Crow-Catcher you both have a point. But all fashion is ultimately about sexual arousal. Clothing is like birds' plumage, or the coloring of animals' fur, the size of antlers, whatever - it's all sending out signals - in large measure, to the opposite sex - and in large measure, of a sexual nature. It's all, ultimately, about mating and about the continued survival of the species - whether it be birds, cats, dogs, or humans. And you can go to Darwin on that one.

 

[colourmefashion]

i have a few pictures on my computer, one is Jessica Stam, another is Kate Moss.. and 2 others I dont know.

they're not completely nude, but they are topless.. even though all except Kate Moss has their chest covered.

I would post them, but I cant remember the sites because they're old
and i know you need the sources on tfs..

 

[capt_bob]

OK Bun-Bun and Crow-Catcher you both have a point. But all fashion is ultimately about sexual arousal. Clothing is like birds' plumage, or the coloring of animals' fur, the size of antlers, whatever - it's all sending out signals - in large measure, to the opposite sex - and in large measure, of a sexual nature. It's all, ultimately, about mating and about the continued survival of the species - whether it be birds, cats, dogs, or humans. And you can go to Darwin on that one.

Sorry - I wanted to write Crow Watcher. No insult intended.

 

[colourmefashion]

i guess these count..


source: flickr

i cant tell who this model is, but it says its from Vogue Itália Julho 2005.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/arquivofotograficodacarol/222012162/

ignore the attached files, it wouldnt work so i took it out through the edit box thing..

 

[flyingace]

what about these? Leah de Wavrin and Ana Maria Urajevskaya by Sofia & Mauro for numero 73. Leah was born in 1989, Ana Maria in 1991 and this was shot in 2006 It's called "innocentes"

herfamedgoodlooks

 

[rouge_red]

I love nudity in pictures when it's done to be art, not to "arouse sexual feelings" or sth like that. Lara Stone has done some very provocative shots (I mean this kitchen thing ) and some absolutely beautiful pictures!
It's difficult to find the line between something that looks like p*rn and sth that looks like art. I think it has something to do with the persons's point of view. Even though I think that America is absolutely ridiculous with its censory

 

[r_r_r]

i guess these count..



i cant tell who this model is, but it says its from Vogue Itália Julho 2005.

It looks like Kate Moss...look at the picture behind her. The boobs are the same. But I might be wrong.

 

[flyingace]

^it's Kate Moss by Juergen Teller, but I think she was referring to the model in the vogue italia ed

 

[colourmefashion]

i was..
the link is under it..
sshould have made that more clear .. lol

sorry

 

[Teratel]

When I see girls (NTM) making a big deal out of posing nude for a well known fashion photographer, they have that picture in their head that it's going to look perverted/vulgar. They are being prejudiced against nudity. A good fashion photographer that has a assignment for a well known fashion-magazine does not want to make models look like they are posing for a p*rn-magazine. Professional models can make nudity look really beautiful, it's almost art. I think it's cool. B)

 

[Trista]

^Karma to you! I think part of it is the fact that nudity is definitely frowned upon in a lot of cultures, especially here in the states, and a lot of the girls who go on the shows and object to the nudity, in my opinion, think that all nudity is tasteless and designed for "male entertainment purposes" (for lack of better terminology). They need to open up a Vogue Italia, a 10, a Numero, or what not because then they would not only realize that there is potential nudity, but that the aforementioned stuff is in good taste and is designed for art purposes. Take for instance, the shot of Leah and AMU up there-there is nothing vulgar or trashy about it.

Just my thoughts