Perfume of Withered Roses (NFSW)

[Downrigger]

Interesting problem, Anh. I’ve sort of wondered when it might come up here.

You do wonderful creative work. Your images here are striking, glorious, sort of. I enjoyed your website. I am not a tenth the photographic artist you are. The images you have posted stir controversy. Some objections use the word “moral” or “morality”. Morality regarding the question of nudity varies enormously and is obviously an entirely personal matter. Venus de Milo and Michelangelo’s David would fly here without a mutter. Boundaries respecting moral offense to more than a very few in any particular forum are probably kind and appropriate. So here, for that reason, perhaps these might be considered out of bounds. Surely enough have not weighed in to inform such a judgment.

Images of languid nude displays of conventional attractiveness, no matter how artfully executed can be problematic for reasons entirely different from morality. For some, such images would be shown on functional MRI to activate brain centers (limbic) associated with sexuality, impulse, and desire. For those so affected of either sex, and this certainly will not be all, appreciation of the artifice and art in these images becomes entangled with awareness of the models as sexual objects. To be sure, this is all a matter of degree, as sexual objectification of any human image, however clothed and engaged is always a possibility. But some images invite such objectification in a very frank way, as these do. Among those so affected, one’s morality may be comfortable with the insoluble complexity of the ineffable conflict between acceptable male or female beauty and the opprobrium of sexual objectification, and so may not see your lovely images either as immoral, or even necessarily objectionable, but simply unhelpful and in the way of other objectives for the experience they seek here. Thus, such individuals, despite finding these images neither immoral or objectionable per se may nonetheless prefer to omit them from the menu here in order to examine, present, and critique the art of a beloved pastime without the work entailed in such a complex psychic space. Of course, they can simply not give them much regard.

But it is another reason to consider upping the fig leaves.

[Anh Tu Nguyen]

Interesting problem, Anh. I’ve sort of wondered when it might come up here.

You do wonderful creative work. Your images here are striking, glorious, sort of. I enjoyed your website. I am not a tenth the photographic artist you are. The images you have posted stir controversy. Some objections use the word “moral” or “morality”. Morality regarding the question of nudity varies enormously and is obviously an entirely personal matter. Venus de Milo and Michelangelo’s David would fly here without a mutter. Boundaries respecting moral offense to more than a very few in any particular forum are probably kind and appropriate. So here, for that reason, perhaps these might be considered out of bounds. Surely enough have not weighed in to inform such a judgment.

Images of languid nude displays of conventional attractiveness, no matter how artfully executed can be problematic for reasons entirely different from morality. For some, such images would be shown on functional MRI to activate brain centers (limbic) associated with sexuality, impulse, and desire. For those so affected of either sex, and this certainly will not be all, appreciation of the artifice and art in these images becomes entangled with awareness of the models as sexual objects. To be sure, this is all a matter of degree, as sexual objectification of any human image, however clothed and engaged is always a possibility. But some images invite such objectification in a very frank way, as these do. Among those so affected, one’s morality may be comfortable with the insoluble complexity of the ineffable conflict between acceptable male or female beauty and the opprobrium of sexual objectification, and so may not see your lovely images either as immoral, or even necessarily objectionable, but simply unhelpful and in the way of other objectives for the experience they seek here. Thus, such individuals, despite finding these images neither immoral or objectionable per se may nonetheless prefer to omit them from the menu here in order to examine, present, and critique the art of a beloved pastime without the work entailed in such a complex psychic space. Of course, they can simply not give them much regard.

But it is another reason to consider upping the fig leaves.

Very deep and thoughtful comment. I really appreciate this kind of feedback! Thank you very much.
Nevertherless i am really well aware of the nudity that's why i put a NFSW tag on the thread's name.

[Colin Southern]

Very deep and thoughtful comment. I really appreciate this kind of feedback! Thank you very much.
Nevertherless i am really well aware of the nudity that's why i put a NFSW tag on the thread's name.

OK folks, now that it's the weekend and I have a little time, I'm going to chip in a few comments.

- First up, it's "NSFW", not "NFSW" (Not Safe For Work), but either way, it's really inadequate as a warning because 90% of members wouldn't know what it meant.

- Neither image was offensive to me - but none-the-less, CiC traditionally steers well clear of images with explicit nudity like that. It's not because they're offensive to most, it's because we're a conservative site and thus have attracted a conservative membership - and they're offensive to some and thus we cater for the lowest common denominator. My suggestion for those who want our feedback on images like these is to simply place a plain-English warning in the title and then post only a link to the image so that people have to make a conscious decision to view the image. As the initial post stands, some folks would have been very "surprised" (and offended) to stumble across such images and thus we need to be respectful of that. In the past we've had complaints about images on the basis of them showing bare skin only around the tummy area and another where even a bit too much thigh was showing.

- Reading through everyone's comments I note that some of the wording could have been a little more "considerate" towards the original poster - but then again I think the initial post could have been a little more considerate towards a minority of members who would find nudity like that highly offensive. So I'll call that one a draw.

With regards to the images themselves - personally - artistically I can see what you're trying to achieve, but for me, it just doesn't work. It's difficult to explain but it's almost like you've selected 2 key ingredients - both of which are perfectly good ingredients in their own right - but they just don't work together. Here's a couple of examples where I've used the same ingredients in a way I feel does work, for what it's worth:





Hope this helps.

In summary (and I don't mean this to sound hard) I'd probably have to sum it up by saying "I think you're trying too hard to be creative and different, but it didn't work on this occasion".

PS: I've just had a look through your website. Two additional thoughts came to mind (it's a good day for me when I set even a single rational thought!):

1. None of the image with giant roses "do it" for me - in my opinion it's a concept that just isn't working.

2. In the vast majority of cases you've put the subject in the centre of the frame - that just doesn't work well in my opinion. I vastly prefer them to be offset (in my case I also use a lot of -ve space, but that's just my style).

[Marie Hass]

Dear Anh,

I have followed your post, and the resultant commentary, with interest. I also notice that no other women have spoken.

That said, I would have preferred to see a minimalist approach in both images. The model is lovely in her own right, and in #2, just the netting over her face and body is a lovely idea. The breeze follows the line of her curves and to me creates a sensual image - not a pornographic one. The roses are detracting due to their large size and are not withered. I was looking for some withered rose petals blowing in the breeze.

In #1, same issue. I would have preferred to see the model in a bed of dried old rose petals, with some sprinkled here and there like gems on her body. Indeed, based on your viewing audience, may or may not have petals placed strategically.

Did you do some detail shots just highlighting her curves? They would look lovely if backlit and in black and white.

Your images, for me are nostalgic and evocative. It was a lifetime ago that my body looked anywhere like that.

Marie

[dragon76]

In the past we've had complaints about images on the basis of them showing bare skin only around the tummy area and another where even a bit too much thigh was showing.

Fairdinkum........I wonder if Mona Lisa's cleavage was a big deal some 500 years ago

Hope this helps.

In summary (and I don't mean this to sound hard) I'd probably have to sum it up by saying "I think you're trying too hard to be creative and different, but it didn't work on this occasion".

PS: I've just had a look through your website. Two additional thoughts came to mind (it's a good day for me when I set even a single rational thought!):

1. None of the image with giant roses "do it" for me - in my opinion it's a concept that just isn't working.

2. In the vast majority of cases you've put the subject in the centre of the frame - that just doesn't work well in my opinion. I vastly prefer them to be offset (in my case I also use a lot of -ve space, but that's just my style).

It's always a pleasure to see your portraits and that flour portrait is sublime.

Cheers

Dean

[Anh Tu Nguyen]

If this forum is family-friendly then i am not gonna post photographs with nudity content and follow the rule, no hard feeling here, but i don't think these photos are cheap nude.

[Colin Southern]

It's always a pleasure to see your portraits and that flour portrait is sublime.

Cheers

Dean

Thanks Dean. Just FYI, there weren't any flour portraits - the one you're probably thinking of is just mist from a hand-help spray bottle.

[Colin Southern]

If this forum is family-friendly then i am not gonna post photographs with nudity content and follow the rule, no hard feeling here, but i don't think these photos are cheap nude.

Anh,

Personally, I wouldn't call them "cheap nudes". I would call the oversize roses a concept that just doesn't work though -- and as such, devalues the shots to such a degree that I can see how some people might feel that the nudity was included for other than artistic reasons (which I fully accept that it wasn't).

My suggestion would be to forget the roses and re-think some image ideas.

[Anh Tu Nguyen]

Anh,

Personally, I wouldn't call them "cheap nudes". I would call the oversize roses a concept that just doesn't work though -- and as such, devalues the shots to such a degree that I can see how some people might feel that the nudity was included for other than artistic reasons (which I fully accept that it wasn't).

My suggestion would be to forget the roses and re-think some image ideas.

okay thanks again for your opinion!
Fiy i love and admire Tim Walker's works that#s why i always love to shoot large-scale props.