It just occurred to me that a landscape's beauty could be judged by whether it would be improved or destroyed by the presence of a naked woman in frame. If it's a gorgeous, breathtaking landscape, a figure would just detract from the beauty of the scene.
Hopefully I won't now get attacked by angry landscape photographers. Or models.
Now you know what I think about when I'm waiting for a shoot.
A very cool quote I happened upon... "A person is quite different from a tree or rock or stream. By introducing the nude into my pictures, I started perceiving all the things I was photographing in new ways. In contrast or opposition to each other, things became much more significant and interesting, revealing many more qualities than I had ever dreamed of knowing and expressing. By using the nude, I stopped thinking in terms of objects. I was seeing things, instead, as dynamic events, unique in their own beings yet also related and existing together within a universal context of energy and change." - Wynn Bullock
--
Putting clothes on a model is akin to putting a parking lot over a field of flowers.
I have had comments on several Faerie and Mermaid (manips) images that have said the Background (landscape) could have stood on its own, and then the Model or my female friends pose could have stood on its own. Both could have been correct I guess and I was pleased as I was not a landscape photographer and I felt the model was beautiful myself without faerie wings . But for me the lady friend wanted wings and pleaseing her was my goal so I felt I had completed something when she got her image. I have always thought it was the artist or orginators dram or vision that held the most weight and like here in deviant the artists have a comment box below the image where thoughts can be placed. Artists comments to be are the greatest thing so when I view their work I know to an extent what there minds eye were , what they were seeing then the issue of nudes versus backgrounds or what distracts from what become irrevalent.
I agree with your point about the artist's vision. I recently had a really interesting conversation with my father about the importance of the artist's intent versus the viewer's perception on a piece. As a non-artist but an art fan, his view was that the meaning of an image or 3D piece was entirely derived from its impact on the viewer. Naturally I disagreed, but it was wonderful to discuss it and it's actually helped me a lot in mentally dealing with people who strongly disagree with my version of the meaning of some of my work.
I wholly disagree. I have seen AMAZING landscapes that have been "improved" or at the very least enhanced by a nude. Some of the icescapes with SweetPea Suicide come to mind, but there are lots others. Bryce and the Grand Canyons (and lots of Red Rock) easily stand on their own and are stunning.... but I have seen some great nudes done there as well. I don't ever think it could destroy a landscape *PROVIDED* the photographer takes some care in placement and incorporates the model into the area.
-- Behind the scenes Nudes and Rock & Roll! Come see my deviantFILMS: [link]
In todays world I to would have to disagree with your dad especially with the ability of the artists through the internet to express their intent or their trigger that inspired their work. I say this after attending a Art History course 4 years ago and watching the davinci code. I saw or read so many different views on wha the masters meant or were trying to show in their paintings but very few agreed with each other. Well the Masters arent here to tell us , I wish they were but the works I see on Deviant and other sites have the master that can tell me what they were trying to portray or what story they were trying to bring to life. For me their storys as the ones you have in your gallery are the image no matter what else i migh see or envision
Is this a photo of a landscape to which you added a model? This seems a matter of incorporating a beautiful landscape into a photo of a model, and improving the photo of the model with a good location. Your name isn't UniqueLandscapes: "they're different cuz mine have nekked girls"
Musing
Amused
Devious Comments
"A person is quite different from a tree or rock or stream. By introducing the nude into my pictures, I started perceiving all the things I was photographing in new ways. In contrast or opposition to each other, things became much more significant and interesting, revealing many more qualities than I had ever dreamed of knowing and expressing. By using the nude, I stopped thinking in terms of objects. I was seeing things, instead, as dynamic events, unique in their own beings yet also related and existing together within a universal context of energy and change." - Wynn Bullock
--
Putting clothes on a model is akin to putting a parking lot over a field of flowers.
--
See [link] for my Art Work
--
--
See [link] for my Art Work
--
Putting clothes on a model is akin to putting a parking lot over a field of flowers.
--
Imagination + discipline = creativity
Previous Page12Next Page