art

Photography  /  PotD
Guessing At The Rule Of Thirds
June 8, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

A Moment of Sun (2012)

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]In a strange, almost psychotic social twist, “breaking the rules” has possibly become more admirable than following them. For every person out there yelling and screaming about something not following one rule or another, there are two applauding that the rule has been broken. Breaking rules, regardless of where they’re found or to what they apply, is seen as a measure of one’s independence; a willingness to stand out from the crowd and break away from the status quo. Those who create new technologies or build huge businesses from scratch are often said to have “broken the rules,” either of business or technology, in achieving their goals. Adventurist billionaires such as Sir Richard Branson or Elon Musk are widely considered to have gotten where they are by breaking all the rules.

So, do rules exist only for the purpose of being broken? What good is it to have a set of guidelines if no one is going to follow them? I know one of my most frequent non-photography pet peeves is matters of grammar and improper spelling on social media; not those committed so much through acts of “fat-fingering” or victims of auto correct, but those intentional misdeeds such as substituting U for you and R for are, along with other idiosyncracies of what is commonly  referred to now as text speech. While such abbreviations appear to me as a lack of attention and most likely diminished intelligence, more than a few linguist have decided that such rule breaking is part of the natural, continual, evolution of language. If breaking the rules is actually just evolving the rules, then why is anyone worried about rules in the first place?

Sociologists tell us, as do those of severe moral convictions, that without rules society decays into chaos. We must have a system of laws, rules, and guidelines that set the standard for acceptable social participation for society to have any meaningful cohesion. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not try passing off a Bruce Springsteen tune as your own. Where we have rules, we typically have people assigned to enforce them: policemen, teachers, court systems, and government agencies come to mind. Photography, and creative media in general, doesn’t have any official authority reprimanding or punishing those who break rules of art. Does that mean we’re doomed to chaos?[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Today’s image, for example, breaks the rule of thirds. The rule of thirds, for those not familiar, relates to how an image is framed. An image is theoretically divided into thirds both horizontally and vertically and the four intersection points are considered the strongest areas of the image. If there is a horizon, for example, it should occur on either the top or bottom line. Whatever the primary focal point is, it should be positioned on one of those imaginary lines with other content placed as to guide the flow of vision from one intersection to the other. The rule of thirds is so basic and fundamental, that software tools such as Photoshop offer guides to help position an image along the correct lines.

But this image just won’t fit. The young woman in the picture should be positioned along the left vertical line; her bust and her hips, ideally, would fall along the horizontal lines. If this were a painting, those issues would be easily resolved. This isn’t a painting, though, and we are limited by a couple of issues that are immutable. First, this image is part of a series that, for the sake of visual continuity, all have a canvas of the same size (reduced to 1200 x 900 pixels for use here). Cropping the image differently just to make it fit the rule of thirds would have made it awkward and interrupt the visual flow of the whole set. Second, there was just behind the model an open and rather unattractive space that would have altered the aesthetic had it been included. So, expanding the frame to fit the rule of thirds is not a solution either.

What ultimately matters is whether the image works and, to a large degree, this one does. While I might not submit the image for adjudication, I still find it quite lovely and would have no problem with it bring part of a gallery presentation. Breaking the rule, in this case, isn’t so much a matter of innovation as it is necessity because of the constraints. Are we plummeting into chaos? No, not at all.

We must be our own guides. Not every rule should be broken. Not every image should try breaking them. What every photograph should do is make us feel, and if we’ve done that we have found success.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
Life’s A Blur
June 7, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

Watch Me Hoop! (2011)

You don’t learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over. -Richard Branson

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Photography has enough rules to choke a mule. There are rules about exposure. There are rules about depth of field. There are rules about framing and composition. There are rules about color, rules about black and white, and rules about mixing the two. Rules here, rules there, and there will always be that social media troll who wants to argue that you didn’t follow this rule or that, therefore your image is flawed. I have even seen student photographers carry around and religiously consult notebooks full of rules, making sure with each shot that they weren’t breaking any of the important ones. I don’t think any of those students ever actually made it as photographers.

While rules are certainly there for a reason, and the greater majority of the time actually do make sense, photography is not about rules. It can’t be. When photographers set out to only play by the rules, they get photos that may be technically correct but are emotionally lacking in anything resembling passion. Photographs without emotion are pointless. Why capture something that doesn’t make us feel, that doesn’t stir something inside us, that isn’t worth remembering? We take enough flak already from those who say photography is too automated, too reliant on technology, to be an art. If all we are doing is following the rules then we prove our critics right: the results are not art.

So we are devoting a full week of #POTD to breaking all the rules. Well, okay, we won’t have time to break all the rules. After all, there are only seven days in a week and just about any photographer can come up with at least ten rules that govern their specific style of shooting. So, I’ve chosen rules that I, personally, am likely to break most often; the ones where, for me, passion and creativity are more likely to outweigh the need to observe the rules. Young photographers, please note: when I break a rule, I almost always do so intentionally and with a specific purpose in mind. This isn’t arbitrary, except when it is. Totally.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]The obvious error in today’s image is the amount of blur, not just in the hoop, but the little girl as well. We talked about motion blur just a couple of days ago, so click the link and read that piece first if necessary. I won’t repeat much of it here. One can easily argue that the motion blur of the hoop is like the effect of water in a stream: the picture just wouldn’t look right without it. That part isn’t really breaking the rules. The question comes in whether I should have used a slightly faster shutter speed to stop the motion of the little girl. My answer, obviously, is no.

Children are, themselves, a constant blur of motion, especially when they are between the ages of two and three. I love being at the playground with Kat’s little ones and seeing all the motion, and with it an equal dose of emotion, coming from all these tiny creatures who are having the time of their lives. If children are so naturally given to motion, shouldn’t their photos reflect that reality? Sure, we can make them sit still momentarily for a portrait, but when one is trying so very hard to show me, with incredible amounts of pride, just how well she can hoop, just like momma, to not include the motion of her little body would have been absolutely criminal! She was gyrating so fervently as to involve every muscle she has.

So, we break the rules about motion and blur. We still managed to capture that look of determination on her face and all the colorful richness of that early summer morning. She’s framed well and the background isn’t overwhelming. We still have a very good picture. What’s most important, though, is we have a picture her mother cherishes. This little girl just finished kindergarten and is growing, as children tend to do, with more speed than a parent wants. She’s beautiful. She has a little sister now and I’m guessing by this time next year she’ll be trying to teach her how to hoop as well. Capturing the joy of these moments is more important than following a set of rules. [/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
Of Highlights and Shadows
June 6, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

The Other Side (2010)

Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography. – George Eastman

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I chose today’s quote quite carefully and with deliberate intention. I’m not sure anyone has ever understood light in relationship to photography quite as thoroughly as did George Eastman. When a friend suggested he make a photographic record of a trip he was about to take, Eastman found the wet plate camera and equipment so bulky and difficult that he ended up never taking the trip! Born from that frustration, though, were innovations such as fixed-lens cameras, rolled film, and a chemical development process that was significantly less likely to kill the photographer. Eastman saw what photography could become and then took the steps to make sure it got there. The bulk of his contributions to our profession are unparalleled and quite likely will never be surpassed by any one person.

Eastman knew, among many other things, that photography needed to be accessible, that people needed to be able to capture all the moments of their lives, not just those for which people had time to sit and impatiently wait. When he introduced the Brownie camera in 1900, it sold for a mere one dollar and while a dollar was still of significant value at that time, Eastman’s invention put cameras in the hands of more people, and made it possible to capture more images, than anything or anyone had done prior. In his opinion, Eastman felt that there was absolutely nothing, no single aspect of the human existence, that was not worth photographing.

One of the challenges Eastman faced, though, was the fact that many of the people buying these new cameras of his had absolutely no concept of what photography was, how it worked, or how to take a good picture. Those early Brownie users had no idea that a subject sitting fully in the sun was likely to be over-exposed, while those sitting in the shade were going to be quite in the dark. A very high number of unrecognizable pictures could have very easily caused the new inventions to fail in the market. One of the most under-recognized aspects of Eastman Kodak amateur film was its ability to balance out some of those lights and shadows so that errors of ignorance would be less severe.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Over time, we’ve come to understand more about highlights and shadows and how to manipulate the two so as to achieve different styles and tones and ranges of depth in our photographs. We are able to meter with relative position the best camera settings for images such as today’s photo. Our highlights are high enough to be bright, but not out of gamut. Our shadows have nice, measured gradients that gently define curves and muscles. Eastman would have unquestionably been amazed by the ability of contemporary cameras to translate and manipulate highlights and shadows to such accurate levels.

Highlights and shadows are not only part of photography, though. They are part of business and they are part of life. Eastman Kodak has struggled to adapt and find its way in a digital world. The company that once defined photography for a large number of people around the world is now but an afterthought and many younger photographers don’t even recognize. George Eastman had his own shadows as well. Faced with increasing pain from a spinal disease that made it difficult to walk, on March 24, 1932, Eastman penned a short note:

Dear friends —

My work is done.
Why wait?
GE

He then shot himself through the heart, ending an era of some of the greatest innovation photography has ever seen.

Natural light is an amazing tool and certainly the more we understand light better able we are to create stunning photographs. We do well, though, to mind the highlights and shadows, to use them effectively and be careful to keep them in balance, both on camera and off.[/one_half_last]

 

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
Riding The Wave of (e)Motion
June 5, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

Removing the Afternoon (2010)

I always thought of photography as a naughty thing to do — that was one of my favorite things about it, and when I first did it, I felt very perverse. – Diane Arbus, On Photography by Susan Sontag

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]When I first started taking pictures, holding so tightly onto a Canon F1 to the point it couldn’t help but shake, motion blur was my most common menace. Figuring out how to work the combination of f-stop and shutter speed with whatever ASA film I was using (usually 400) so that I wouldn’t get blur was a severe obstacle for me to overcome. I don’t even want to think about how many potentially great pictures were lost, or how many rolls of film I wasted, simply because I could not, for the life of me, keep the damn camera still. The bad news: I still can’t, even though it’s for much different reasons now. There are days when having a tripod, even for simple shots, is a lifesaver.

What has changed over the years, though, is our attitude toward motion blur. While there has always been some acceptance of the error under very limited circumstances, such as pictures of flowing streams of water, it is generally considered a mistake. The most common one I caught then, and still often have problems eliminating, is that the subject will move, just a hand or maybe shift a foot, right as I’m clicking the shutter. I hate having to count aloud before taking each shot, but there are some people who cannot stand still for more than a split second, and some toddlers who can’t stand still at all. For them, warning exactly when the shutter is about to click is the only way to get a clean shot in environments where one can’t work with a super-high shutter speed. Otherwise, you’re throwing away the frame.

Today, we’re more forgiving of certain kinds of motion blur, such as in today’s photo. We are more likely to understand that the motion is necessary to communicate the story of the photo effectively. Capturing just the right amount of blur confirms for us that the subject isn’t just posing for a picture, but that something is actually happening; that we’ve captured an event as it was taking place, something that will never happen exactly the same way ever again.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Natural light indoors makes motion blur practically inevitable. Shooting natural light indoors always requires a higher ISO (we used 800 for this shot) to capture the light, and a slower shutter speed/f-stop combination (we were at f/2.8, 1/125 for the series from which this shot is taken). If we put the camera on a tripod, which is generally what I would suggest, then those settings are probably workable for most portrait situations. But if you’re not shooting portraits, if there is actually something happening in front of you, then blur is inevitable. That puts the photographer in the position of asking themselves, “Is it worth the blur?”

Honestly, when I took these shots, I fully expected that it was the fringe on her top that was going to give me the most problem, and there’s not a shot in the set where every strand is staying still. Could I have fixed that on camera? Sure, but doing so would have left us with a much less emotional image. With the motion, we have a greater sense of what is going on. We are closer to understanding the story (or creating our own) and connecting to the energy of the image. Without the blur, especially in her hair, this picture comes off bland and a bit boring.

This is an example of natural light sometimes giving us what we don’t know we want. Experimenting, being willing to risk some mistakes, knowing from the start that nothing you’re about to shoot may be usable, is one of the things that makes photography exciting, and that excitement becomes part of the fabric of the resulting image. Motion blur still isn’t something we want to see too often, and the majority of images do better without it but, don’t be afraid of the emotion that comes with a little bit of blur; it may just make the whole picture worthwhile.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Art  /  Photography  /  PotD
Best Thing Next To Being There
June 4, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

Morning Dance (2010)

Any photographer who says he’s not a voyeur is either stupid or a liar. -Helmut Newton

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]We, photographers, like to talk and behave in public as though we’re all about the art. We’ll extol the virtues of natural light as though it is the holy grail of photography. We’ll compare our work to that of truly great artistic masters as though anyone will actually give a damn about our work once we’re dead. We try to take an academic approach to what we do and find some philosophical justification for every shot we take whether it actually exists or not. To talk to some photographers, one might think that it is possible for a photograph, the right photograph, to solve all the world’s societal problems.

What really makes me laugh is when a young photographer who never had a chance to actually meet him attempts to invoke the name of Helmut Newton as though they were good buddies. It almost always happens during a conversation about natural light, and how they’ve  “studied” his work and apply his “philosophy.” I value the time I had with Helmut, whether working or just having lunch, like no other. He certainly had much to teach and opinions about everything. But, you know what? Helmut was every bit as real as you and I and the exact same struggles and challenges we face were those he had to tackle. Want to know what Helmut was really like? Try this on for size:

I say to a person, I want to see you naked, and in my head I say, Well I would like to fuck her but the reason I don’t is because I’m scared to gets AIDS or something…

Helmut really struggled with finding the line between what was socially acceptable and what wasn’t. He tended to blame his German upbringing. Even though he contributed to Playboy for some twenty-odd years, he had a tendency to sometimes go too far, to be too provocative for even a men’s magazine. He claimed (magazine publisher) Hugh Hefner once told him to shoot something nice, not that “kinky stuff you do for French Vogue.” Helmut also despised anyone calling photography art and one might want to duck if they even uttered the words “good taste.” Those were two things that would get his temper up in a hurry.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Want to know the real power of natural light photography? It gives the viewer the feeling that they’re actually present. Art nudes may be popular with the intellectual crowd because of the studies in form and light, juxtaposing muscle and tissue with highlights and shadows. Let’s not pretend, though, that there isn’t a salacious element to what we shoot, especially when we do it in color and especially when we do it with natural light. While I may want to proclaim the artistic value of today’s photo, and I do believe it has more than a little of that, don’t think for one moment that I’m not aware of the base appeal found in the fact that it is ultimately a picture of two people who, as far as we can tell, are fucking.

Stop and think critically for a moment. When digital photography started putting “real” cameras into the hands of more people, why was it so much popular among young men than it was women? There have been many women, such as Eve Arnold and Annie Leibovitz and Diane Ackerman and Diane Arbus, who could shoot circles around any male photographer. Why didn’t more women jump at the chance to pick up a camera as quickly as did young men? Easy: young men were less interested in the art and more interested in the possibility that a camera might be an easy way into a young woman’s pants. The same answer explains why more men give up on chasing a photography career after two or three years. A camera is not an aphrodisiac.

After 30 years of this mess, I still love photography and still prefer natural light but don’t think for one moment I don’t consider how “sexy” a photo is before I post it. I watch the statics for these pages carefully and you can be sure I’ve noticed how much more attention is paid to a nude photograph versus a non-nude. Tuesday’s photo, as lovely as it is, received less attention than any image the past 30 days. I’ve all but stopped posting landscapes because they’re often ignored altogether. What makes natural light photographs popular? Because they’re the best thing next to being there.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
In Defense of Color
June 1, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

A Splash Of Yellow (2010)

And if a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it’s as though I’ve neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up. I know that the accident of my being a photographer has made my life possible. – Richard Avedon – 1970

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Color has been the Rodney Dangerfield of photography, struggling for respect from the moment the folks at Eastman Kodak labs tried selling it to the general public. Before then, it was considered highly experimental, one of those things that couldn’t be trusted, was hardly useful in a practical manner, and hardly worth the time it took to make it a reality. Black and white was where it was at, especially if one wanted a crisp, clear photograph. Anything else was just wasting your time.

I should probably clarify that when we talk about color photography now, more often than not what we are referencing is color process photography similar to what is achieved using negative film processing during the 1940s. Prior to that, there were plenty of experiments going all the way back to 1861 when physicist James Clerk Maxwell achieved a form of color reproduction by shooting three black and white frames using a different color filter, red, green, and blue, for each one and then superimposing them together. Through World War II, that stacking method dramatically improved but still lacked accuracy and refinement necessary to be effective on a large commercial scale.

When color negative film was first developed, the critical issue was the relationship between the negative and the dark room solution known as fixer. It was up to the fixer to accurately translate the negative and produce the correct color onto the specially coated paper. Results varied dramatically from one fixer to the next and even from one person to the next. Color labs began popping up with their reputations lying on their ability to accurately reproduce color negatives. Color reversal film, or slide film, finally came along in the 50s with dramatically more accurate results, but to achieve a print they still had to be translated back to negatives where the process was still less than accurate.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Given all the problems surrounding color film, it really is no wonder that the people who made their living in photography wanted little to do with the mess and uncertainty. Even museums and galleries refused to show color photography any respect for the longest time. The first gallery showing of color photography didn’t occur until 1976! When the Museum of Modern Art in New York showed William Egleston’s Guide response was still based more in curiosity with the medium than acknowledging it as a medium that had finally come into its own.  For the best photo possible, photographers still turned to black and white film.

Digital photography has actually helped change color’s reputation. Unlike film, digital cameras capture a color image right from the start, even if the camera has a black and white setting. Digital imagery removes some of the guess-work, so images are more likely to come out looking closer to what our minds remember our eyes saw. Digital imagery using natural light may be the most accurate translation of color achieved on a regular basis to date. While everything can be manipulated and corrected during post processing, natural light and color photography are the best buddies that have been looking for years to find each other.

Yes, there are still plenty of challenges, not the least of which is the fact that most computer monitors are not accurately balanced to produce true colors. Yet, can you imagine how incredibly boring today’s picture would be if it were in black and white? Color conveys emotion, warmth, and contrast. We look at the picture and can wonder why in the world I would put powdered cheese dust over half the model’s body, and be intrigued by the effect it has on our eyes. In natural light, color photography finally begins earning the respect it deserves.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
The Joys of Natural Light
May 31, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

A Little Gaga (2010)

It’s that I don’t like white paper backgrounds. A woman does not live in front of white paper. She lives on the street, in a motor car, in a hotel room. -Helmut Newton

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]There will be no white paper backgrounds this week. White paper has its place. I have whole sets of images shot on it, but they will never be among my favorites. I am, fundamentally, at my happiest when I’m shooting with natural light. We are looking specifically at natural light photos this week for just that reason: to make me happy. While I hope they make everyone else happy as well, I’ve not been able to shoot a great many of these images in a while so it’s nice to take a look back and be reminded.

Specifically, the images we’ll share this week are all indoor with natural light. There are two important distinctions here. First, there is a difference between natural light and ambient light. Ambient light can include artificial light, reflected light, and any other light source available. With ambient light, one can have light coming from several different directions at the same time, which can diminish the appearance of shadows. Natural light is strictly that which comes from the sun. When shooting natural light indoors, that means it is being diffused at least through glass and often through some form of drapery as well. The light is about as soft as we can possibly make it, which in turn makes for very soft edges and easy motion blurs.

We’ve also made the decision to not include any black and white images this week. Helmut would not be happy about that; he quite disliked color transparency film and the difficulties that came with processing. We’re not working with film, though, and have an infinitely greater number of processing choices than did Mr. Newton. To that end, we did re-process all of this week’s images using the identical processing on each one to provide some visual continuity and minimize some of the less appealing factors of digital processing.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Natural light, indoors, in color, has some very natural challenges. The first is noise, or grain if one is still shooting film. While newer cameras minimize the amount of noise in low light, that’s not the instrument with which I’m working and to some degree I like that. There has always been noise/grain in low light images and to some degree I find it disingenuous to expect natural light imagery without it. This race for the “perfect” image is unnecessary and removes from the natural creativity of the medium. There’s something to be said for working with the light to minimize the noise effect using things such as pose and position rather than technology.

Motion blur is also a frequent issue with natural light, because of our need to use slower shutter speeds. I have mixed feelings about blur. There are times when I feel it adds a sense of motion to an image, especially when the image is of a more editorial nature. At the same time, it is admittedly frustrating as hell when every aspect of a portrait is perfect except for the movement of a couple of fingers or the jingle of dangling earrings. You’ll see a couple of images this week where I think the motion works, but know that sometimes, especially when the subject is not a model, the blur isn’t always attractive.

Natural light photographs are, in my opinion, their own form of beauty. They are, especially in this digital age, a very separate and distinct genre. Low processing, no air brushing, and an emphasis on the relationship between the subject and the light are factors distinctive to this week’s photos. Taking pictures in natural light is one of the most basic forms of photography, and it can almost be the most enjoyable. I hope this week’s pictures make you as happy as they do me.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
Not Quite Naked: Unspoken
May 23, 2015

charles i. letbetter

Undisclosed (2011)

When women pose thoughtfully and artistically – in nothing but their bare skin – they find themselves. They discover that they are truly alive. They become a Nude. -David Allio

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]All this week we’ve been talking about being naked and how social media inherently dislikes anything too close to showing a nipple. We’ve talked about artistic purpose and artist intention and all the other topics that are inherent any time someone posts a picture that just might make those of impure thought a little uncomfortable. Fact is, no matter what kind of picture one puts online, there is always going to be someone who objects for one reason or another and someone else who is secretly  perverting it in their own way. Nothing we do or say is ever going to change that.

What we can do, however, is make sure the act and conversation around being naked isn’t dominated by the negative. We don’t need to be shy about being comfortable in our own skin and no one has any right to judge or speak maliciously of someone who prefers to not wear clothes. Being naked should not be limited to works of art. People who enjoy living au naturale should be able to take selfies just like anyone else without needing to censor who they are or what they are doing.  Nudity should be as casual a part of conversation as might be the coffee one had for breakfast this morning or replacing a belt on the vacuum cleaner. No one should be made to feel they have to hide such a normal part of who they are.

I have to admit that the conversation is doing better today than it was a mere 15 or so years ago. On the backside of the freewheeling 60s and 70s came a knee-jerk conservatism that had everyone buttoned up and anything that might be remotely considered sexual was demonized. If one was naked, the public perception was that one was also likely doing drugs and having sex with multiple people and not raising their children correctly. Discovery of HIV and the subsequent AIDS panic didn’t help because during that initial period where we weren’t sure exactly what caused the virus anything that could possibly be considered sexual, including kissing and holding hands, was demonized. Fear drove people to chastity.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]Getting past those unrealistic and misinformed fears has been quite a chore but from that has come an even stronger urge to make being naked more socially acceptable. We’ve already discussed the Free The Nipple campaign, which is a wonderful thing, but there are also those who look at nudity as a form of expression to be protected under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and judges have begun upholding that right. Portland, Oregon’s annual Naked Run sounds like a lot of rebellious fun, but it is actually designed and intended as a means of peaceful protest, again protected by the Constitution. You have a right to be naked without that nudity being sexualized by someone whose own mind can’t be trusted.

Early in the 20th century, before all those stupid wars and politics got in the way, there was a strong naturist movement across Europe. During that period, doctors were actually prescribing patients to be naked, especially outdoors. The well-to-do would commonly hold tea parties on their patios that were completely sans clothing. Not only were these events largely asexual, but children were also included and there was no fear that a child seeing a naked adult might have any adverse effects. Quite the opposite was true. There was a greater acceptance of homosexuality and other lifestyles during this brief period than there has been at any time since.

Can we again achieve such a level of casual nakedness? I’m not too terribly optimistic  just yet because the Internet has allowed those who would impose their own morality on the world a level of volume larger than their actual size. One thing of which I’m certain, though, is that being naked is not something that needs to remain unspoken. Be proud of who you are, the skin you are in, regardless of your size, age, or sexuality. And if someone doesn’t like that, allow them to go away and deal with their problem on their own. [/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Art  /  PotD
Not Quite Naked: Inherent
May 22, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

Mmmm, Chocolate (2012)

Modern pessimism denies the intrinsic beauty and replaces it with a subjective vision that cares little for the objective truth. In this thought the figure, whether nude or clothed, loses its form by putting more value on its symbolism than its actual form. That’s when you need a Rembrandt to step in a remind us of the value of content in its relation to form and beauty! -Shane Conant

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]Everyone gets naked, but not everyone knows how to be nude. Being naked is inevitable; one bathes, one changes clothes, sooner or later naked happens to everyone. Being nude, though, requires a level of comfortability with being in one’s own skin. The person who is naked is more likely to run for cover is the doorbell rings while the person who is nude may go ahead and answer the door. The person who is naked is careful to keep the blinds closed and the curtains drawn while the nude individual enjoys the warm sunlight coming through the window. Being naked is inherent, but being nude is a choice.

Artists often focus on the nude, not the naked, and I think it is important that we understand the difference between the two not just in the personal sense but how it makes a difference in the basic condition of approaching a work of art. Art school is partially responsible for our focus on the nude because it necessarily looks at the figure first as an object to be drawn. Even some photography schools insist that their students first take figure drawing classes before moving on to other forms of photography. Understanding the basic mechanics of the nude form is essential to accurately portraying the figure in other settings.

At the same time, part of our need to find symbolism and meaning in the nude form comes from a defensive position wherein we feel the need to justify having an unclothed person in front of our lens or our canvas. Moral criticism of the nude, which by its very nature objectifies the body as a thing to be shamed, puts artists on guard and finds us looking for meaning in work that, such as today’s image, doesn’t necessarily need any additional meaning for it to be appreciated. [/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]Insisting that there be meaning to every aspect of an image takes away one’s ability to enjoy the human figure for the natural work of art that it is. The human form does not require us to explain what makes it beautiful for it is beautiful beyond the ability of our words to describe. Imposing unintended symbolism on every image of a human form we see is just as improper as those who impose unnecessary morality upon everything that exists. Not everything requires our intervention or interpretation in order to be a work of art.

I very much like this quote from an artist who understood the difference between nude and naked:

Hitherto the nude has always been represented in poses which presuppose an audience. But my women are simple, honest creatures who are concerned with nothing beyond their physical occupations… it is as if you were looking through a keyhole. (Edgar Degas)

Dripping chocolate down a naked back has absolutely no symbolism, no greater meaning, no architectural inference. Mmmm, Chocolate is simply dripping chocolate down a naked back. That’s it. Nothing else. Any artistry comes naturally in the juxtaposition of light and dark, highlights and shadows, contrast and toning. One needn’t be an artist of great experience or full of profound thought in order to take this picture. Sometimes we don’t need any reason for capturing an image beyond the basic desire to capture that specific image. Art doesn’t always need an explanation or deeper meaning. Let art be art. Let naked be naked.[/one_half_last]

 

Continue Reading

Art  /  PotD
Not Quite Naked: Latent
May 20, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

Shades Of Light (2012)

The gesture must be correct. If the gesture is correct, your mind really creates the reality of the figure, and it is not necessary to hang on all the rest [of the details]… -Nathan Oliveira

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]What is real? Philosophers have been attempting to tackle that question for centuries and have yet to come up with an answer that satisfies everyone. One thing is certain, though, that what we see may actually be the furthest thing from reality that we encounter. Our minds are too creative and fill in blanks, correct errors, and sometimes make up things that never existed in the first place. You’ve experienced this any time you’ve proofread a letter or paper, think you’ve removed any errors, only to have someone else find numerous misspellings and mistakes. Our eyes can be trusted; it’s our brains that alter reality to something more palatable.

Latent nudity preys upon the mind’s ability to create stories and images from a mere suggestion. What our eyes don’t quite see, that portion of an image that’s just barely hidden, our minds automatically fill. There’s not a nipple in the picture, but we think we see one. There’s a flaw in the background, but our eyes miss that entirely. Step away from the image, wait five or ten minutes, and then try to describe it to someone else. Chances are your description will be different, often dramatically more detailed, than what actually exists. We want to see more of the picture, so our amazingly powerful brains give us what we want.

Unfortunately, in a world where everyone has the ability to report images on social media, thereby imposing their morality on others without asking, creative minds that add things to pictures is not wonderful. How many thousands of pictures have been deleted mistakenly because, at first glance, someone thought they saw nudity when the person was actually wearing a swimsuit? How many thousands of people have had their accounts suspended because someone who just glanced at a picture reported it for something that wasn’t there? Social media’s morality policing fails because latent imagery tricks the mind and those inclined to be offended become so without cause.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]One of the many reasons art of any kind often fails online, and especially in social media, is because artistic images inherently require that we take time to study them. One doesn’t rush hurriedly through a museum, but we certainly don’t waste any time scrolling down our Facebook newsfeeds. We flip through images on Instagram or Tumblr with the same casual carelessness we would give an old magazine at the doctor’s office. The very nature of social media, which depends upon us consuming information in large quantities as quickly as possible, works against the needs of art to be studied and considered.

When social media first began, I went along with a large number of other photographers and artists who were anxious to display as many of our images as possible to what we were sure would be a waiting and appreciative world. Certainly, social media would provide us with the platform we needed to get our work noticed, to break out from the crowd, to finally get the attention we deserve. We dumped everything we could onto our social media pages to the point of excess. What we discovered was painful. No one looking at images online wanted to take the time to actually study a picture. Instead, they glance at a thumbnail, click some icon representing approval, and move on. Ten minutes later, they don’t remember the content of the pictures at all.

I am increasingly convinced that latent imagery, or any works that need to be studied to be fully appreciated, are best left to wall displays or books rather than social media presentations. Brains are not going to change the way they work simply because the results produce some level of angst or disappointment on my part. We can rail about artistic insensitivity and failure to pay attention all we want, but we don’t have the ability to change what the mind does automatically. We can’t change reality. We don’t even know what reality is.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Art  /  PotD
Not Quite Naked: Implicit
May 19, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

Reflections of Now (2012)

The living model, the naked body of a woman, is the privileged seat of feeling, but also of questioning… The model must mark you, awaken in you an emotion which you seek in turn to express. -Henri Matisse

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]It’s not especially easy being naked before someone you don’t really know; at least, not for most people. You stand there, exposed, feeling every slight draft of air on your skin, wondering if they’ve noticed that scar on your thigh from when you were six years old and got caught on the barbed-wire fence. You wonder not if but how they’re judging you: are your breasts too small or large or shaped funny? Is your skin splotchy? Can they tell how much you suddenly need to go to the bathroom? How do you tell them your period just started without being embarrassed?  Why is this taking so long?

For all the hoopla they sometimes create, especially in social media, implicit art nudes, or art nudes of any kind, are so far removed from anything sexual as to make the imposition of a sexual comment laughable. Artists, whether painters or sculptors or photographers, are consumed with the details of how to recreate or represent the totality of what is before them. Models are more than flesh and bone, but an architecture of emotion, experience, beauty, and humanity. How does one accurately capture all that in a single image in a way that communicates to the viewer everything the artist is feeling? The model, on the other hand, wonders if the pose looks as silly as it feels, if maybe she shouldn’t have had that burrito for lunch, and if she’s going to be done in time to let the dogs out before they mess on the carpet.

What implicit nudes do to the viewer, though, is challenge one’s perception of what is versus what may be. If one comes to an image from the perspective that all things are sexual, then one is going to perceive a sexuality where none was intended. If one approaches an image while consumed with a given emotion, one is going to find that emotion first and perhaps dominantly within the image regardless of what the artist sought to communicate. One of the greatest challenges in working with nudes is that the artist can only control what’s happening, what’s seen, what’s felt, what’s intended, as the image is created. We do not control the viewer’s experience.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]Great art, some argue, is that which communicates its intended purpose regardless of when, where, or under what conditions it is viewed. When multiple generations  of people look at a piece of art and come away with the same or at least similar understanding then the artist did their job well and the work is worthy of commendation. Yet, all one has to do is show a five-year-old a picture of Michaelangelo’s David (assuming one probably isn’t close enough to visit the real thing), to see that one’s perspective of art is learned, not inherent. Amidst a flurry of giggles, they will gleefully point out that David is missing his pants. Depending on the child, “Ewwwwww” is likely to be their artistic critique.

That is not to say that great art does not inherently stir emotion within most everyone; there is a sense of awe that comes with standing in front of a painting so incredibly detailed as to seemingly lift off the canvas. A photograph carefully lit to emphasize a specific element while keeping other details shadowed draws us close and raises our curiosity. Abstract sculpture leads us to contemplate our perceptions of shape and construction even when we don’t understand those factors at all. Art does not require an education to have an impact on its viewer.

Art does require, however, that we approach it openly, honestly, recognizing our personal biases but having the ability to set aside that bias to see more of what the artist desired to communicate. Nowhere is that more true than with an implicit nude. There is much to be said in today’s picture about self-examination, self-esteem, and self-worth. We might ponder what the girl feels about the reflection she sees in the mirror, and how we feel when we look at our own reflection. Emotions in this image may run deep if the viewer is willing to take that risk.

If all one is seeing is sex, the problem doesn’t lie with the image but with the person viewing it.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Art  /  Photography  /  PotD
Not Quite Naked: Tacit
May 18, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles I. letbetter

Beautiful nudes made it possible for us to contemplate our sexuality in safety. -Martha Mayer Erlebacher

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]”Don’t tag me in these, my family wouldn’t understand.”

I’ve gotten that request often from models since social media became prominent, and not always in regard to nudity. There have been times when the request came simply because the person feared her family’s response to her modeling. Other times because the clothing was so very different from what they normally wore. And at least one time because the model feared her family would think she wasn’t taking her college courses seriously. Social media’s ability to expose our “secrets” to the rest of the world has had a dramatic effect in how people behave, or at least choose to present themselves, when they’re online.

Not that such concerns are entirely new, mind you. Horst P. Horst related the story of one instance where a husband became very upset that Horst had taken pictures of his wife and threatened to kill both the photographer and the wife. This was back before professional models existed, forcing photographers to pull from their social contacts for subjects. Horst had photographed the young woman unaware that her husband had any concerns. Once the photo showed up in Vogue magazine, however, the husband was outraged and accused his spouse of having an affair with the photographer. What made that accusation all the more outlandish was the fact that Horst was unapologetically gay and everyone knew it. Eventually, cooler heads prevailed and no one was harmed.

Still, public reaction to anything remotely resembling nudity is surprisingly severe given how we’re supposed to be so incredibly “enlightened” now. Just this past week, I observed a comment under the photo of a young woman in a relatively modest bikini chastising the girl for “lowering” herself by posing in such a way. The model was, understandably, offended and quickly corrected the commenter. Other friends have had pictures of them nursing their newborn reported to the morality police. Instagram even removed fashion week runway photos if there was a hint of nipple exposed. Social media has become the arbiter of a false morality that works against the very idea of an open and well-educated society. We find it much easier to respond from ignorance than to seek understanding.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]I am convinced that the major reason for such excessive reaction to tacit nudity is that images remotely focusing on the human body stir questions of one’s own sexuality within those who have never fully dealt with the subject. For those raised in sexually oppressive environments, the mere thought of anything sexual scares the living shit right out of them because they don’t have the emotional or intellectual tools necessary to even begin dealing with the subject. People sexually oppressed, whether due to social constraints, religion, or any other number of factors, fail to understand sexuality as anything more than a means of procreation. Therefore, anything that creates any kind of emotion outside that very narrow realm must, in their minds, be wrong.

We are afraid of ourselves. We’re not really afraid of gays as much as we are afraid we might be gay. We’re not really afraid of those who are sexually open as much as we are afraid of our own rampant promiscuity being let loose. We’re not nearly as offended by public displays of affection as much as we struggle to control our own desires to do the kissing. How many dozens of times over the past ten years have we seen instances where legislators who have been most boisterous in their railing against gays and lesbians are later caught in a same-gender relationship? How many hundreds of times have those who preach against promiscuity been caught having affairs? We understand so little about our sexuality that it frightens us to violence against it.

America needs to get itself to a therapist. What we fear in ourselves ultimately does harm to others. In fighting against what we refuse to honestly confront we oppress others who have a need and a desire to learn. When we prevent people from understanding more about themselves we limit their potential in all areas of their lives. While one might make the argument that they have the right to screw up their own lives, one absolutely does not, under any circumstances, have the right to screw up the lives of others.

Get a grip, America. Face your fears. The world is tacitly naked and that’s a good thing.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD  /  Social Commentary
Not Quite Naked: Implied
May 17, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

INTENSITY (2012)

“When I met her you could tell she was on the verge. She was a girl becoming a woman. We took those pictures and I thought she looked so beautiful and having a little bit of an edge to her. She loved doing the pictures, and she was made to feel bad for doing them.” Photographer Annie Leibovitz in LA Times interview with Steve Appleford, April 19, 2014. Annie Leibovitz talks Taschen book, Miley Cyrus, John & Yoko

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]In the world of television there is this annual ritual called The Upfronts. This is where networks show samples, sometimes whole episodes, of what they plan on broadcasting in the fall in hopes that advertising executives will encourage their clients to purchase ad time during these programs. Upfronts are a huge party with a huge payoff and networks typically spare no expense trotting out their biggest stars in order to impress the host of advertising and media bigwigs assembled.

So, it was with interest I watch as Adult Swim announced Miley Cyrus was going to be performing this past week at their Upfronts. There was no way this wasn’t going to be interesting and sure enough, Miley didn’t disappoint. In case you’ve not already seen the pictures, she came on stage wearing a giant set of butterfly wings and not much else. Her breasts were fully exposed, her nipples covered with butterfly pasties. She wore a pair of white tights as well, but under the stage lights seeing through those wasn’t terribly difficult. For all practical purposes, she may as well have been naked. What was obvious was the fact that Miley was having fun and the rather uptight advertising suits were more than a little uncomfortable, especially when she told them where to lick her.

All this brought me back to 2008 when Vanity Fair photographer Annie Leibovitz shot a 15-year-old Miley with only her back exposed. You would have thought she had shot Hanna Montana live on the evening news for all the furor it created. Annie was demonized by practically every outlet on the planet for daring to “sexualize” a young woman in such a way. Miley was forced to apologize (and then later recanted). Vanity Fair threatened to not pay for the pictures. Everyone wondered if Annie’s famed career was over and what would happen to Miley as a result of this “horrible abuse.”

Well, now we know, don’t we?[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]Americans don’t know how to handle the nude form. Little difference is made for efforts made toward being socially appropriate or artistically posed; Americans see bare skin and automatically achieve a state of hyper-hysteria that causes them to have difficulty breathing, blurred vision, and an unrealistic fear of judgement from the late Jerry Falwell. Just the notion that a person may not have been wearing clothes when a photograph was taken causes those who feel they must protect the innocence of the world to become absolutely apoplectic.  There’s no attempt to understand, no regard for artistry, they’re just angry.

At least, until they think no one is looking. I watch with routine amusement as my website stats fluctuate from day to day. On days when the #POTD is a landscape, hardly anyone pays attention; numbers are in the cellar. Days when the #POTD is an attractive young person see a more respectable hit count based largely on how popular that particular model might be. Let me post a picture that hints at nudity though, even if it’s implied, and watch the traffic soar! This isn’t unique to my site but is an exact reflection of traffic patterns across the Internet. If you want attention, post a picture of someone naked.

Social media hypocritically decries nudity while at the same time enjoying the fact that even there a little skin increases their traffic. They’ve each re-written their rules over time to allow for as much skin as possible without  actually giving into allowing “real” nudity. So, it is in deference to Facebook and other such sites that we’re focusing this week on photos that are not quite naked. You won’t see any nipples. For that matter, you won’t always even catch side boob. Our goal is to give one reason to think about the artistry of the human body and just how messed up society’s reaction is. We hope you’ll join us. We hope you’ll think.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Art  /  PotD
Art On The Urban Wall
April 16, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

D on the Square (2013). Model: Diablo

Graffiti that once was considered the bane of urban existence is now a recognized and sometimes highly sought after art form unique to the inner city. All over America, cities are electing to brighten once-blighted neighborhoods with murals and other forms of street art. The biggest challenge? Finding them.

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 2px”]We frequently travel across a little stretch of road that is strictly utilitarian in nature. There’s no reason for its existence other than to connect one part of town with another. The asphalt runs adjacent to a railroad track with a hospital at one end and an industrial area at the other, but there is nothing useful in between, simply overly-littered clumps of weeds and dirt the department of public works tries to clean up occasionally. Then, just last year, the city decided that the area needed some sprucing up. So, they commissioned a large mural to be painted under the stretch of Interstate 65 that dissects the area. The mural is very attractive, very bright, and appropriate in its depiction of the people who live in the area. Hooray for public art!

Yet, the rest of the area, even the right-of-way between the mural and the road, remains a blight. Trash still punctuates the aesthetics of the road, soot still gathers on the girders of the overpass, and none of the mural is visible unless one is stuck on that very short piece of otherwise forgettable road. Might this be a case of expecting art to do more than it is capable of doing on its own? Possibly.

Cities have long had a love/hate relationship with outdoor urban art. While graffiti has been around almost as long as men have been building walls, only recently have we as a society started looking at it as a legitimate art form. Artists with names such as Banksy, Mr. Brainwash, and Retna, Shepard Fairey, and David Choe have become both celebrities and millionaires spraypainting their works on the side of buildings such as Facebook’s headquarters. What once would have gotten a person arrested for vandalism is now welcomed by many urban building owners and often comes with a very hefty price tag.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 2px 0 8px”]For all that popularity, we’re still not always sure what to do with urban wall art. Today’s picture is shot in front of a very large and attractive piece of work in Fountain Square. Yet, you won’t see it as you take a casual drive through the area. The graffiti art is on a wall tucked back in an alley next to a gravel parking lot used primarily by employees of adjacent businesses. If one doesn’t know the work is there and seek it out, it goes completely unnoticed. Sticking Diablo, at the time one of Fountain Square’s better-known residents, in front of the wall might have brought it some attention had we included a map of how to find it. We like urban wall art, but we’re not always sure we want everyone to see it.

One also has to consider the fact that a lot of street art is intentionally temporary. Traditional graffiti artists never expect their work, welcome or not, to be permanent. Even under the best of circumstances, sunlight fades the colors and changing weather eventually chips away at the paint. Many walls where graffiti is welcome get completely repainted two or three times a year. If one visits an area infrequently or is unaware of an art wall’s rotation, one might easily miss a real masterpiece of urban painting.

Wall art is an exciting part of the contemporary urban landscape and photography helps preserve this all-too-temporary art form. Perhaps one day we’ll no longer relegate such creative work to back alleys and the underside of Interstate bridges. Until then, the search-and-discovery process of finding these exciting pieces is an adventure that defines the uniqueness of the urban outdoors. Get out your camera and start looking; they could be anywhere![/one_half_last]

 

Continue Reading

Page 10 of 10