OPEN
POSES, PORNOGRAPHY, AND ART
by Tom Hunscher
Copyright: 2004 by Tom Hunscher
All Rights Reserved
As
a photographer who sometimes takes pictures of pretty girls doing
"open" poses, and as a person with an M.A. in philosophy
and lots of interest in aesthetics and ethics, I am perhaps uniquely
qualified to discuss this topic in a serious manner.
That said, I want to consider two main questions: 1) Do open poses
oppress women? and 2) When are open poses pornographic and when
are they erotic? Before
addressing these issues, let me make a few observations. I assume
we are discussing open poses in the broadest possible sense, so
as to include any pose which exposes the vulva and/or anus. I
bring this up because a woman who is bending forward or down will
expose her vulva and anus, as will a woman in a fetal position
even though her legs are together.
These
issues come up almost exclusively with regard to photography with
female models. While male nudity is widely regarded as more shocking
and more potentially obscene, certain objections are raised almost
exclusively as regards female models. I have always found this
amusing, since female genitalia are almost 100% internal and require
gynecological or surgical instruments to see, so it is really
the exterior and exposed part of the female body, and not the
genitalia, which are at issue. The real world is way ahead of
this discussion. In the pages of Hustler, for example, vulvas
and anuses are not just shown, but lately are shown being penetrated
by fingers and tongues and penises and sex toys. The Internet
newsgroups contain kiddie porn and necrophilia which go way beyond
any question of mere nudity. Someone once said that the Puritans
condemned bull baiting not for the terror and agony it brought
to the bull, but for the pleasure it brought to the spectators.
In this context, it's clear that most of those who condemn open
poses are puritanical.
DO
OPEN POSES OPPRESS WOMEN?
Speaking for myself, when doing art erotica, the models are typically
volunteers who do it because they enjoy it or because they want
to see and possess the finished product. When doing commercial erotica
on assignment, the models are normally paid by my client. In most
cases, the payment is not great. Certainly, it's not great enough
to induce the average female to shed her clothes and expose her
genital area.
Quite
frankly, most of my models would do open poses even without the
financial incentive, because they enjoy being nude and specifically
enjoy showing their naughty parts. I've even had models spontaneously
masturbate in front of me, and for the majority who don't go quite
that far, it's quite normal for them to lubricate. sometimes furiously.
while posing. One volunteer model went through several dozen paper
tissues during a 90-minute session. Any
woman or experienced male knows that lubrication is a sign of sexual
excitement, not a sign of fear. The conclusion: the models (mine,
anyway) enjoy being in front of the camera and showing it all.
Some feminists argue that all women are oppressed by erotic imagery
of conventionally "pretty" women, and that explicitly
and blatantly sexual images like open poses subject women as a group
to standards of behavior most women can't (or don't want to) meet.
If this is true, then by parity of logic I would be oppressed by
the physical attributes and antics of Arnold Schwarzenegger and
Johnny "Wadd" Holmes, and should probably be in a support
group commiserating with other underdeveloped men.
I've been told that the real reason why "(m)ost women find
these poses utterly repugnant" is that "the women in the
photos don't seem to be in control." I don't think those who
proffer this argument have seen the typical men's magazines, since
most of the models bear expressions which seem to say, "If
you want me, be prepared to beg." Even the relatively new "barely
legal" category of magazines displays lovely 18 and 19 year
olds who have virtually perfect little bodies and appear to be absolutely
delighted to be in front of a camera.
Because I advertise for models, and don't approach young women
on the street, every female who steps in front of my camera is
there because she wants to be. And as I've said, I really don't
pay all that well, so if a girl wanted to, she would have a very
good reason for not posing for me. In my ad, or in the ensuing
phone interview (which she initiates) I explain that there's no
big pot of gold waiting for her and that arty stuff is often paid
for in photos instead of cash. Perhaps there's a little disappointment,
but it doesn't keep them from posing.
That so many have tells me that a certain segment of the female
population simply can't wait to take its clothes off.
On those very rare occasions when I do see a magazine model who
appears uncomfortable displaying herself, I feel bad for her.
She shouldn't have been modeling and the photographer should have
encouraged her to find some other way to make her money (because
that's almost certainly the only reason she's doing it). Likewise,
the creative director shouldn't have bought the photos. At the
same time, though, by not pretending to know what is best for
these young women, I show them a lot more respect than many of
the so-called feminists and "advocates" who quite clearly
would like to control my models into more demure behavior.
WHEN
ARE OPEN POSES PORNOGRAPHIC AND/OR EROTIC?
In one of my shows I displayed a photo of an extremely beautiful
woman laying on her back and splaying her inner labia. It was
a fairly grainy 8x12 enlargement of a 35 mm Tri-X frame. While
the pose was a standard men's magazine pose, it was in every other
respect an art shot, which was the irony I was going for.
A
lot of guys use photos of open poses as masturbation material.
And making photos for this purpose is not such a terrible thing,
since a man who has masturbated probably feels more like going
to sleep than hurting anyone. The guys I worry about are the ones
who can't masturbate and whose only sexual outlet must involve
a female partner, even if she isn't consenting. Thus, my more
"pornographic" work may actually be more socially redeeming
than the gallery stuff!
As an aside, I have heard that the men's magazine poses are "too
formulaic and unoriginal." It's too easy to say that these
photos are unoriginal. Actually, these poses are conventions,
not cliches, because they are all basically sex positions (if
not for "normal" coitus, then for other forms of sexual
contact). To anyone who's read the Kama Sutra, it quickly becomes
clear why most of us use relatively few sex positions. As one
gets away from the standard ones, they quickly become contortionistic
and/or comical. While contortion has some kinky fetishistic appeal,
comedy has none at all.
The point isn't to find a new position, we are stuck with only
so many practical sex positions, but to take a familiar position
and photograph it as well as we can. Conventions give art context
and standards. And, sure, there are a lot of bad crotch shots
out there, but I think probably 99.9% of all art is bad anyway.
In closing, let me return to the most overlooked reason for doing
open poses: the models enjoy doing them! If the model is having
fun and we are not harming anyone, mind your own damned business
and find something really important to gripe about.
|
