![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
To Be Me
The Trials and Tribulations of a 21st Century Nude Photographer
By Richard Rasner
A great number of people, when they find out what I do, often have the reaction of “Wow! It must be great to be you.” Often times, that’s true. I love my job and what I do. Other times, to be quite frank, it sucks. What is it exactly that I do? I photograph naked women for a living; trying to bring back nude art photography to a respected art form once again.
To do that, you have to know when & where nude art (in all forms) was respected as art. Primarily (in various incarnations) that would include most of Man’s history, from the neo-classical Greek & Roman statues up through early photographic nudes. A good example of this (and one I use frequently) is that Queen Victoria, who reigned in England from 1837 to 1901 was a huge fan and supporter of nude art, and it was widely accepted in a time that was otherwise puritanical at best. She decorated Buckingham Palace with nude paintings, sculptures and even photographs as they became popular. Not hidden behind walls, mind you, but all over the Palace where many still hang today.
So when the downfall? The downfall (I think, though I am certainly no scholar on the subject) started at around the same time. Photographers, like painters, had a difficult time finding models, and often went to prostitutes as a willing supply of models. Unlike painting, however, which took hours or even days to complete, photography took just minutes. Therefore it was much easier to convince the model to pose in a more provocative (or even sexual) pose and multiple images could be turned out at once, cheaply.
As the 20th century emerged ‘girly mags’ became a thing of normalcy, and by the time Hugh Hefner stepped in during the 1950’s it was too late to stop the tide. Although Playboy does not have any sexual content the purpose of its photos are to arouse desire. To me, the ideal “fine art” nude celebrates the beauty of the human body, but does not seek to provoke sexual ideas. More on that later. Enter Larry Flynt in the 1960’s. By this point the purpose of the girly mag had gone exclusively to being sexual in nature and was shunned by mainstream society. By the early 1990’s the internet boomed and by the turn of the century the cheap digital camera made everyone’s sickest dreams come true. Porn for the masses, produced by anyone at anytime with no talent or vision.
Then comes me. Am I some shining beacon of light in a sick, sick, world? Hardly. But I really want people to stop being ashamed of the nude. I have models whose family will barely speak to them because they “shoot porn.” On the other hand, I have families who proudly post their daughter's nude photograph in their living room, over the mantle place for all to see. Hence why I strive for the non-erotic nude. Do you think that the mother of that model wants visitors to be turned on by her daughter’s nude body? Hardly. Rather, she sees the inherent beauty in the nude form which can (and should often be) non-sexual.
Let’s go back to Playboy for a second. A truly classier girly mag you will not find anywhere. Great articles by great writers, and beautiful photographs by amazing photographers that explore every private area you could hope to see on a beautiful woman. Still, these images are meant to be fantasy, and that fantasy does not often include having these ladies read you Shakespeare. The bodies are airbrushed to perfection, the models carefully chosen for their flawless beauty and they are often set in bedrooms that Rockefeller would have considered opulent. I have a number of friends who consider Playboy to be quite upper-crust, and yet you never see it on someone’s coffee table. It’s always in the bedroom, or most commonly, on the bathroom reading rack. The only nude photography you are liable to see in plain sight in somebody’s house is usually a coffee table book of nudes from your local Barnes & Noble. And these books are often shot in black and white, heavily back-lit and silhouetted, with the models head and feet safely cropped out of existence. This is the other end of the spectrum (one which I also dislike) where the nude is made ‘safe’ and inhuman. You can usually spot these artistic nude photographs because they are labeled “Artistic Nude no1” or “Black and White Study – Sally” or other such nonsense. Personally, I prefer my nudes to be in color, showing the full body and face of a model, and all the imperfections and flaws thereof. That isn’t always the case obviously, and I am guilty of shooting images that fall in the above category. But that’s par for the course, I think, in anyone’s career.
People often ask me what else I shoot. Landscapes? Photojournalism? How else, they wonder, do I ‘legitimize’ myself as a photographer, thusly making my nudes more acceptable. The answer is NOTHING. Very seldom I will shoot a concert for my friend and model Summer Russell (a talented singer/songwriter as well) or volunteer my time to photograph down at Los Angeles’ Midnight Mission (a non-profit organization dedicated to helping the homeless.) But these are things I do as a hobby or as a gift, not as my career. Nudes don’t need legitimizing. I don’t need legitimizing. I think my work stands on its own, ready to be proudly hung, without shame or prejudice, in your local art museum, coffee shop or on your wall at home.
To be me is interesting. I shoot female nudes because I like shooting female nudes. I am a straight heterosexual male and so my eye tends to see the beauty in the female form more than the male. Not to say that the male form can’t be beautiful. I just lack the artistic vision, I think, when I attempt to photograph it. There are others that do it much better than I do. I love being me. It is awesome to have a huge number of females, ranging from average to extremely attractive, calling me up daily asking when they can come take their clothes off for me. My modeling pool is huge, and I am never at a lack for willing participants in my art. In fact, I’m pretty backlogged trying to get them all in. I want to shoot everyone who sees my ideals in nude art; girls who aren’t ashamed to be a part of classy, fine art, unusual photographs. A few are just in it for the money, but 90% or more only want to be a part of something extraordinarily different.
What makes my nudes so different? Besides my approach of the non-erotic nude (an art form all but extinct, as noted above) I also try to make my work genuinely interesting to look at. Falling away from the heavily back-lit black & white, I shoot from unusual angles, using unusual models, in color and selective color, and often using very odd light sources. To me, a photograph should be interesting despite whether or not the model is nude. If are familiar with my work than you know what I mean. If you aren’t, well then I suppose you have to use your imagination.
In the opening paragraph I mentioned that sometimes being me can suck. I imagine at this point you’re wondering how. I mean, it’s a dream job right? People paying you to do what you love, looking at naked women all day, taking photographs and selling them all over the world, what’s not to love? I know plenty of guys who pay girls to get naked for them, and here I often have them paying me for the privilege. But there is a dark side; the suck of “to be me.”
First off, there is the social stigma attached to being a nude photographer, no matter if you turn out fine art or kiddy porn. It’s all the same to the moral majority. I imagine it’s worse for my models, but it’s not all that great for me either. Seasonally, I work at a corporate studio for a company taking special event photographs, often of children. I hear the mumble of my co-workers about how I shoot “porn” for a living; but of course that is only the people who have never seen me crack open my portfolio. Those that have are sufficiently awed enough to tell the others to shut their trap. But it’s annoying, none the less. I also have to deal with models (models who are willing to pose nude are notorious for their ridiculous demands, unreliable timing and flakey behavior) and agents, and sometimes the model’s chaperones. I have expounded in the past on my peeves along those lines, so I won’t delve much into it in this essay. But suffice to say when I find a truly professional model, one who is willing to pose nude but is also intelligent, punctual and easy to work with (Victoria Lane comes to mind immediately) I am usually floored.
Besides models and the public, there is the art community itself, and all its little subcultures. From gallery owners all the way through the ‘erotic fetish’ circles, everyone has an opinion on your work. Everybody plays favorites, even to the untalented, and there are people who will refuse to work with you simply based on the fact that you had previously worked with someone else. It gets frustrating and annoying, and more than once I’ve considered just throwing in the towel, artistically speaking. But still I carry on, because I believe in the fine art nude, and that it can be more than just a relic of years gone by.
I will photograph until I am old and gray. (As of my writing this, I am still a fairly young man of 29.) The previous 8 years have been quite the rollercoaster ride, from my relative obscurity in the last century to my explosive solo show at the beginning of this year. I am proud to do what I do, and hopefully before I die I will have in some part helped the fine art nude photograph (sketch or painting) become a respected art form once again; hung up in offices, government buildings, and living rooms all over the world. It’s pretty good to be me, and I wouldn’t change with anyone for the world.
If you have a comment on the above essay, I would love for you to leave it below in the comments section (be sure to include info) or e-mail me at mn_detective(at)yahoo(dot)com. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Regards,
Richard Rasner
Nakayama Studios
www.UniqueNudes.com
The Trials and Tribulations of a 21st Century Nude Photographer
By Richard Rasner
A great number of people, when they find out what I do, often have the reaction of “Wow! It must be great to be you.” Often times, that’s true. I love my job and what I do. Other times, to be quite frank, it sucks. What is it exactly that I do? I photograph naked women for a living; trying to bring back nude art photography to a respected art form once again.
To do that, you have to know when & where nude art (in all forms) was respected as art. Primarily (in various incarnations) that would include most of Man’s history, from the neo-classical Greek & Roman statues up through early photographic nudes. A good example of this (and one I use frequently) is that Queen Victoria, who reigned in England from 1837 to 1901 was a huge fan and supporter of nude art, and it was widely accepted in a time that was otherwise puritanical at best. She decorated Buckingham Palace with nude paintings, sculptures and even photographs as they became popular. Not hidden behind walls, mind you, but all over the Palace where many still hang today.
So when the downfall? The downfall (I think, though I am certainly no scholar on the subject) started at around the same time. Photographers, like painters, had a difficult time finding models, and often went to prostitutes as a willing supply of models. Unlike painting, however, which took hours or even days to complete, photography took just minutes. Therefore it was much easier to convince the model to pose in a more provocative (or even sexual) pose and multiple images could be turned out at once, cheaply.
As the 20th century emerged ‘girly mags’ became a thing of normalcy, and by the time Hugh Hefner stepped in during the 1950’s it was too late to stop the tide. Although Playboy does not have any sexual content the purpose of its photos are to arouse desire. To me, the ideal “fine art” nude celebrates the beauty of the human body, but does not seek to provoke sexual ideas. More on that later. Enter Larry Flynt in the 1960’s. By this point the purpose of the girly mag had gone exclusively to being sexual in nature and was shunned by mainstream society. By the early 1990’s the internet boomed and by the turn of the century the cheap digital camera made everyone’s sickest dreams come true. Porn for the masses, produced by anyone at anytime with no talent or vision.
Then comes me. Am I some shining beacon of light in a sick, sick, world? Hardly. But I really want people to stop being ashamed of the nude. I have models whose family will barely speak to them because they “shoot porn.” On the other hand, I have families who proudly post their daughter's nude photograph in their living room, over the mantle place for all to see. Hence why I strive for the non-erotic nude. Do you think that the mother of that model wants visitors to be turned on by her daughter’s nude body? Hardly. Rather, she sees the inherent beauty in the nude form which can (and should often be) non-sexual.
Let’s go back to Playboy for a second. A truly classier girly mag you will not find anywhere. Great articles by great writers, and beautiful photographs by amazing photographers that explore every private area you could hope to see on a beautiful woman. Still, these images are meant to be fantasy, and that fantasy does not often include having these ladies read you Shakespeare. The bodies are airbrushed to perfection, the models carefully chosen for their flawless beauty and they are often set in bedrooms that Rockefeller would have considered opulent. I have a number of friends who consider Playboy to be quite upper-crust, and yet you never see it on someone’s coffee table. It’s always in the bedroom, or most commonly, on the bathroom reading rack. The only nude photography you are liable to see in plain sight in somebody’s house is usually a coffee table book of nudes from your local Barnes & Noble. And these books are often shot in black and white, heavily back-lit and silhouetted, with the models head and feet safely cropped out of existence. This is the other end of the spectrum (one which I also dislike) where the nude is made ‘safe’ and inhuman. You can usually spot these artistic nude photographs because they are labeled “Artistic Nude no1” or “Black and White Study – Sally” or other such nonsense. Personally, I prefer my nudes to be in color, showing the full body and face of a model, and all the imperfections and flaws thereof. That isn’t always the case obviously, and I am guilty of shooting images that fall in the above category. But that’s par for the course, I think, in anyone’s career.
People often ask me what else I shoot. Landscapes? Photojournalism? How else, they wonder, do I ‘legitimize’ myself as a photographer, thusly making my nudes more acceptable. The answer is NOTHING. Very seldom I will shoot a concert for my friend and model Summer Russell (a talented singer/songwriter as well) or volunteer my time to photograph down at Los Angeles’ Midnight Mission (a non-profit organization dedicated to helping the homeless.) But these are things I do as a hobby or as a gift, not as my career. Nudes don’t need legitimizing. I don’t need legitimizing. I think my work stands on its own, ready to be proudly hung, without shame or prejudice, in your local art museum, coffee shop or on your wall at home.
To be me is interesting. I shoot female nudes because I like shooting female nudes. I am a straight heterosexual male and so my eye tends to see the beauty in the female form more than the male. Not to say that the male form can’t be beautiful. I just lack the artistic vision, I think, when I attempt to photograph it. There are others that do it much better than I do. I love being me. It is awesome to have a huge number of females, ranging from average to extremely attractive, calling me up daily asking when they can come take their clothes off for me. My modeling pool is huge, and I am never at a lack for willing participants in my art. In fact, I’m pretty backlogged trying to get them all in. I want to shoot everyone who sees my ideals in nude art; girls who aren’t ashamed to be a part of classy, fine art, unusual photographs. A few are just in it for the money, but 90% or more only want to be a part of something extraordinarily different.
What makes my nudes so different? Besides my approach of the non-erotic nude (an art form all but extinct, as noted above) I also try to make my work genuinely interesting to look at. Falling away from the heavily back-lit black & white, I shoot from unusual angles, using unusual models, in color and selective color, and often using very odd light sources. To me, a photograph should be interesting despite whether or not the model is nude. If are familiar with my work than you know what I mean. If you aren’t, well then I suppose you have to use your imagination.
In the opening paragraph I mentioned that sometimes being me can suck. I imagine at this point you’re wondering how. I mean, it’s a dream job right? People paying you to do what you love, looking at naked women all day, taking photographs and selling them all over the world, what’s not to love? I know plenty of guys who pay girls to get naked for them, and here I often have them paying me for the privilege. But there is a dark side; the suck of “to be me.”
First off, there is the social stigma attached to being a nude photographer, no matter if you turn out fine art or kiddy porn. It’s all the same to the moral majority. I imagine it’s worse for my models, but it’s not all that great for me either. Seasonally, I work at a corporate studio for a company taking special event photographs, often of children. I hear the mumble of my co-workers about how I shoot “porn” for a living; but of course that is only the people who have never seen me crack open my portfolio. Those that have are sufficiently awed enough to tell the others to shut their trap. But it’s annoying, none the less. I also have to deal with models (models who are willing to pose nude are notorious for their ridiculous demands, unreliable timing and flakey behavior) and agents, and sometimes the model’s chaperones. I have expounded in the past on my peeves along those lines, so I won’t delve much into it in this essay. But suffice to say when I find a truly professional model, one who is willing to pose nude but is also intelligent, punctual and easy to work with (Victoria Lane comes to mind immediately) I am usually floored.
Besides models and the public, there is the art community itself, and all its little subcultures. From gallery owners all the way through the ‘erotic fetish’ circles, everyone has an opinion on your work. Everybody plays favorites, even to the untalented, and there are people who will refuse to work with you simply based on the fact that you had previously worked with someone else. It gets frustrating and annoying, and more than once I’ve considered just throwing in the towel, artistically speaking. But still I carry on, because I believe in the fine art nude, and that it can be more than just a relic of years gone by.
I will photograph until I am old and gray. (As of my writing this, I am still a fairly young man of 29.) The previous 8 years have been quite the rollercoaster ride, from my relative obscurity in the last century to my explosive solo show at the beginning of this year. I am proud to do what I do, and hopefully before I die I will have in some part helped the fine art nude photograph (sketch or painting) become a respected art form once again; hung up in offices, government buildings, and living rooms all over the world. It’s pretty good to be me, and I wouldn’t change with anyone for the world.
If you have a comment on the above essay, I would love for you to leave it below in the comments section (be sure to include info) or e-mail me at mn_detective(at)yahoo(dot)com. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Regards,
Richard Rasner
Nakayama Studios
www.UniqueNudes.com
6 comments | Leave a comment
