This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nude photography article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added one that was done in the new millennium. If you feel it doesn't fit, please at least comment here?
CurtisNeeley (
talk)
00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a proposal to merge into this article into Depictions of nudity. Since Nude photography is a type of Fine art photography, I think it should remain a separate article. Other photographic genres have their own articles (for example, Still life photography has its own article, distinct from the Still life article), and I see no reason why nude photography should be any different. Klausness ( talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a proposal to merge into this article into Depictions of nudity. I feel that Depictions of nudity is not encyclopedia material and trying to become so by the merge. Perhaps it could be referenced in a list of types of depictions of nudity? Perhaps similar to painting styles? -- CurtisNeeley ( talk) 20:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Categorization from a blog: [1]-- AdBo ( talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
it really sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.212.116 ( talk) 16:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
There was almost nothing here, so I did a complete re-write. FigureArtist ( talk) 04:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
the copyright status of File:Nude (1936) - Edward Weston.jpg in this article? There is a fair use claim made for the article about Charis Wilson but that is, I believe, only good for that article.. If at all. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 00:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I have read the guideline on floating the TOC, and being a web programmer I do so to eliminate the white space unless it causes a problem, which it rarely does. FigureArtist ( talk) 02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the subject of a work of art relevant to all articles about that art? Is there a navbox for European royalty attached to every article with a royal portrait, or on forestry or oceanography for every landscape? But when the subject is the nude, it needs to link to every article on nakedness? It may work the other way, a very general article on nudity may want to link to artistic depictions. Also, the Nudity Project is flagged as dormant, so the information is not likely to be current or well-maintained. I am writing a navbox on the Human Figure in Art, which is currently on my main user page. When it is complete, I will likely place it in the relevant articles. FigureArtist ( talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The subject is visual art, which ordinarily would mean a gallery of images. Public domain photos (pre-1923) do not illustrate the subject, since it was not really established as a fine art medium until later. I have two images from that era merely for history. There is a single good photo by Edward Weston which is in dispute over fair use, so I am left with only external links to illustrate the subject. Four is hardly a link farm; they cover Weston and Cunningham, two of the pioneers in the genre, and two modern examples Tennyson and Mapplethorpe, each of which have unique work that are at extremes, one does soft focus, high key images of women at all stages of life, the other did low key, sharply focused images of muscles and sexuality FigureArtist ( talk) 18:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
Recent additions have been a male nude which was current, contributed by owner, which was not bad. It was replaced by another editor with an historic image, which is inappropriate. There is a need for a male nude to balance the article, but neither of these are a from a recognized fine art photographer. FigureArtist ( talk) 22:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I will have some time once the library (where I work) closes for the holidays. I'll search my photobooks for a pre-1923 make nude and am 51% sure that I can come up with something. Carptrash ( talk) 17:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
(See "I am wondering about" discussion above) The subject of this article is fine art nude photography, something not established until the 1930's. The only true illustration of the subject was an Edward Weston photo currently displayed in other articles but the identical fair use rationale was disputed for this article. Its deletion means that there are now only historical images from the turn of the century until 1923, plus a modern donated image. Efforts have been made to use other, public domain images as being "just as good" although they have neither the artistic or historical significance of the Weston photo. I see this as a conflict between a strict interpretation of copyrights wp:nfcc, but I am not unfamiliar with copyrights and read the requirement differently. The image is so well-known that it serves the purpose of immediately establishing that we are talking about something one would see in a major museum, not something from popular culture. FigureArtist ( talk) 04:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I appeal to all editors to stop adding random nude photos. A proper illustration of the article should only be a work by one of the photographers mentioned in the text, or one of equal historical or artistic stature. Such images have been disallowed as not passing the WP:NFCC criteria, but no images are better than non-artistic ones. If the difference is unclear, use the test in the article: Fine Art photos have been displayed in a fine art gallery or museum; which excludes photos shot to publish in a magazine, post on the internet, or other commercial use. It certainly excludes amateur photos placed in the public domain for self-promotion or other personal reasons.
Basically this is applying the criteria that would be applied to textual additions to an article. Is it opinion or is there a source? Adding an amateur photo means that the editor does not understand the subject of the article, which is professional, fine art photography. Adding any other photo is the same as a statement "this is fine art", which is a personal opinion unless supported by a citation. WP:NOR
The three images in the gallery illustrate the historic section of the article, Alfred Stieglitz being one of the founders of the genre. FigureArtist ( talk) 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion on the talk page. These edits are a form of vandalism, even if you're removing your own work. Why would you let the addition of an image drive you to such drastic measures? Your article inspired me to go searching for a more modern example to include in this article. I'm not here to change anything else, and if other editors agree my image is inappropriate here, then I am happy to concede to consensus. Otherwise, there is no reason for inappropriate and somewhat immature behavior. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 04:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The policy on original images states: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy".
This would generally exclude uploaded images as illustrations for visual art articles, since claiming the status of art would be original research unless supported by a citation that the image has passed some test, such as being in an art museum. The test I propose for this article is that the image or the photographer has their own article in WP which substantiates their status. All of the photographers mentioned in this article have their own biographical articles. If anyone knows of a free image of a nude photograph by any photographer currently in WP as an art photographer (not fashion, glamour, porn, or other commercial work), then it would pass the test. (It would appear that the NFCC policy is being strictly enforced for biographies of photographers since their articles rarely have any of the artist's own work). FigureArtist ( talk) 14:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if we're trying to make too much of these two words. "Nude photography" is not necessarily distinct from glamour or pornography. Sometimes it is art and sometimes it is not. In pornography, there are nudes. The article seems to imply that if something is pornographic there is no nudity or it is not photography. I think most people know what "nude" and "photography" mean. The purpose of the entry for "nude photography" seems to be to pay homage to a particular subset of artistic nude photography. Is a wikipedia definition the right place?
Aknicholas ( talk) 11:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Concur with "which appears to have reached a consensus that it will not happen". ( non-admin closure) Apteva ( talk) 17:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Nude photography →
Fine art nude photography – Per recent talk comments, the title needs to be an unambiguous indication of the content of the article.
FigureArtist (
talk)
18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Discussion point - Robert Mapplethorpe anyone? I'm sure one can be included under NFCC rational to highlight the type of the work. And Non-free has to be used with very specific (shall I say, explicit) intent on a very narrow use. Its to illustrate the matter and I can think of few better and more unique photographers that pit erotic elements like BDSM into nude photography. It meets both FigureArtist's fine art segment while qualifying as erotic and by many accounts, pornographic without depicting sexual acts. My previous note is that the national archives and sole national library of places like Japan even have gravure idols within their collections. The type of work may be objectable, but Europe has open ideas as well. This article ideally needs to present a world-view, but there are dozens of notable examples for just about any situation FigureArtist wants to try an impose. While the work done is very good, trying to repin this as 'fine art' because nude photography is not pornographic is way off base. I think Mapplethorpe alone proves fine art and erotic elements CAN be celebrated and worthy of numerous exhibitions, with the backing from United States National Endowment for the Arts for a traveling exhibition. Why did I pick Mapplethorpe? First result on google. Though I see that Kinsey even notes Herbert Ascherman Jr., as another notable example. [2] ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 21:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't remove content and strip it down, go by WP:SS and summarize, twice the lede of the article you wish to build, or about that. Its not duplication and if you really have enough to add, then do so. And watch the accusations of bad faith; that is not helpful. Content disputes exist, and nothing is perfect, but refactoring an existing broad scope page into another is not always a good idea. Seems perfect to split for me, more detailed coverage the better. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I am planning to use Nude photography (art) which matches Nude (art) and Model (art) that I also edit. FigureArtist ( talk) 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I notice that the definition given in the first sentence of this article is:
Nude photography is any photograph which contains an image of a nude or semi-nude person, or an image suggestive of nudity.
Grammatically this equates the abstract noun of the title with a common noun. The photography article begins with the definition:
Photography is the science, art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film.
I suggest that we add the three words "the creation of" to the definition given here so that we begin this article with the words:
Nude photography is the creation of any photograph which contains an image of a nude or semi-nude person, or an image suggestive of nudity.
Polly Tunnel ( talk) 17:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Done as no objections raised. --
Polly Tunnel (
talk)
09:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
three photographs from the Contemporary section because there is nothing notable about these pictures and we run the risk of getting inundated with stuff like this. I deleted maybe a dozen a week or so ago. Anyway, someone (@ TBM10:) restored them and I guess I would be interested in their and anyone else's thoughts about this. Carptrash ( talk) 23:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC) ````
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nude photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2013/Nudity/Nudity_Virtue_or_Vice.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
A new subsection titled "Collateral" has been added to describe a news report concerning nude photographs being used as collateral by loan sharks in China. The other subsections in the "Commercial" section concentrate on ways in which professional photographers sell their work. The content of the "Collateral" subsection describes the way in which what appear to be no more than amateur selfies ("shot during the day and in good night") are used to exploit some women in China. This appears to be WP:UNDUE in the context of this section. If we are to cover subjects such as nude selfies, revenge porn and so forth in this article, this should presumably all be done comprehensively in a separate section. In the meantime I propose removing the "Collateral" subsection. -- Polly Tunnel ( talk) 12:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand the concern here, but I wouldn't mind if the "collateral" material were to become part of a new section, or even a new article, on social issues connected with personal nude photography, which might deal also with sexting, doxing with nude photos, personal home nude photography, voyeuristic nude photography, political usage of nude photography etc. The blackmail value of nude photos has existed, I assume, since there's been photography, but the volume of nude photography out there in the Internet age has changed the landscape considerably. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Are a type of nude photograph. They have a similar chance of being art, and fine, as other sorts of photographs. Midgley ( talk) 15:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nude photography article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added one that was done in the new millennium. If you feel it doesn't fit, please at least comment here?
CurtisNeeley (
talk)
00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a proposal to merge into this article into Depictions of nudity. Since Nude photography is a type of Fine art photography, I think it should remain a separate article. Other photographic genres have their own articles (for example, Still life photography has its own article, distinct from the Still life article), and I see no reason why nude photography should be any different. Klausness ( talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a proposal to merge into this article into Depictions of nudity. I feel that Depictions of nudity is not encyclopedia material and trying to become so by the merge. Perhaps it could be referenced in a list of types of depictions of nudity? Perhaps similar to painting styles? -- CurtisNeeley ( talk) 20:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Categorization from a blog: [1]-- AdBo ( talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
it really sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.212.116 ( talk) 16:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
There was almost nothing here, so I did a complete re-write. FigureArtist ( talk) 04:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
the copyright status of File:Nude (1936) - Edward Weston.jpg in this article? There is a fair use claim made for the article about Charis Wilson but that is, I believe, only good for that article.. If at all. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 00:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I have read the guideline on floating the TOC, and being a web programmer I do so to eliminate the white space unless it causes a problem, which it rarely does. FigureArtist ( talk) 02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the subject of a work of art relevant to all articles about that art? Is there a navbox for European royalty attached to every article with a royal portrait, or on forestry or oceanography for every landscape? But when the subject is the nude, it needs to link to every article on nakedness? It may work the other way, a very general article on nudity may want to link to artistic depictions. Also, the Nudity Project is flagged as dormant, so the information is not likely to be current or well-maintained. I am writing a navbox on the Human Figure in Art, which is currently on my main user page. When it is complete, I will likely place it in the relevant articles. FigureArtist ( talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The subject is visual art, which ordinarily would mean a gallery of images. Public domain photos (pre-1923) do not illustrate the subject, since it was not really established as a fine art medium until later. I have two images from that era merely for history. There is a single good photo by Edward Weston which is in dispute over fair use, so I am left with only external links to illustrate the subject. Four is hardly a link farm; they cover Weston and Cunningham, two of the pioneers in the genre, and two modern examples Tennyson and Mapplethorpe, each of which have unique work that are at extremes, one does soft focus, high key images of women at all stages of life, the other did low key, sharply focused images of muscles and sexuality FigureArtist ( talk) 18:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
Recent additions have been a male nude which was current, contributed by owner, which was not bad. It was replaced by another editor with an historic image, which is inappropriate. There is a need for a male nude to balance the article, but neither of these are a from a recognized fine art photographer. FigureArtist ( talk) 22:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I will have some time once the library (where I work) closes for the holidays. I'll search my photobooks for a pre-1923 make nude and am 51% sure that I can come up with something. Carptrash ( talk) 17:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
(See "I am wondering about" discussion above) The subject of this article is fine art nude photography, something not established until the 1930's. The only true illustration of the subject was an Edward Weston photo currently displayed in other articles but the identical fair use rationale was disputed for this article. Its deletion means that there are now only historical images from the turn of the century until 1923, plus a modern donated image. Efforts have been made to use other, public domain images as being "just as good" although they have neither the artistic or historical significance of the Weston photo. I see this as a conflict between a strict interpretation of copyrights wp:nfcc, but I am not unfamiliar with copyrights and read the requirement differently. The image is so well-known that it serves the purpose of immediately establishing that we are talking about something one would see in a major museum, not something from popular culture. FigureArtist ( talk) 04:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I appeal to all editors to stop adding random nude photos. A proper illustration of the article should only be a work by one of the photographers mentioned in the text, or one of equal historical or artistic stature. Such images have been disallowed as not passing the WP:NFCC criteria, but no images are better than non-artistic ones. If the difference is unclear, use the test in the article: Fine Art photos have been displayed in a fine art gallery or museum; which excludes photos shot to publish in a magazine, post on the internet, or other commercial use. It certainly excludes amateur photos placed in the public domain for self-promotion or other personal reasons.
Basically this is applying the criteria that would be applied to textual additions to an article. Is it opinion or is there a source? Adding an amateur photo means that the editor does not understand the subject of the article, which is professional, fine art photography. Adding any other photo is the same as a statement "this is fine art", which is a personal opinion unless supported by a citation. WP:NOR
The three images in the gallery illustrate the historic section of the article, Alfred Stieglitz being one of the founders of the genre. FigureArtist ( talk) 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion on the talk page. These edits are a form of vandalism, even if you're removing your own work. Why would you let the addition of an image drive you to such drastic measures? Your article inspired me to go searching for a more modern example to include in this article. I'm not here to change anything else, and if other editors agree my image is inappropriate here, then I am happy to concede to consensus. Otherwise, there is no reason for inappropriate and somewhat immature behavior. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 04:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The policy on original images states: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy".
This would generally exclude uploaded images as illustrations for visual art articles, since claiming the status of art would be original research unless supported by a citation that the image has passed some test, such as being in an art museum. The test I propose for this article is that the image or the photographer has their own article in WP which substantiates their status. All of the photographers mentioned in this article have their own biographical articles. If anyone knows of a free image of a nude photograph by any photographer currently in WP as an art photographer (not fashion, glamour, porn, or other commercial work), then it would pass the test. (It would appear that the NFCC policy is being strictly enforced for biographies of photographers since their articles rarely have any of the artist's own work). FigureArtist ( talk) 14:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if we're trying to make too much of these two words. "Nude photography" is not necessarily distinct from glamour or pornography. Sometimes it is art and sometimes it is not. In pornography, there are nudes. The article seems to imply that if something is pornographic there is no nudity or it is not photography. I think most people know what "nude" and "photography" mean. The purpose of the entry for "nude photography" seems to be to pay homage to a particular subset of artistic nude photography. Is a wikipedia definition the right place?
Aknicholas ( talk) 11:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Concur with "which appears to have reached a consensus that it will not happen". ( non-admin closure) Apteva ( talk) 17:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Nude photography →
Fine art nude photography – Per recent talk comments, the title needs to be an unambiguous indication of the content of the article.
FigureArtist (
talk)
18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Discussion point - Robert Mapplethorpe anyone? I'm sure one can be included under NFCC rational to highlight the type of the work. And Non-free has to be used with very specific (shall I say, explicit) intent on a very narrow use. Its to illustrate the matter and I can think of few better and more unique photographers that pit erotic elements like BDSM into nude photography. It meets both FigureArtist's fine art segment while qualifying as erotic and by many accounts, pornographic without depicting sexual acts. My previous note is that the national archives and sole national library of places like Japan even have gravure idols within their collections. The type of work may be objectable, but Europe has open ideas as well. This article ideally needs to present a world-view, but there are dozens of notable examples for just about any situation FigureArtist wants to try an impose. While the work done is very good, trying to repin this as 'fine art' because nude photography is not pornographic is way off base. I think Mapplethorpe alone proves fine art and erotic elements CAN be celebrated and worthy of numerous exhibitions, with the backing from United States National Endowment for the Arts for a traveling exhibition. Why did I pick Mapplethorpe? First result on google. Though I see that Kinsey even notes Herbert Ascherman Jr., as another notable example. [2] ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 21:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't remove content and strip it down, go by WP:SS and summarize, twice the lede of the article you wish to build, or about that. Its not duplication and if you really have enough to add, then do so. And watch the accusations of bad faith; that is not helpful. Content disputes exist, and nothing is perfect, but refactoring an existing broad scope page into another is not always a good idea. Seems perfect to split for me, more detailed coverage the better. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I am planning to use Nude photography (art) which matches Nude (art) and Model (art) that I also edit. FigureArtist ( talk) 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I notice that the definition given in the first sentence of this article is:
Nude photography is any photograph which contains an image of a nude or semi-nude person, or an image suggestive of nudity.
Grammatically this equates the abstract noun of the title with a common noun. The photography article begins with the definition:
Photography is the science, art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film.
I suggest that we add the three words "the creation of" to the definition given here so that we begin this article with the words:
Nude photography is the creation of any photograph which contains an image of a nude or semi-nude person, or an image suggestive of nudity.
Polly Tunnel ( talk) 17:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Done as no objections raised. --
Polly Tunnel (
talk)
09:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
three photographs from the Contemporary section because there is nothing notable about these pictures and we run the risk of getting inundated with stuff like this. I deleted maybe a dozen a week or so ago. Anyway, someone (@ TBM10:) restored them and I guess I would be interested in their and anyone else's thoughts about this. Carptrash ( talk) 23:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC) ````
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nude photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2013/Nudity/Nudity_Virtue_or_Vice.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
A new subsection titled "Collateral" has been added to describe a news report concerning nude photographs being used as collateral by loan sharks in China. The other subsections in the "Commercial" section concentrate on ways in which professional photographers sell their work. The content of the "Collateral" subsection describes the way in which what appear to be no more than amateur selfies ("shot during the day and in good night") are used to exploit some women in China. This appears to be WP:UNDUE in the context of this section. If we are to cover subjects such as nude selfies, revenge porn and so forth in this article, this should presumably all be done comprehensively in a separate section. In the meantime I propose removing the "Collateral" subsection. -- Polly Tunnel ( talk) 12:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand the concern here, but I wouldn't mind if the "collateral" material were to become part of a new section, or even a new article, on social issues connected with personal nude photography, which might deal also with sexting, doxing with nude photos, personal home nude photography, voyeuristic nude photography, political usage of nude photography etc. The blackmail value of nude photos has existed, I assume, since there's been photography, but the volume of nude photography out there in the Internet age has changed the landscape considerably. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Are a type of nude photograph. They have a similar chance of being art, and fine, as other sorts of photographs. Midgley ( talk) 15:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)