Photography: Natural vs Reality

Dave Levingston recently was expressing his position based off of critical comments/questions by his friend Morgan. Her main concern (in a nutshell) seems to be why aren't photographers asking models to pose in "natural" ways.

"This is about calling bullshit when I see it and it’s bullshit to say that someone is celebrating the beauty of the natural female form when there isn’t anything natural in the ways they pose or photoshop their models."

Okay, first of all, what constitutes "natural?" Here, I have a link to the definitions of "natural." None of those definitions seem to really fit what Morgan is aiming at, instead I think they cater to more of how Dave defines it. Dave asks his models to either mimic or contradict the lines or patterns of nature in the scene as he sees it. If models were asked to be photographed, posing like one would stand waiting for the bus, or lounging like they're watching tv, there would be nothing inspiring to photograph - in most cases. And that's not the definition of natural, that's just sedentary. Any way a person poses is natural, because the pose is emanating from themselves. They are not attaching anything artificial, or man-made, to their bodies, or doing something impossible that a human being cannot possibly do. That would be unnatural.

And my favorite type of photographic art is one that tries to imitate the impossible. But that's just me.

But I personally don't believe this is really the case at hand - I think it's mostly an excuse. I think Morgan is just pissed off at society at large for the way women have been perpetuated in the media and blaming it on how it has influenced their representation in artistic mediums. Specifically (obviously) photography. But every era in time has their own idealistic version of women - how they are considered attractive and sexually appealing. In this day in age, even I wouldn't fit that description. Yes, I am trim, but I don't have big breasts. I am not tall. I don't have that exaggerated hourglass figure. But I absolutely love the way I am, and I am thankful that I am lacking those physical attributes because I personally strive to participate in nude art that tries to separate beauty from sexuality. Of course, those two can't be totally separated, I realize, but I focus my energy in collaborating in art that does not excite sexual arousal. I am most excited by art that represents the innocence of the nude form; that we come from nature and we are all born naked, the amazing geometry and forms that the human body can take, and the unconventional beauty of "unnatural" posing.

I think people have this notion stuck in their minds that photography should depict realness. I think when people see a photograph, there's a part of their mind that views it as purely journalistic. But photography, when used for a tool in art, shows the artist's reality - and that's it. And their reality doesn't have to be real. That's the most absolutely wonderful thing about art. Art represents a continuum between fantasy and truth. Wherever the artist decides to stop on that continuum is their prerogative.

I think photography is involved in so much controversy because it most often does show truth in the scene. It's a snapshot in time, it captures the moment. No other medium has these claims that it distorts reality, because all the other mediums do that automatically.

I guess it boils down to, if you want to see "natural" photographs of people you'll have more luck looking in the newspaper (yes, they still exist - for now). Whatever you do, don't look at art.



On that note, here's an "unnatural" pose self-portrait.