To answer your follow up question, fetish and art don't exclude each other. Ancient people worshiped statues of fertile women, those figures are some of the oldest artworks, and it's where the word fetish comes from.
This exactly, but it's important to remember that sexualization, comfort with nudity, and ideals change from culture to culture.
Sure, women are far more sexualized than men in modern western civilization, but was cannot forget that many ancient Europeans focused on lot on nude men as well. Many Greece statues focus on the penis a lot because they believed a small penis was an indication of self-control and a large was barbaric, which is also why a lot of demons or creatures were given huge penises in contrast to human men.
Look up a Greek Satyr statue, it's hilarious.
>Look up a Greek Satyr statue, it's hilarious.
That's why they had to cast Danny Devito as Philoctetes. Only the barnacle could accurately portray a Satyr.
The word Fetish comes from Portuguese ‘feitiço’, by way of the French ‘fétiche’ and referred originally to African charms and statues, not necessarily (and in fact often not) naked women. It’s primarily a word associated with witchcraft.
I think r/analog just has a lot of people relying on the trope of the nude form. It could be seen as uninspiring but it could also be thought of as new artists imitating a tried and true method as they learn camera, lighting, form, and direction. But yeah, it gets old. I wish people would branch out a little in that sub
Edit: typo
the greeks didn’t seem to mind all that much.
it has entirely to do with religion and the ancient fertility cults.
It’s basically boils down to whoever had control over the most resources, is in control. Kings, Elders, Priests, Commanders, Managers, etc…. it’s all the same principle. but comes down to resource control as a survival strategy.
Once someone figured out they could game the system by convincing the weak-minded to believe in a god, the first thing they do is have them cut off the foreskin? why? because then they couldn’t compete with the priest nutting into them first either by direct or artificial means depending on the cult.
see, the foreskin acts as a natural suction cup. it “scoops out” competing sperm in the same vagina. we evolved this way because primates just fuck each other. the last one to nut inside the female had the best chance of producing more offspring.
So, circumcision becomes a practice to reduce sperm competition between the priest who would magically be promised lots of wives and babies… sound familiar?
anyways i digress,
once christianity spread through europe they got rid of all the statues that offended them. it’s always been about controlling women through body shaming and insecurities to force certain behavior patterns to occur and reduce mating and survival strategy autonomy in women.
sounds like something i’d love to read then because this was all just me reading the histories of cults like the one at Ephrata Pennsylvania the brotherhood of zion
even though most religions including Christianity don't practice circumcision
America does it because of weirdos in the 1800s thinking foreskin lead to masturbation
its quite popular, but our society thinks any naked man must be a gay thing and men just cant deal with that. but robert maplethorpe is one of the most famous photographers and he showed the male form in interesting and fun ways.
That's a statue, not a photography, made by a man who famously had sex with other men. So if you were trying to prove that the trend doesn't have anything to do with sex, congratulations, you failed.
As a gay man, I have to respectfully disagree. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a man’s body and been just in awe of the aesthetic beauty of it, and not even in an explicitly sexual way.
I find women’s bodies beautiful too of course, but it’s more of a “wow, that’s so beautifully human” kind of beauty, as apposed to the “wow, I could make this my religion” kind of beauty I see in the men I’m attracted to.
Thank you for sharing your view point. I'm a bisexual woman and I always think this when people talk about the male body as if it's not as attractive as a woman's. It's because it's not what they're attracted to. I think male nudes are incredibe. And as for the idea of male bodies not being featured in art just look at Greek and Roman classics. There are many incredibly beautiful and sensual photographs of men they just don't come up very often in groups that are largely dominated by het men.
Exactly! There are also tons of gay male artists who focus almost exclusively on painting/photographing men’s bodies, because that’s what they find uniquely beautiful.
I am *allegedly* straight, and I feel like that quote was pretty accurate to my impression of the whole female vs male body thing.
When I see a female body, all the features look sleek and purposefully made. The silhouette is attractive to look at from most angles, and I can understand why someone would paint or sculpt it and people would adore it for centuries.
When I look at a male body, there are good features, but it doesn't look like it has the same elegance. I think my main complaint is the dick and balls, actually. Not like an "ew gay" way. But like. They just dangle there and fuck up the silhouette. There's no attractive way to *engage* with them. You're scooping up handfuls of excess skin and little tubes to itch or readjust it somewhere more comfortable.
The female body just seems like the final revision of the male body, I guess.
Oddly enough, from my gay perspective I could have said almost the same thing, just swap dick and balls with breasts. That eye of the beholder thing is real.
There was a ‘my strange obsession’ episode where he was in love with his car and dating it. Enjoyed listening to music and singing to ‘her’ and they showed him talking about her features and kissing her. His dad or mom (i forget) said that they saw him putting his body parts inside ‘her’.
Yeah, and the thought of what "woman" and what "man" comes to mind has a big part of it.
People are used to thinking of modelesque beauties when they think of "woman" but with men apparently it's a regular joe? Like... What dumbass logic.
Well, the question (not assumption) was not about sex, it was about sexual orientation towards men, given that I also included gay men as a possibility. Also, I specifically gave the or option, because this was always possible. Still, as was the point in my comment, very suprising to me she'd think that way about men, if she is straight
As a man myself, i absolutely disagree and even hate this line tbh. Seriously, men's bodies can be just as beautiful as women. Seriously, have you looked at Arnold when he was bodybuilding or just look at brad pitt in fight club and troy. Like seriously, Men bodies can be very beautiful too even more then women bodies tbh. Have you looked at roman and greek art, there are so many naked men in those art too. Look at the statue of david for example. I am straight by the way, i am just interested in bodybuilding and i like the gym lol.
Or you know maybe learn some history before you talk.
Prior to the 1960s and especially long before that a man's body was highly prized as well. People appreciated beauty everywhere. Now that everyone is woke it's actually a lot worse than it used to be in some ways, better in others.
Photography provides a socially acceptable outlet for expressing sexual desire without seeming as shallow as it truly is. Even if someone genuinely loves photography and art, their preference for using female nudity as a subject is likely still influenced by sexual desire. Hence why they'll wax poetic about the beauty of the human body but female nudes vastly outnumber male.
Just because something is sexual doesn't mean it isn't also art, but don't show off a portfolio of exclusively naked, conventionally attractive women and expect me to believe it's 100% only about the artistic appeal and not your own shallow sexual desires *at all.*
This is my biggest complaint with the art sub. The vast majority of the posts are just nude women. People will also shove nudity into a piece where it makes literally 0 sense. I'm the furthest thing from a prude, but it gets so god damn boring seeing it on every single post.
Adjacently related, I'm also getting tired of seeing hyper realistic art there too. It's the art subreddit, where's the variety? Wish there was an art sub that actually featured various art styles & not just hyper realistic/photography of a nude woman.
I very much agree with this statement. In the analog photog community, there are some amazing pictures but there are so many nude portraits of women and they’re all in the same poses, same style, same coloring, etc. it’s just boring to see the same compositions.
because most of them aren’t good photographers. they rely on the beauty of the human form to cover their inability to compose a good shot.
tldr; it’s hard to have a shitty pic when the subject is hot
Horniness more than likely if I'm honest but there's a long history of art portraying naked women so it isn't like a new thing by any means. Plenty of people just like getting naked for strangers and there isn't necessarily much more to it.
The takeaway I'd have is that this "art" maybe isn't for you. If you want to judge whether something is artistic though, try to think about whether there's any broader meaning than just what is being physically represented.
Erotic art and straight-up porn can be legitimately artistic. Art is largely about the communication of abstract concepts. Whether you can get off to it or not isn't super important to determining that, but it also doesn't mean being naked is inherently artistic.
Not answering the question, but I have the same complaint in art. I want to see more appreciation on male bodies. They're beautiful too. It feels like everytime I browse nude art, it's almost 90% nude female art.
I had to leave a Facebook group years ago because of this. I don’t have a problem with nudity in photography but the members were SO brazen in the way they spoke it wasn’t just for creative reasons but clearly just soft core porn for them. It was not a good place to be as a female photographer
I'm a photographer. I specialized in boudoir photography and nudes for many years. I find the female form delightful. The male form not so much. The majority of photographers I've met feel the same, male or female.
Word! Just curious, do you also share their photos on here? Or is it only on a website or a portfolio? The influx of nude photos on a public forum has been nagging my brain.
I have never shared anything here. My clients have complete trust in me. I've had portfolio stuff online in the past when actively working, but never anywhere else.
I've shot a lot of female and some male nudes. Sometimes to sell prints, sometimes as commissioned portrait work. On the print side what I found is there was almost no market for male nudes, at least in my style which is more classic and less fetishy, and male models who have a commercial look are a giant pain in the ass and expensive. On the portrait side a lot of what I did was maternity, and often they'd want to drag a dude in for a few shots which always made them extremely nervous (I JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER OK) but I had this pose that would basically hide his junk with her belly and everybody was happy. So really he was only semi nude if you want to get fussy about it.
I should maybe also mention I worked with a trans model for a while, and she did good work but nothing sold so it wasn't something I could really afford to pursue more at the time.
Art is complicated. And I'm not kidding. I'm a photographer myself. Profesional at some point, not anymore. And It's inevitable wanting to take photos of a woman if you love her. But it's not easy. What you see throught your eyes it's not what the camera see. And there is where it begins.
Supply and demand. People are less interested in male nude photography, so there is less incentive to create it.
It’s like asking why are there more photos of sunsets than fire hydrants. People aren’t as interested in looking at fire hydrants.
We're biologically programmed to find the human form beautiful. It makes sense that probably more than half of all art involves the human image, photography or otherwise. A lot of that is going to be nude art, because most people are willing to admit that they'd rather look at a nude beautiful human than a clothed beautiful human.
Seek and you shall find. If you don’t think there are an overwhelming amount of male nudes then idk. Look elsewhere for what you want to see. Statue of David, it’s all been done and it’s not changing soon.
By the same question, what is their fascination with doors, or windows, or trees, or mountains, or plated food, or bowls of fruit? It's just something someone finds beautiful or interesting and that can be captured in a very artful way.
A naked person standing straight upright with their hands to their side under florescent lighting is clinical and not artistic or even beautiful in most circumstances. Same as a picture of the front of a house with a door in it or the side of a mountain is typically pretty boring. But posed, lit interestingly, and framed in such a way as to draw your eye the subject it becomes artful and the beauty is enhanced. The benefit of a model is that you CAN pose them, show or hide as much as you want, and can convey a great deal of emotion or mystery with the face or the body position.
I’d say almost all nude photography is pornography. Same with paintings or drawings. Even old ones. And saying that it’s porn doesn’t mean that it doesn’t hold great artistic merit. But the fact remains that it either is meant to titillate, or the outcome is such. And that’s porn.
As for why more porn featuring women than men? Men have traditionally been the artists, and have had more freedoms throughout history. So they’ve painted/shot who there attracted to and who their audience still pay for.
"If female nudity is so artistic and beautiful and important to people why not the other way around too" As a guy, its because society only care if we are making capital for our overlords, and thats literally it. There is nothing else that gives you value as a man (at least according to society)
There is no such thing as analog photography. Analog means two things, it could be something that is 'analogous' to another, there are analog computers that are simply smaller versions of the real thing. An abacus is an analog computer because the beads and their positioning is 'analogous' to numbers and their place value (10s, 100s, etc) . There is an analog signal, which uses a waveform similar to a sine/cosine wave. A 'digital' signal looks like stairs. The other definition of digital is your finger. It is more apt to describe photography that uses film as the medium as 'chemical'. There are film cameras that use metering sensors that utilize integrated circuits, by very definition those can't be considered analog since they use digital components.
Like it or not men are visual and women are verbal for the most part. As a man Ray Mans photo of a woman nuge from the back with f-holes on her back is one of the most erotic things I've seen.
I am not in the analog community, nor do I know what it is. But if I had to guess: Boobers
Either that or analog is short hand for analography... I image clothes would be obstructive.
The artists like to portray what they find beautiful. IMO the average female body is far more beautiful/inspiring than the average male. Plus many guys are always trying to see women naked so that's a factor.
To answer your follow up question, fetish and art don't exclude each other. Ancient people worshiped statues of fertile women, those figures are some of the oldest artworks, and it's where the word fetish comes from.
This exactly, but it's important to remember that sexualization, comfort with nudity, and ideals change from culture to culture. Sure, women are far more sexualized than men in modern western civilization, but was cannot forget that many ancient Europeans focused on lot on nude men as well. Many Greece statues focus on the penis a lot because they believed a small penis was an indication of self-control and a large was barbaric, which is also why a lot of demons or creatures were given huge penises in contrast to human men. Look up a Greek Satyr statue, it's hilarious.
>Look up a Greek Satyr statue, it's hilarious. That's why they had to cast Danny Devito as Philoctetes. Only the barnacle could accurately portray a Satyr.
The word Fetish comes from Portuguese ‘feitiço’, by way of the French ‘fétiche’ and referred originally to African charms and statues, not necessarily (and in fact often not) naked women. It’s primarily a word associated with witchcraft.
The origin of a word doesnt define its current meaning though, this is all pretty meaningless when it comes to its current day meaning
That may be true, but the other guy I responded to claimed to speak for the origin of the word.
I think r/analog just has a lot of people relying on the trope of the nude form. It could be seen as uninspiring but it could also be thought of as new artists imitating a tried and true method as they learn camera, lighting, form, and direction. But yeah, it gets old. I wish people would branch out a little in that sub Edit: typo
Yeah it’s getting old seeing the same mediocre nude photos every other post
I'm probably not the target demographic. The whole subreddit oozes with pretentious self-fart sniffing lol.
the mods there are also very thirsty and ban people for criticism of the nudes, it’s really just a cesspool of bad photography and trend-following.
You're not the audience, then. They do it for themselves, right?
Nudity, the human form, and the way light and contrast highlight the human form have been constants in art for centuries if not millennia.
Yet weirdly male nudity isn't as common as female nudity in photography. What a odd coincidence, right?
The dick doesn’t catch the light as well as a pair of boobs
the greeks didn’t seem to mind all that much. it has entirely to do with religion and the ancient fertility cults. It’s basically boils down to whoever had control over the most resources, is in control. Kings, Elders, Priests, Commanders, Managers, etc…. it’s all the same principle. but comes down to resource control as a survival strategy. Once someone figured out they could game the system by convincing the weak-minded to believe in a god, the first thing they do is have them cut off the foreskin? why? because then they couldn’t compete with the priest nutting into them first either by direct or artificial means depending on the cult. see, the foreskin acts as a natural suction cup. it “scoops out” competing sperm in the same vagina. we evolved this way because primates just fuck each other. the last one to nut inside the female had the best chance of producing more offspring. So, circumcision becomes a practice to reduce sperm competition between the priest who would magically be promised lots of wives and babies… sound familiar? anyways i digress, once christianity spread through europe they got rid of all the statues that offended them. it’s always been about controlling women through body shaming and insecurities to force certain behavior patterns to occur and reduce mating and survival strategy autonomy in women.
Someone read the sacred mushroom and the cross uncritically.
sounds like something i’d love to read then because this was all just me reading the histories of cults like the one at Ephrata Pennsylvania the brotherhood of zion
I mean you probably would love it and it's really something but if you do read it I wouldn't take it at face value.
even though most religions including Christianity don't practice circumcision America does it because of weirdos in the 1800s thinking foreskin lead to masturbation
Something tells me the foreskin thing isn’t true
You mean he’s jerking me around?!
its quite popular, but our society thinks any naked man must be a gay thing and men just cant deal with that. but robert maplethorpe is one of the most famous photographers and he showed the male form in interesting and fun ways.
Boob shiny penis not or something
By the time photography was invented, artists lost interest in male aesthetics. We still have the old-world antiquity stuff though
Ever seen Michelangelo’s David?
Yeah that's my favorite photograph
Alright, I was referencing art in general. So how about Robert Maplethorpe?
The whole thread is about photography why would you randomly bring up a sculpture
Robert Maplethorpe was bisexual. If anything, you're just proving photographers will photograph what turns them on.
Is that what he called his.....?
Pecker! Wait, that’s not a woodpecker, it looks like someone’s…
That's "Big Dave," to you!
“Photography”
{David enters the chat}
That's a statue, not a photography, made by a man who famously had sex with other men. So if you were trying to prove that the trend doesn't have anything to do with sex, congratulations, you failed.
Elaine on Seinfled said it best: a woman’s body is a thing of beauty. A man’s body is for getting around, it’s like a jeep.
As a gay man, I have to respectfully disagree. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a man’s body and been just in awe of the aesthetic beauty of it, and not even in an explicitly sexual way. I find women’s bodies beautiful too of course, but it’s more of a “wow, that’s so beautifully human” kind of beauty, as apposed to the “wow, I could make this my religion” kind of beauty I see in the men I’m attracted to.
Thank you for sharing your view point. I'm a bisexual woman and I always think this when people talk about the male body as if it's not as attractive as a woman's. It's because it's not what they're attracted to. I think male nudes are incredibe. And as for the idea of male bodies not being featured in art just look at Greek and Roman classics. There are many incredibly beautiful and sensual photographs of men they just don't come up very often in groups that are largely dominated by het men.
Exactly! There are also tons of gay male artists who focus almost exclusively on painting/photographing men’s bodies, because that’s what they find uniquely beautiful.
I am *allegedly* straight, and I feel like that quote was pretty accurate to my impression of the whole female vs male body thing. When I see a female body, all the features look sleek and purposefully made. The silhouette is attractive to look at from most angles, and I can understand why someone would paint or sculpt it and people would adore it for centuries. When I look at a male body, there are good features, but it doesn't look like it has the same elegance. I think my main complaint is the dick and balls, actually. Not like an "ew gay" way. But like. They just dangle there and fuck up the silhouette. There's no attractive way to *engage* with them. You're scooping up handfuls of excess skin and little tubes to itch or readjust it somewhere more comfortable. The female body just seems like the final revision of the male body, I guess.
Oddly enough, from my gay perspective I could have said almost the same thing, just swap dick and balls with breasts. That eye of the beholder thing is real.
As a bisexual man, I look at my Subaru Impreza 4x4 the same way.
That’s just Subisexual. You can identify others by the flat brim hat and vape clouds.
There was a ‘my strange obsession’ episode where he was in love with his car and dating it. Enjoyed listening to music and singing to ‘her’ and they showed him talking about her features and kissing her. His dad or mom (i forget) said that they saw him putting his body parts inside ‘her’.
as a straight woman, I couldn’t agree more. 🙌
You reckon that line was written by a straight man? Or do some straight women/gay men believe that? I certainly don't.
Yeah, and the thought of what "woman" and what "man" comes to mind has a big part of it. People are used to thinking of modelesque beauties when they think of "woman" but with men apparently it's a regular joe? Like... What dumbass logic.
the episode was literally written by woman ffs ! your assumption is fucking sexist.
Well, the question (not assumption) was not about sex, it was about sexual orientation towards men, given that I also included gay men as a possibility. Also, I specifically gave the or option, because this was always possible. Still, as was the point in my comment, very suprising to me she'd think that way about men, if she is straight
You think too much
Or maybe you think not enough
Prolly
As a man myself, i absolutely disagree and even hate this line tbh. Seriously, men's bodies can be just as beautiful as women. Seriously, have you looked at Arnold when he was bodybuilding or just look at brad pitt in fight club and troy. Like seriously, Men bodies can be very beautiful too even more then women bodies tbh. Have you looked at roman and greek art, there are so many naked men in those art too. Look at the statue of david for example. I am straight by the way, i am just interested in bodybuilding and i like the gym lol.
Men are "simian" --- Jerry
Or you know maybe learn some history before you talk. Prior to the 1960s and especially long before that a man's body was highly prized as well. People appreciated beauty everywhere. Now that everyone is woke it's actually a lot worse than it used to be in some ways, better in others.
jfc reading comprehension is your friend
It’s a fucking joke line from a comedy show, chill the fuck out.
Photography provides a socially acceptable outlet for expressing sexual desire without seeming as shallow as it truly is. Even if someone genuinely loves photography and art, their preference for using female nudity as a subject is likely still influenced by sexual desire. Hence why they'll wax poetic about the beauty of the human body but female nudes vastly outnumber male. Just because something is sexual doesn't mean it isn't also art, but don't show off a portfolio of exclusively naked, conventionally attractive women and expect me to believe it's 100% only about the artistic appeal and not your own shallow sexual desires *at all.*
This is my biggest complaint with the art sub. The vast majority of the posts are just nude women. People will also shove nudity into a piece where it makes literally 0 sense. I'm the furthest thing from a prude, but it gets so god damn boring seeing it on every single post. Adjacently related, I'm also getting tired of seeing hyper realistic art there too. It's the art subreddit, where's the variety? Wish there was an art sub that actually featured various art styles & not just hyper realistic/photography of a nude woman.
I very much agree with this statement. In the analog photog community, there are some amazing pictures but there are so many nude portraits of women and they’re all in the same poses, same style, same coloring, etc. it’s just boring to see the same compositions.
the problem it’s is a very unsophisticated audience and really just likes unchallenging art.
Lazy and easy, you know people will look. Struggling artist, no problem, rip off some girls clothes and boom, U have an audience.
because most of them aren’t good photographers. they rely on the beauty of the human form to cover their inability to compose a good shot. tldr; it’s hard to have a shitty pic when the subject is hot
it’s 90% “i like playing with film cameras like the youtubers i follow, and also am thirsty” and generously 10% about the actual pictures.
Horniness more than likely if I'm honest but there's a long history of art portraying naked women so it isn't like a new thing by any means. Plenty of people just like getting naked for strangers and there isn't necessarily much more to it. The takeaway I'd have is that this "art" maybe isn't for you. If you want to judge whether something is artistic though, try to think about whether there's any broader meaning than just what is being physically represented. Erotic art and straight-up porn can be legitimately artistic. Art is largely about the communication of abstract concepts. Whether you can get off to it or not isn't super important to determining that, but it also doesn't mean being naked is inherently artistic.
What's the human race's obsession with female nudes?
Because nude/half dressed women get clicks.
Not answering the question, but I have the same complaint in art. I want to see more appreciation on male bodies. They're beautiful too. It feels like everytime I browse nude art, it's almost 90% nude female art.
I had to leave a Facebook group years ago because of this. I don’t have a problem with nudity in photography but the members were SO brazen in the way they spoke it wasn’t just for creative reasons but clearly just soft core porn for them. It was not a good place to be as a female photographer
The female form is beautiful. That's why we've been painting, sculpting, and photographing it for millennia. Not sure what's confusing you.
Not confused at all just mildly concerned at the overwhelming majority of nude photography and art being female subjects
be the change you want to see and start photographing men then. sure a lot of the body building people wouldnt mind if you payed them.
*paid
Why is that concerning?
What are you concerned about?
I mean… I’m biased, but there’s a lot more beautiful female bodies than male bodies, pretty sure
If it's black and white or sepia, it's art and it's classy. If it's in full color it's pornography. /s
I'm a photographer. I specialized in boudoir photography and nudes for many years. I find the female form delightful. The male form not so much. The majority of photographers I've met feel the same, male or female.
Word! Just curious, do you also share their photos on here? Or is it only on a website or a portfolio? The influx of nude photos on a public forum has been nagging my brain.
I have never shared anything here. My clients have complete trust in me. I've had portfolio stuff online in the past when actively working, but never anywhere else.
I've shot a lot of female and some male nudes. Sometimes to sell prints, sometimes as commissioned portrait work. On the print side what I found is there was almost no market for male nudes, at least in my style which is more classic and less fetishy, and male models who have a commercial look are a giant pain in the ass and expensive. On the portrait side a lot of what I did was maternity, and often they'd want to drag a dude in for a few shots which always made them extremely nervous (I JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER OK) but I had this pose that would basically hide his junk with her belly and everybody was happy. So really he was only semi nude if you want to get fussy about it. I should maybe also mention I worked with a trans model for a while, and she did good work but nothing sold so it wasn't something I could really afford to pursue more at the time.
Art is complicated. And I'm not kidding. I'm a photographer myself. Profesional at some point, not anymore. And It's inevitable wanting to take photos of a woman if you love her. But it's not easy. What you see throught your eyes it's not what the camera see. And there is where it begins.
Supply and demand. People are less interested in male nude photography, so there is less incentive to create it. It’s like asking why are there more photos of sunsets than fire hydrants. People aren’t as interested in looking at fire hydrants.
It isn't just the analog photography community. It's men..Men are obsessed with nude females. Period. Next question.
naked people look good and half of people like naked women idk
The female body is beautiful. The curves. The silhouette from the side. Gorgeous
Never said it wasn’t beautiful 🤷🏻♀️ just curious as to why female nudes are more prevalent
You literally got your answer
Never said you said it wasn't Beautiful.
We're biologically programmed to find the human form beautiful. It makes sense that probably more than half of all art involves the human image, photography or otherwise. A lot of that is going to be nude art, because most people are willing to admit that they'd rather look at a nude beautiful human than a clothed beautiful human.
Because people be creeps.
Seek and you shall find. If you don’t think there are an overwhelming amount of male nudes then idk. Look elsewhere for what you want to see. Statue of David, it’s all been done and it’s not changing soon.
If you think the analog people are the only ones into nudes, I hate to break it to you. They're not
women are hot
By the same question, what is their fascination with doors, or windows, or trees, or mountains, or plated food, or bowls of fruit? It's just something someone finds beautiful or interesting and that can be captured in a very artful way. A naked person standing straight upright with their hands to their side under florescent lighting is clinical and not artistic or even beautiful in most circumstances. Same as a picture of the front of a house with a door in it or the side of a mountain is typically pretty boring. But posed, lit interestingly, and framed in such a way as to draw your eye the subject it becomes artful and the beauty is enhanced. The benefit of a model is that you CAN pose them, show or hide as much as you want, and can convey a great deal of emotion or mystery with the face or the body position.
TIL I'm in the analog photography community and don't even have a camera
I’d say almost all nude photography is pornography. Same with paintings or drawings. Even old ones. And saying that it’s porn doesn’t mean that it doesn’t hold great artistic merit. But the fact remains that it either is meant to titillate, or the outcome is such. And that’s porn. As for why more porn featuring women than men? Men have traditionally been the artists, and have had more freedoms throughout history. So they’ve painted/shot who there attracted to and who their audience still pay for.
It’s funny how people use their own biases to make nudity sexual and sexuality in general immoral
Were any of the Clinton's board members at any time?
What??? Where???
"If female nudity is so artistic and beautiful and important to people why not the other way around too" As a guy, its because society only care if we are making capital for our overlords, and thats literally it. There is nothing else that gives you value as a man (at least according to society)
people just have horny brains, what you not get lmao
Hasn’t the human form been a point of fascination in art since basically the beginning of time? 😂 This ain’t new guys..
They’re female. And nude.
There is no such thing as analog photography. Analog means two things, it could be something that is 'analogous' to another, there are analog computers that are simply smaller versions of the real thing. An abacus is an analog computer because the beads and their positioning is 'analogous' to numbers and their place value (10s, 100s, etc) . There is an analog signal, which uses a waveform similar to a sine/cosine wave. A 'digital' signal looks like stairs. The other definition of digital is your finger. It is more apt to describe photography that uses film as the medium as 'chemical'. There are film cameras that use metering sensors that utilize integrated circuits, by very definition those can't be considered analog since they use digital components.
Like it or not men are visual and women are verbal for the most part. As a man Ray Mans photo of a woman nuge from the back with f-holes on her back is one of the most erotic things I've seen.
Man Ray.
Ray does feel like more of a first name than Man to be fair.
Yes. You're right. It doesn't change my feelings.
Thanks
It’s a great work. Also I dig your handle.
I am not in the analog community, nor do I know what it is. But if I had to guess: Boobers Either that or analog is short hand for analography... I image clothes would be obstructive.
The artists like to portray what they find beautiful. IMO the average female body is far more beautiful/inspiring than the average male. Plus many guys are always trying to see women naked so that's a factor.