Opinion: The Difference Between Naked and Nude


	Site search Web search

Your Opinion
Is There a Difference Between Naked & Nude?

Last month we ran this image on the cover and I was surprised that several readers found it inappropriate.

They had no problem with artistic nude images inside the magazine but they felt those same images didn't belong on the cover.

What I found curious was that this particular image provoked that reaction. While the model may be nude, no part of her anatomy is visible that wouldn't be visible were she wearing a bikini. As a matter of fact any bikini would be more revealing than this pose.

When I asked they replied it wasn't so much what was or wasn't visible. It was the fact the model was naked in the photo that they felt was inappropriate.

Since the photographer, Joe Farace, has been shooting nude and semi-nude models for some time I asked for his thoughts on the subject, which you can read by clicking here and you can read some of the emails from readers by clicking here.

So what do you think folks? Is there a difference between naked and nude? Is visible nudity what makes the difference in a photograph? Does the fact that the model was naked when the shot was taken make a difference regardless of what is visible?

To See the Photographer's Opinion
Below is a sample of reader's replies:

Name: Karen

Opinion

I've seen more revealing photos on the cover of Cosmopolitan. I don't see why anyone had a problem with it.

Name: Tim

Opinion

I agree completely with Joe in this matter. The photograph in question was extremely well executed and much more tasteful than some I've seen of models fully clothed. This image was obviously not intended to imply anything pornographic, but rather to portray a model at her best...which is exactly what Joe has done. I also find it refreshing to read his comments and see that there are still some photographers with ethics and values when it comes to shooting nudes.

On a lighter note... "I tried photographing a woman nude once, but she made me put my clothes back on."

Name: Bill Fleming

Opinion

I think the image is great! She has worked hard to achieve a body of such shape and beauty. I am glad that Joe captured this in such an elegant way. Joe did state that if you are bothered by nude images, then do not look at them. To the same point, this publication is not just about nudes and nudes should not be forced upon readers by being on the cover. For me, I do not feel that this is a nude as much as it is a creative use of talent and props. We must be careful how we express our craft for others are watching and will gladly blow the horn even if they do not read our publication!

Name: Mike Hodson

Opinion

I was surprised to see the negative feedback about last month's cover photo. I personally take no offence to this picture and everyone is certainly allowed to take it as the will. However, this is certainly not pornography. There is a difference between nudity and sexuality and it's unfortunate that some people are blind to this difference enough that they are offended simply by the sight of the human body. One person even went so far to say that God meant for people to be clothed. If that was the case, wouldn't we be born with cloths on?

As for the image being unavoidable on the home page, there is far more skin shown on the covers of quite a few non-pornographic publications...be they web sites or at the check out of your local super market. If you find this image offensive, it must be a hard life, finding offensive things all around you.

This was just a sample of reader's opinions
Or add your opinion to the discussion tell us

Subscribe to Vivid Light
Photography by email

Tell Us What You Think



	Site search Web search