Comments on: Douglas Simonson’s Artist’s Diary: Home Base

By: MURRAY

MURRAY — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:28:38 +0000

As a photographer specialising in unorthodox portraiture, I often have young men asking if I will photograph them with their clothes off. There are ways to take pix of men that are naked without causing offence: simply portray them with the offending bit out of shot. Does not have to be a full-frontal with a discreetly placed hand either – that does look corny! A slight turn of the body with the subject looking back is one way and I have found this to be highly successful in the past. Lots of lads like to take their shirts off and some powerful and intense pix are possible with various poses that are taken above nipple line. A lot of my sitters are surprised that I do not encourage them to strip completely. As far as women are concerned, many people accept that men like looking at pictures of nude women far more that women like looking at pictures of nude men. This, of course, is a sexual thing. By taking full frontal out of male photography, we are able to brand it as artistic and so dispel any notion of smutty-ness. Lets keep smut out of it – that’s my line.

By: ronzy70

ronzy70 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:51:24 +0000

What a pity, and that probably won’t change…at least in my lifetime.

By: ronzy70

ronzy70 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:48:53 +0000

Douglas, I have long admired your wonderful artwork. I just read in your blog that you visited my hometown, Baltimore. Geez! So close and yet, so far away.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 02:45:01 +0000

Hi Douglas sorry i guess jumped the gun and will purchase when Brians photos become available

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 21:08:39 +0000

Where do you find your models and what do you look for?

By: Josh Howdy

Josh Howdy — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 07:46:50 +0000

Cool!

By: Charles Ford

Charles Ford — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:27:51 +0000

Cool blog site.

By: ken

ken — Mon, 30 May 2011 19:10:45 +0000

Westerners have such a hangup of male nudity, but yet a naked woman can be illustrated in various forms. Now there is a double standard.

By: Douglas Simonson

Douglas Simonson — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:37:47 +0000

Colin, in my opinion none of this is surprising if you acknowledge the role of POWER. We’ve been in a patriarchal, male-dominated society for a couple of thousand years now. Objectifying the female sexually is one way the male asserts his power. The female is a vulnerable and submissive sex object, the male is the dominator. She is vulnerable and powerless, he is invulnerable and powerful (at least that is his belief). Objectifying the male sexually, however, suggests that the male can be dominated in the same way as a woman can–which is pretty much the male heterosexual definition of pitiable powerlessness. No surprise that this offends (and scares) the shit out of straight men, so of course any form of art glorifying the male body is seen as subversive or perverted and is suppressed by the heterosexual male power base whenever possible. It’s not easy to appreciate beauty when you’re so so busy trying to stay in power!

By: Colin Johnson

Colin Johnson — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:21:28 +0000

I’m writing this with the notion that other people may have the some issue/conflict as I do. Simply put – why is female nudity considered “high art” and male nudity merely pornographic? If male artists paint/draw/sculpt what inspires them, and if it’s with a sexual impulse, then really everything that contains nudity is potentially nothing more than pornography, which then turns art as a classical expression on its collective head. And if it isn’t, and the male form is as equally transcendent as the female form – then where are all (fully) nude males in art? I can think of ancient Greek statuary, pottery and Michelangelo’s work and that’s about it. Someone earlier mentioned that full male nudity in art isn’t appreciated, but why? Why are we all embarrassed by naked men but not naked women? Again, why is male nudity not considered “high art?” And I’m not saying it should be, I’m just confused by the discrepancy.