Photographing the Female Form As a Christian

This post was several months in the making. It was actually this topic that inspired me to really start my blog. Or at the very least I knew would be a great blog entry, that hopefully would spark conversation as well as let people know where I stand by expaining my thoughts and rationale. It has been sitting in my "to be published" section of posts for a while now, and I felt it was finally ready to post; perhaps even overdue.  So without further ado, here it is...

I have been asked a few times, in various ways, how I could possibly shoot some of the subject matter I do and still call myself a Christian.  (Granted this only has happened less than a handful of times with the thousands of people who know me and/or are fans of my photography page, for the three years I have been doing it). This comes down to a definition between art and smut. I love getting the chance to talk to people about this and “challenge my beliefs” on this issue, so to speak, because this is a fine line that I feel I successfully walk as well as an issue I have a very well thought-out and justified cause for my rationale.

First, I would like to point out my “swim” and “lingerie” sections are a small subset of all the work I do. There are also categories for Beauty, Catalog, Fashion, Commercial, Portraits, Head Shots, Dance, Stage (Theater), Products, Engagements, and Weddings.  Even by the most conservative of onlookers, the vast majority of my work is very “family-friendly”.

As a Christian, I believe that human beings are God’s greatest creation. The human body is, by far, one of the most incredible things to study in so many regards. I’m fairly certain if you talk to any fine-art artist they will tell you the number one most studied thing in Art is the human figure. I believe it stems from our fascination with our Creator and His creation of us.  We are “fearfully and wonderfully made”.  We are incredibly intricate and beautiful creatures.  Throughout all of history artists have recreated the human figure, quite often in its nude form.  We can all agree that pieces like the ancient statue “Venus de Milo” and “The Birth of Venus”  by Botticelli (I’m not sure why two “Venus” pieces came to mind; I'm not art history buff); are completely acceptable pieces of art.  Just walk into any art museum and you will be greeted with numerous pieces of the female from, in various stages of dress. I’m not arguing for nude art specially, but rather pointing out there are times where a nude form, whether in drawing, painting, sculpture, photo, is acceptable.  Of course, Photography and cameras aren’t nearly as old as painting and other art forms or I'm sure we would have seen more photos on this subject thought history and in turn in these museums.  I believe this substantiates it is not necessarily the amount of clothing, or lack thereof, on a body that makes an image “ok” or not.

Now, the other extreme. When someone says photos of this nature “portray women as sexual objects” or are “sexually suggestive” I would assume they perhaps were referring to publications like “Men’s Magazines” - think Maxim, GQ, or Esquire.   (I’m not even going to go into pornography because its intent and execution is obvious; however pornography is something that a great number of people this is acceptable). These photographs are where the women are truly “objectified” in suggestive positions, showing a “sex face” , sopping wet, crawling on all fours, legs opened up toward the camera, tearing off their underwear/swimsuit, etc.  THAT is inappropriate.  THAT is smut. Those photos are created to be suggestive, erotic, and purely intended to simulate a man’s sexual desires, for monetary profit.  It’s not rare that these types of photos are also Photoshoped until the women look plastic and only vaguely resemble real life.   It is also very common for these images to be further manipulated to augment the woman’s body from how it actually looked to an unnatural, or at least unreal, state.

Yes, I have some photos with women wearing little clothing or bikinis; however, I maintain that it is all tastefully done, professionally executed, and free of any of the aforementioned lewd content.    There is no tearing off clothes, on all fours, or other erotic poses.  They are done with artistic intent and content.  If you were to look at those same men’s magazines previously mentioned and then look at my work, you would immediately see a major difference.  This is not offering a “at least I’m not as bad at them” defense; it is to illustrate my point.  My photos are carefully thought-out and set up to show the beauty of their unique creation.  There are never any erotic poses the photographs are creatively “lit” (as in the lighting). Also, I don’t “Photoshop” my photos to the point of creating plastic looking women and neither do I “enhance” or “reduce” the women’s bodies through image manipulation.  As such, what you see in my photos is a highly accurate representation of the woman in real life and has not been turned into some artificial sex object

The main argument here about these kinds of photos is where “the line” is.  My photos are done with every effort and intent to be completely on the safe and appropriate side.  Sometimes a fully clothed woman can be an extremely erotic photo. Sometimes, a full nude can be completely tasteful, artistic and have no traces of eroticism. The difference is in what the goal of the photo is or what it’s trying to do, and how well it is doing that.

(Side note: However, I don’t do nude photography because there is too much open to individual interpretation, as in the line of art and smut is extremely subjective. I believe I have the ability to skillfully and professionally execute nudes in a completely artistic manner; however I personally prefer not to get in to that realm at this time.)