idiosyncratic

cavetocanvas:

To address your concerns about Torso, yes, I find it creative when you consider the context. At this point, photography was just beginning to come into its own, and the vast majority of critics didn’t see it as a viable art form, requiring nowhere near the talent and finesse that painting or sculpture commanded. Stieglitz was one of the first prominent photographers who helped elevate the medium to an art form, instead of simply as a way of recording information (for example in newspapers or formal portraits of people). Photographing a nude body, a ubiquitous theme throughout the history of art, helped to encourage photography as an additional medium of art. In that way, yes. I find it creative.

You say that the image is a “picture of a woman minus the parts that make one human.” Clearly facial features are important to individuality, but it was very unusual to photograph a nude without including the face - if you look at Hands, I’ve included information from the Met that states how the idea of removing identifying features was “novel,” further reinforcing the creativity and thought that went into the composition of the photograph. Yes, to a point I agree that eliminating the face takes away from the individuality of the image, and you could argue that the portrait objectifies the woman rather than presenting her as a unique individual. At this point in time, though (as throughout the rest of art history, really), this was unfortunately commonplace. You may “roll your eyes” and decry the piece as just another nude as a member of 21st century society who is used to seeing nudes in art, but you have to put yourself in the context of the turn of the century. 

As for “objectifying” Georgia O’Keeffe in his portraits of her, I agree to a point. I’ve included multiple examples of Stieglitz’s images of her that I think beautifully capture her - regardless of whether that includes her nude body or not. Both artists were deeply in love (initially, anyway), and O’Keeffe, as an artist herself, clearly saw the aesthetic appeal in his portraits. With that being said, however, Stieglitz did use the nude photographs of O’Keeffe to promote himself - he exhibited them before showing O’Keeffe’s own work, and her name became known not through her efforts, but because of the sensation the photographs caused. O’Keeffe’s work changed as a result - instead of working in the abstract, she began to ground her work in more recognizable forms as a way to combat the association of her work with a sexual nature. Apparently she refused to let herself be photographed nude again. In that way, the purpose and nature of the piece ended up being very self serving for Stieglitz while initially hurting O’Keeffe’s budding career.