I’m kind of sad that you didn’t like it…maybe you can start up your own nude photo site. newsensuality.com, newhumanity, seeme.com

And do you really need an assistant for next year?

It’s not that I don’t like it — it’s just that the site shows how hard it is to do something interesting and alluring with your naked body. The site is worth exploring, and I’ll contribute something to it to see if I can take things to a new level ;). There are some good pictures there that inspire me, but also some problematic ones.

Over all, this picture says it best: “the outcome is less erotic than the process.”

And yes, I can use all the help I can get with ClubLaurier next year, especially from all the insanely creative people in my life. With a bit of help from my friends I can turn ClubLaurier into seemenaked.com :)!

“With a bit of help from my friends I can turn ClubLaurier into seemenaked.com :)!”

… god help us all. :-P

“… god help us all. :-P”
Seeing as it’s Easter, how entirely appropriate.

OH GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN US!

I believe you’ve missed the entire point of Autoerotic, Tudor. The project was not created for “everyday people to take off their clothes in front of a camera and reaffirm their sensuality.” I founded Autoerotic for individuals to reaffirm self and body image through erotic photography. The definition of eroticism remains unique as it changes with every submission, and I have never once instructed individuals to submit naked photos as visual representation of eroticism. For some, an erotic idea is a tattoo or the nape of one’s neck. For others, eroticism is where muscles meet bone or the sheen of skin after sex. There is no one true definition of eroticism within the project, and there never will be as submissions continue to come.

You said “autoerotic.nu offers few meaningful glimpses of humanity,” but this is not true. Every submission contains both visual and textual content from the author, and some of these entries describe personal struggle with how they perceive themselves in a society that favors physical features that create both negative body image and self-esteem. The exploration of human constructs as opposed to broad definitions of society is what humanity is all about.

As an artist, I understand that criticism follows public exhibitions, but do your research before you choose to rant.

I appreciate your response J., especially since I believe that Autoerotic is a valuable project. Yes, my definition placed too much emphasis on reaffirming sensuality rather than the body, but that’s to be expected since the title of the project is so strikingly sensual.

Unfortunately, I haven’t clearly articulated my thoughts in the “rant” above, so let me try again (just to make sure we understand one another). I tried to argue that it’s hellishly difficult to capture an interesting glimpse of your own body — I tried it before, as have others, and the results are often less than inspiring.

Regardless of how Autoerotic is defined or how deeply personal the interpretations of “erotic” are, the project ultimately shows how difficult it is to explore the body and to do it meaningfully in the visual medium. Yes, I appreciate you point that people get to express what “sensual” is to them, and yes, many of the pictures do capture something very intimate. However, few of the photos are either “sensual” or “erotic.”

“Erotic” is something that happens in the mind — it’s a way of conceptualizing the body and using imagination to make the flesh tremble. Pictures that are not imaginative are rarely erotic, and despite your protestations, a lot of the pictures on Autoerotic.nu lack imagination. Yes, people try to capture what is sensual to them, but they often fall shot of that goal.

And this failure is not necessarily a bad thing — it should encourage people to keep trying to capture that sensual part of them. The quote I gave above is particularly inspired — “the outcome is less erotic than the process.”

Perhaps I should give you an analogy to illustrate what I’m talking about. Suppose I start a project that invites people to submit erotic writing. Many of the entries will be particularly dull and unpleasant to read because it’s awfully difficult to write a good sex scene. Try it — it’s nearly impossible to produce something that will turn you on (never mind other people). There will be some excellent entries too, but we can learn a lot more from the imperfect entries — we can learn how difficult it is to write good sex stories.

Ultimately, Autoerotic is an important project — important enough to encourage me to submit my own entry. Yes, it allows people to come to terms with their bodies via erotic photography. But we can learn a lot by seeing how difficult it is to do just that! I would encourage everyone to submit something to Autoerotic — it’s a valuable experience. But capturing a meaningful glimpse of your own body with a camera is hard.

I’m sorry if I sounded too critical in my “rant” — I was trying to express how problematic it is to capture the body (and to do it well), not to critique the project itself.

(By the way, I didn’t suggest that the site was focused on nudity — the fixation with nudity is my own, not the project’s.)

Let’s hope others feel the same about your submission, Bebi.

I’m definitely open to criticism — in fact, I would appreciate it!

I know that my little experiment didn’t capture what I originally set out to explore. However, if you ask other people who submitted an entry, I’m sure most of them will admit that it’s difficult to express something visually, especially something as complex as the “erotic.” In many cases the process is far more valuable than the final result.

Again, I’m not suggesting that the photographs that strike me as “stale” are not valuable — I think they teach us a lot about the difficulty of the task.

As a side note, I can’t help but notice that your last comment places a lot of weight on how others perceive the photos, as though you’re acknowledging that the results matter as much as the subjective exploration the project tries to encourage. We’re suddenly back to the viewers rather than the subjects ;).