Wrapping Up with Nude Photography (NSFW)

This article contains images and/or video that the editors have flagged as NSFW (Not Safe for Work).
To view this content you must be logged in to your Fstoppers account.
Wrapping Up with Nude Photography (NSFW)

Self taught German photographer Klaus Kampert is no stranger to the female form as his work boast amazingly beautiful and tasteful female nudes. His main interest is people-photography, focussing on beauty, portrait, nudes and dance. Although his site is filled with great work, I pulled these shots from his "Wrapped" series because of it's use of a simple length of fabric to create unique poses.

"My work is mainly concerned with the human body. Still, I do not consider my images to be classic nudes or erotic photography, although these genres may have an impact on my work.""I am not interested in showing beauty as an outward phenomenon.Rather I would like to present the human being as a whole: Body and mind united.""By picturing nakedness in an image, it is to reveal mind and emotion, not only showing the body as such.""Among my models especially the ballet dancers are those who succeed in expressing this wholeness in a particular manner. Their bodies bespeak the constant pursuit of beauty, grace, achievement and perfection.""It is my intention and my passion to display this to the viewer."

  via [PhotographyServed]

 
Posted In: 
Log in or register to post comments

24 Comments

Holy crap.  Talk about the marginalization of women.  He's not celebrating anything about her.  By covering her face all he's doing is reducing her to nothing more than his own personal fetish object, a sex doll.  Have a look at the photos of Hans Bellmer.  He's exerting himself on this woman with the goal of depersonalizing her, reducing her to nothing more than flesh.  He can't look her in the eye.  I wonder what terror he must experience when he looks a woman in the eye.  Just plain creepy.

though i have no idea 'bout nude photograph, what you're saying actually makes sense. This guy might be just a creeper with a Hasselblad and not an actual artist.

wow! are you a feminist or something? just because her face is covered it doesn't mean she is being reduced to anything. covering your genitals wont depersonalize you, then why do you think covering your face will? following your words, all makeup and beauty shots are reducing women to nothing more than skin and flesh, right? pppfff -_-

I agree with Ashkan where the photographer isn't reducing the model. Maybe you're over analyzing it... I find the photos magnificent and I personally don't have any personal fetishes or anything against women.  I adore how his work is a little different

I actually like these photos. Don't know what you guys are all on about?

If controversy is the aim...then right on target. If celebrating beauty and the feminine form is the aim...then I say it's a stupendous mess.

I don't see this as a question of gender or personality, or whatnot, I think that the subject here is the celebration of beauty and elegance that only a female body can achieve and I think that he is dead on!

Wow, I really don't see anything at all that could be considered offensive at all with these images.  I don't see how this could be construed as controversial either.  I mean, really?  My hats off to the photographer and model.

I checked out the rest of his port.  His stuff looks good. 

I'd recommend ya'll to see the rest of the pages before you judge the book by this chapter.

ן i think these are no different than any other nude photographs iv'e seen- completely pointless and just a poor excuse to make someone strip... there is really nothing beautiful or artistic in any of these.
just like "post modern art" (2-3 sloppy black brushstrokes on a white canvas...)

You hit the nail on the head here, as art is often subjective, it's difficult to critique because everyone has their own standards as to what makes "good art" -But clearly you've missed one of the best aspects of modern and post modern art; one of the art periods that preceded it was Realism and both modern and post modern art can be perceived as a retaliation of sorts by artists to do the complete opposite; instead of creating works that were ultra realistic and looked like real life, why not break the art form down back to its basic origins and think outside the box a little more, so to speak. Thus the heavy use of prime colors and "sloppy brushstrokes" as you put it. By doing this the artists are making a point that not every painting or piece of art has to resemble real life because there are more than one way of looking at things. The simplicity of their work challenges the notion of art for many (such as yourself) but you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your opinion as it's a very negative way to perceive the hard work of others and if I were an artist I would be incredibly insulted if someone brushed off my work as "pointless" or "sloppy". Try see the beauty in composition and ask yourself, what the artist is trying to explore because not everything is black and white. 

LOVE THESE SHOTS! Wonderful captures of the grace and beauty of the female form. Kudos to the photographer and model!

I dont see anything sexual about these images. Its sad that society is so skewed about sex and over sexualizes everything that someone cant see the beauty of the body without immediately thinking of something erotic or controversial about it. While I dont think these images are anything spectacular I dont see anything "wrong" with them.

Kristen Harris's picture

As a staunch feminist, I am a HUGE fan of these photographs. The artist captures the beauty of the female shape and movement. As a lover of dance, I am so thrilled to see the model's personality and individual grace captured in the photographs. The woman/women pictured are not degraded or depersonalized by these stills. Rather, what is captured is a celebration of elegance in simplicity.

Steven Cohn's picture

I do not see these as marginalizing, depersonalizing, offensive, or sexual.  I also do not see these as beautiful, feminine, elegant, or graceful.  They are just plain silly.  I can't believe the model thought, "yeah, let's cover my head with 10lbs of fabric and stand on my tippy toes while nude... that'll be great!"  Is the model beautiful? Yes.  Do the photos have quality lighting.  Sure.  But WHY?  WHY would you do this?  It's just silly.  I would have no idea she is a ballerina by the images.  Reading the comments in between the shots by the photographer... they just don't relate to the images I'm looking at but instead make be believe the photographer is just full of himself. Having said that, looking at some of his other work on his site, they're actually not bad! He really missed the mark on this one though.

 I was trying to figure out how I felt about these, but you said it, just plain silly.

Andrew Aggerholm's picture

Not only do I think this series is great - I love all his work. I don't find it erotic, I find it intriguing, with beautiful light, beautiful subject and a fascinating theme. Some people look for things to be offended by. But the fact that you are offended just shows that it's good work - at least you're not indifferent.

Jerome A Shaw - Rome's picture

Great Images, Great Poses, Great Concept

George Socka's picture

pointless, IMNSHO

Keira. Genius model. Helps to have a talented photographer, like here, but you could make a GWC genius..

I just think that having your head missing is odd.  There is a rich vein of art history about this sort of thing.  By comparison, look at the photos of Helmut Newton.

SHAPES.  Y'all are photographers and enthusiasts.  You're really having this difficult a time understanding the value of changing a proportion with a ball of cloth changes how we see the shape of the rest of the body?  How about the value of dark space against contour shading?  The round nearly monochromatic ball as a 'head' bringing out the contrast of tones in the variations of  contour of a lighter colored shape?  Balance at the top and bottom of the image in the legs up, triangle of cloth down shot...  It's absolutely not about dehumanizing a model, so much as treating a model as we would a flower, a vase, a curtain, a light - it is to objectify the model more to try to make her any more than a facet of the image, a beautiful shape.  No different than industrial glamor where we use a different kind of contrast to bring out the softness and sensuality of the model in the image.  Her sexuality is not featured in these images in any way.  From face to discreet hand positioning to keep the images implied, she is not inviting the viewers sexuality to look for hers in any way.

scott corless's picture

I think they're fantastic. How is he marginalizing women ? Jeez......we only come in two models, FFS. He's not marginalizing over half the population

alpeni alpeni's picture

awesome lovely shots!