Buy Used
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Used: Very Good | Details
Sold by harvestbooks
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: Condition: Very good condition., Binding: Paperback / Publisher: Running Press / Pub. Date: 2001-10-28 Attributes: Book, 192 pp / Stock#: 2058997 (FBA) * * *This item qualifies for FREE SHIPPING and Amazon Prime programs! * * *
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Naked Women: The Female Nude in Photography from 1850 to the Present Day Paperback – October 28, 2001

See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Paperback, October 28, 2001
$49.98 $6.03

Best Books of the Year
Best Books of 2014
Looking for something great to read? Browse our editors' picks for 2014's Best Books of the Year in fiction, nonfiction, mysteries, children's books, and much more.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 192 pages
  • Publisher: Running Press; Not Indicated edition (October 28, 2001)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1560253363
  • ISBN-13: 978-1560253365
  • Product Dimensions: 11.1 x 8.6 x 0.7 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 2 pounds
  • Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,952,322 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

3.7 out of 5 stars
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

55 of 60 people found the following review helpful By Bill W. Dalton on January 17, 2002
Format: Paperback
To start with, you can disregard the editorial review above. It's so
inaccurate it might be talking about another book altogether!
Many of the photographers it mentions -- Angel Baccassino,
Richard Avedon, Cecil Beaton, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Larry
Clarke, Peter Lindbergh, Irving Penn, Steven Meisel, Herb Ritts,
and Mario Testino -- are NOT represented in this book! But the
others mentioned are here. And many more, too. Most of them
are unfamiliar to me, but I haven't followed the photographic
scene in a long time, so it's no reflection on then that I've never
heard of them. Some of the great ones I do remember are here,
such as Edward Weston, Edward Steichen, Eadweard Muybridge,
Alfred Stieglitz, Man Ray, Bill Brandt, Eugene Atget, Imogen
Cunningham, and Brassai.
Having tried my hand at photographing the female nude some
years back, I know it's not as easy as one might think to get good,
professional, artistic results. One needs more than a naked woman
and a camera! One needs some inspiration, intuition, creativity,
and rapport with the subject or the most expensive equipment and
the most shapely woman won't achieve much but vapid,
amateurish, or lewd photos. My own limited attempt at the genre
was interesting and enjoyable, but I knew I had no talent for it. So
I can respect even more the really great photographers who have
mastered this difficult art form.
The photographs here range from 19th century pictorialism to 21st
century modern abstract.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful By A Customer on February 26, 2002
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
I really like the format of this book - one page with a large photo, the opposite page with the bio about the photographer and some information about the chosen work. It's a heavy book and of good quality, and the photos range from abstract to classic to fetish and everything in between. Some you have seen before, a lot are by new names and pics. I think it is a great companion to the Male version - "Exposed".
My only question is that is doesn't really seem to be any "history" - just a collection of good photos from a wide time range - think perhaps the title makes it seem something it is not.
I liked the book and have it on my coffee table.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful By wiredweird HALL OF FAMETOP 500 REVIEWER on December 16, 2004
Format: Paperback
As the editor points out in the intro, "nude" usually means "nude European female 20-ish, and probably thin."

This book does a lot better. Yes, the subjects are mostly or all nude, and yes they're all women. No, they are not all Anglo, as Phan, Sullivan, and Torcello show. No, they are not all young adults, as Murphy and Kander show. No, they are not all thin, as Glover, Casanave, and Perotte show.

Yes, they are fully functioning women, as O'Sullivan and Fink show, with surprising tributes to physical motherhood. And yes, the female shape is a wonderful thing, simply as a shape, as Carnegie, Lategan, and others show - whatever it is they show.

These pictures give much to think about. Saudek's "Ballerine" proves that age strikes different parts of a woman differently. Look at this portrait again, but not the face, to see what I mean - youth lasts a lot longer than you might think. Go back to Braham's Flower and allow yourself a giggle before you even see where the humor lies. Go all the way forward to Zeschin's contribution, and see why 'bigger is better' just isn't true. Not false, surely, but not true.

The book is organized alphabetically by the working name (not necessarily the born name) of the photographer. In other words, it is utterly random with respect to dates, style, subject, technique, or any other aspect of the images themselves. This emphasizes the photos, the individual women, and the spectrum of womanhood. Still, it leaves me hanging in some intellectual sense - is there some underlying order that I've missed, or is it my job to impose my own order?

I am passionate about women's beauty, as is the editor. Whatever you may have thought, this is a clearly non-erotic view of womanhood, in most cases. Being bare, even being fully sexually functional, are different from being erotic.

-- wiredweird
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again