On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Jonathan Hall wrote:
> Someday I will let you photograph me in the nude.
> XXX OOO
> Your Alternative photographer friend...
> Jonathan.
Jonathan, I hate to seem ungrateful (and am duly sensible of the honor),
but I don't find nude photography interesting -- even of entrancing men...
although granted more interesting and less stereotype than all that T&A.
But I say the same thing about trees -- seen one, for all practical
purposes, seem 'em all. Seen one bare bod of babe, you've essentially
seen 'em all. Which is to say, for purposes of *art*, people are much more
interesting with their clothes on. ESPECIALLY for gum printing.
And PS to Don and company, I called the naked-lady pics under discussion
SOFT porn. In fact I'd say they're poster babes for soft porn. The
reference to regular porn was simply to say I have no objection if it's
correctly labeled.
WHAT'S MORE !!!!::::::: When is pointing to sexism a "feminist agenda" and
when is it simply... pointing to sexism? Is consciousness raising *by
definition* "feminist," or just a public-spirited announcement for the
general enlightenment and well being of society?
> with warmest wishes and regards.
and from me, too....
Judy
> > .................................................................
> > | Judy Seigel, Editor >
> > | World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
> > | info@post-factory.org >
> > | <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
> > .................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 12:10:48