----- Original Message -----
From: Christina Z. Anderson <tracez@mcn.net>
Subject: RE: Pandora and a can of worms
Hi Sil, I had breakfast with you one day at Wild Oats at APIS in Santa Fe.
As I said in my reply to Bob Kiss, I personally love the nude. My whole
oeuvre my last semester of college will be just that. (Actually, I'm terming
it "figurative"; nudity is not its primary importance) .But I'm much more
interested in unstereotypical images of both male and female bodies,
produced by whichever sex and whichever sexual preference. Sexual repression
is certainly not something I have ever been characterized as exhibiting
(gee, maybe I should try it...) I think the "repression" expressed in this
back and forth between a number of us is more so that of uncreative image
making. And I just bet, from the brief time I spent with you at APIS, this
is not one of your problems (i mean being uncreative, not the other).
Maybe we should talk about uncreative landscape
photographs; perhaps it would be a less loaded topic...
Too bad so many sexually repressed people on this list don't appreciate the
soft lines of the human body as a true art form. Taking beautiful
photographs of the unclothed human body is probably the most challenging of
all subjects, difficult to attain by most photographers.
agreed--I'm scared that my figurative oeuvre will be a flop! I'll let you
know in May...
Otherwise, why are
so many pictures of the body the subject of the classical artists almost
revered by the public? There is nothing wrong with some good eroticism,
well done, as recognized and accepted by most critical observers.
you betcha--eroticism quickens the heart muscle. I also betcha that most
critical observers of fine art would agree with the assessment of Farber's
front cover. Give me Chevalier or Woodman or Imboden over this.
(In case you are wondering, I don't only deal with chemicals; I have also
taught classes in photographic art.)
Yes, you must have; i remember your comments during breakfast of what
constitutes a successful photograph--bet you didn't think I was taking notes
and hanging on your words: I wrote down technique, impact on viewer, and
does it get the point across; however, you made a fourth point and I did not
get it recorded so maybe you'll remember the fourth criterion of a good
photo! Conventions and lists such as this are great for iron sharpening
iron--we clarify our own stance when someone else's bugs us.
See you at the next APIS? Chris
There was a terrific and valid case won by the Mitchel brothers over the use
for pornography in a modern society; which is to accept the legal
definition of pornography as 'that which offers sailient and purient
interest.' In so much as this drive gives us life, and prolongs living;
eroticism and even pornography aids health, curbs the aging process.
But, before we awaken the snake oil salesmen; even within this genre there's
good photography and bad photography.
I agree with Bob Kiss, there need be more examples of male sensuality as
seen by more -- in my taste -- women. Take this as a dare or challenge, if
you wish.
Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 12:10:48