From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/15/00-12:34:35 AM Z
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Sandy King wrote:
> That is your opinion. I think otherwise. In my opinion Newton's nudes
> are weak and stripped of their power. They are there in your face,
> naked, and assuming positions at the demand of the master
> (Newton/wife). They will certainly yield, i.e. assume whatever
> position is required.
You mean other hired models don't? You believe that models for other
photographers are making up the poses? Aren't you confusing the story with
its fabrication? The point seems beside the point at best, but I'd bet
there's at least as much spontaneity from Newton's big babes as from
anybody's little ones -- if it matters, tho I can't see why it should.
Recent photo history certainly shows us that legendary, "iconic" photos,
ostensibly spontaneous "caught" action, were carefully planned and posed
-- for instance Doisneau's kiss, Ruth Orkin's American Girl in Rome,
Weegee's "The Critic," etc. etc. etc. In those cases the setup is
relevant, because the *claim* is grab shot, but in a studio situation,
well a studio shot is by *definition* posed (as is any use of models, for
"art," fashion, or advertising, on location or not).
In fact, many of the 20th century's most interesting photographers came
out of fashion. It's hard even to imagine the model calling the poses on
your average fashion shoot. (Think Blowup.)
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT