From: Sandy King (sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Date: 09/15/00-08:50:24 PM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
>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.
Judy, we must be on different wavelengths because I have no idea why
you are asking me these questions. Spontaneity or lack thereof is not
an issue for me. My point is simply that these are 1) poses that
strip woman of the essence of their womanhood, and 2) emanate in part
from the mind of June Newton (if we are to believe the stories that
she in fact controls much of the actual shooting done by her
husband). Maybe I am in error on the last point??
Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT