From: Jeff Buck (jeffbuck@swcp.com)
Date: 08/31/02-09:34:27 AM Z
I agree w/ previous remarks re: Bill Brandt. I haven't seen that many of
them though. I have a couple of the books you see around a lot. Anybody
suggest a book title w/ more of his nudes? ... I think Sally Mann said in
some interview or other that BB was her favorite. Did I dream
this? ... AA may have had some issue w/ nudes but he's quoted on the
jacket of "Ruth Bernhard: The Eternal Body," as saying, "Outstanding ...
the greatest photographer of the nude." But who cares.... Anyway, I think
some of you are too hard on dear old Ruth. I'm looking at that "Eternal"
collection here (50 images), and I see two images of a female in a
box. Granted, one is featured on the back cover. And, yes, Judy where I
grew up (Darkest Iowa), the word "box" was used occasionally in the way you
mention. Like you, I can only guess at the Freudian potential. I have to
say that, growing up in Iowa there, I was puzzled at this use of the word
"box" ("'Box?' How is it like a box?").... There are also three images of
the fifty of subjects kind of curled up, fetus-like, in shallow bowls. For
the record. Now, what Arthur says about the box of the photographic frame
comes into play too, in my opinion. There are several images where the
subject appears confined in the photographic frame. Having said all that
(Whose side am I on here?!), there's a lot of stuff in the "Eternal"
collection I like, that I just think is beautiful and, you know, so
there. I don't have Judy's repulsion at the arguable "artsiness." I'm
guessing, Judy, you find the title just about the limit, no? -jb
400, ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote:
>....Point well taken, Judy. But isn't the "frame" itself a kind of
>two-dimensional "box"? Arthur
havo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:51 AM Z CST