Re: Artist I have been looking at during this nude discussion

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 08/31/02-08:30:03 PM Z


Good Grief, if those Bernhards are "the eternal body," I'm the queen of
the May. and would you take Ansel Adams's opinion on ANYTHING beyond zone
5 with minus development? I mean the man is presumably a master
technician, but he is, for heaven's sake, a CALENDAR ARTIST.

J.

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Jeff Buck wrote:

> 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
>


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:51 AM Z CST