From: Jeff Buck (jeffbuck@swcp.com)
Date: 09/01/02-07:31:23 AM Z
I wasn't taking his word on this. I just brought it up because somebody
said something about there being a nude on the wall in his house..... -jb
At 10:30 PM 8/31/2002 -0400, Judy Seigel wrote:
>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
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:07 PM Z CST