From: Peter Marshall (petermarshall@cix.co.uk)
Date: 10/03/03-07:17:17 AM Z
> I would absolutely agree... My recollection of Weston's Day Books is
> that
> they also reek sex. What was so irritating was --not just the
> sanitizing
> (good word), the holy aura of art draped over all -- and the iteration
> of plainly erotic images as if they were holy cards. If you noticed the
> sexuality, you were some kind of pervert.
I think that there are two regrettable tendencies in writing about Weston
and sex, both hard to avoid at times. The second is dwelling too much on
the various affairs. My problem with some of Weston's nudes is that though
many undoubtedly are erotic, others are less sexy than the vegetables, and
this rather worries me.
Not only did he make plenty of obviously erotic pictures, but there are
also many images that reveal his sense of humour about the subject.
One of the greatest bargains I've bought in the past year was the two
volume key set of Alfred Steiglitz's pictures from the National Gallery of
Art in Washington. This has 1642 of his photographs (and a few more not in
the key set.) It weighs a ton, I've had to throw away a computer to find a
space from it, and I got it with a free shipping offer from Amazon which
probably cost them more than I paid. The book was only possible because of
a large grant from Kodak.
The picture you mention is reproduced on page 382 of volume 1. It was
taken in 1920, when Georgia (according to her later note printed with the
picture) was 14 and she had to pose for more than an hour until Steiglitz
was happy that light, pose and expression were perfect. There is also
another picture from the same session of Georgia naked on a blanket on the
lawn.
Of course both are pictures that today would probably get Steiglitz locked
up!
Peter Marshall
Photography Guide at About http://photography.about.com/
email: photography.guide@about.com
_________________________________________________________________
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
and elsewhere......
>
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Greg Schmitz wrote:
>
> > ... I thought the photograph of Charis was
> > sexually charged the minute I saw it, and took that as the intention
> > of both Edward and Charis. I don't think either of them hid the
> > erotic nature of what they were about or up to. I don't have a copy
> > of CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST at hand but as I recall Charis, in the 1st
> > or 2nd paragraph, mentions that after receiving the letter awarding
> > the Guggenheim they 'performed some calisthenics appropriate to the
> > occasion.' I wasn't around in 1940 (or was it '41) but I suspect that
> > might have been considered kind of "racy" at that time. A friend of
> > mine knew, worked and partied with Charis in the late 1970's. Based
> > on his accounts of her she was quite "sexual" and didn't make any
> > attempt to hide it. Any misinterpretation of the image, IMHO, would
> > have been by the folks who embraced Weston and his work. After all
> > Nancy Newhall did much to "sanitize" Weston's writings as did others.
>
> I would absolutely agree... My recollection of Weston's Day Books is
> that
> they also reek sex. What was so irritating was --not just the
> sanitizing
> (good word), the holy aura of art draped over all -- and the iteration
> of plainly erotic images as if they were holy cards. If you noticed the
> sexuality, you were some kind of pervert.
>
> However, here's a funny one: I have come into the two catalogs of the
> upcoming Phillips de Pury & Luxembourg auctions, October 16/17 & 18.
> These
> are amazing in themselves, beautifully printed and fascinating
> selection... many by famous people are great photos I'd never seen...
> (Lacking a monograph on the photographer, often the same 2 or 3 images
> are
> all you see.)
>
> But there was, among several Edward Westons, one titled "Charis" -- a
> closeup of one naked breast with a patch of underarm hair upper left.
> OK,
> not exactly revolutionary, but the text tells us that there's a pencil
> dedication on the photo's mount: "To Carlos from his friend Edward,
> 1935."
>
> hunh?
>
> It's 4-1/2 by 3-5/8 inches. The estimated price is $25,000 to $35,000.
>
> The first auction is some of the Joshua P. Smith collection, the 2nd &
> 3rd
> are individual consignments. There's an amazing Helen Levitt on the
> cover
> of the Smith catalog -- the kid with a popsicle in one hand, pistol in
> the
> other. The back cover is a Lee Friedlander. I'd thought his shadow
> pictures verged on gimmicky... But now i wonder if it wasn't just the
> reproduction. Anyway, this one is a pale shadow on a white wall, kind of
> scuffed along the bottom & exquisite.
>
> Plus hundreds more, mostly great, with however my nomination for the
> sappiest photograph of all time, by of all people, Alfred Stieglitz: his
> naked niece Georgia, pouting in the hole of an open window of an old
> house, bare bottomed on splintery wood, leaning her head against the
> jamb,, suggesting your basic headache. She's clutching 3 apples, in
> order,
> the text tells us, to symbolize fertility. Estimated price, $150,000 to
> $300,000.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST