Ender100@aol.com
Date: 09/22/03-03:04:10 PM Z
Judy,
I have to agree with you about Helmet Newton. I have always enjoyed his
work. I was probably too much a lurker on this list at that time to venture my
opinion that Newton's work was NOT pornography—and perhaps more concerned that
my head stay connected to my neck and I not end up in a Witkin photograph.
Now I am going to stick my neck out to be severed as if by Witkin's camera...
regarding Charis's legs which are strategically pointing to the North and the
South—well, maybe North and Southwest. First, I suppose I should ask what
it is that that strikes you as "soft porn"? I have seen some wonderful work
by Annie Liebowitz that used a similar pose of a female and I did not feel I
was looking at soft porn. I must say I did not feel this when looking at work
by Weston either. Neither soft nor hard. (OK, I'll apologise in advance
for that one) Now if Eddie or Annie had photographed a male in the same pose,
would it be considered the same—soft porn?
Perhaps this is similar to the severed head/geek issue with Witkin. The
photograph gives you the opportunity to stare at something and see what it really
looks like rather than a furtive glance.
I guess in some ways, porn is in the eye of the beholder. The older I get,
I the more I find that I make less distinction between this body part vs that
body part showing in an image. It's all part of the body. I like hands a
lot. I like interesting compositions. Sometimes an interesting composition
might have a naughty bit showing, unless you cover it with black electrician's
tape.
So, to each his own.
Again, I paraphrase a favorite quote attributed to Mae West when asked the
difference between art and pornography: "The lighting!"
Mark Nelson
(cleverly distracting the conversation from Indigo)
In a message dated 9/22/03 11:33:57 AM, jseigel@panix.com writes:
> So while we're having this nice friendly discussion about "controversial"
> photography, I draw attention to an EXTREMELY interesting article in
> yesterday's NY Times (Style Section, if memory serves) about Helmut
> Newton. We had a discussion about him on the list a few years ago, with,
> I believe, the consensus condemning him for "pornography." I myself,
> considering Newton one of the greats, explained that the actual problem
> isn't so much pornography, but pornography that masquerades as art -- for
> instance E. Weston's shots of Charis with her legs spread (very soft porn
> indeed by today's standards of course, but the lubricious element is
> always ignored in the winds of hagiography.)
>
> Newton's "pornograpy," or lubricity, is right front & center -- honest in
> other words -- and IMO extremely well done.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST