Ender100@aol.com
Date: 09/25/03-05:13:04 PM Z
Judy,
If I promise not to give you "If", will you model for me? I mean if that's
ok... hehehehe
I agree, you have to put things in the context of the time. I assume you
are referring to the shot of Charis by Weston that was reproduced in the last
issue of B&W magazine. I kinda liked the laced up boots with the studs that
make a neat pattern in the composition. I wonder if her wearing the hiking
pants was shocking and unlady-like at the time? Perhaps. However, my reaction
to the shot when I saw it was—here is a lady dressed for hiking who is taking
a rest and sitting in a position that is comfortable and safe since it looks
like she is braced to keep from sliding down a steep incline. I went back
and looked at the image again and still saw pretty much the same thing. I
suppose at the time it was unlady like to sit that way—she didn't look all that
coy to me. I would have spiced the shot up with a haughty stare and a riding
crop. Maybe even smacking her hand with the crop and mouthing the words "Come
to Mama, Eddie, you big, naughty boy!"
There I wrote that without using even one "if". hehehehe
on a related topic, I sometimes think we read an awful lot into images in
terms of the photographer's intent at the time of taking them. I have seen
reviews of images and actually been stunned by the pages of intent that the
reviewer ascribed to the photographer at the time she/he snapped the shutter. But,
being of dull-normal intelligence myself, I rarely find all the thoughts of
potential symbolism, hidden messages and the like in an image when I click my
shutter. I'm more likely worried about falling down into some gorge and
breaking my damn leg. Unless I'm doing nude photography, and then I'm worried
I'll get frostbite or impale my gender on a barrel cactus or something.
What size boots do you wear?
I'll be in New York in a couple of weeks. I'm bringing my cameras. ;)
Mark Nelson
In a message dated 9/23/03 2:46:57 PM, jseigel@panix.com writes:
> Puleeze -- don't give us "IF." The point is, they *didn't* photograph a
> male like that -- until very recently. Or not for general audience "art"
> (possibly Gilbert & George for the gay trade, but even that was 40 to 50
> years later).
>
> The Charises, with the knees coyly up just so, the tight riding pants over
> crotch, etc. etc. were IN THEIR TIME utterly pornographic poses, just
> masked by aura of "art." You cannot cannot cannot judge by our time.
> After all, in the 1890s an actress photographed with her hair backlighted
> was considered blasphemous because the effect created suggested a halo,
> and actresses were considered sinners.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST