From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/26/03-04:44:03 PM Z
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 Ender100@aol.com wrote:
> 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!"
My point was that because he covered the photographs with a veneer of
"art," the content was masked... Not just the riding breeches, but most of
the others (backwards on the chair, belly down in the sand, tho that may
have been someone else), and how about the one soooo very artsy fartsy of
the naked lady head down knees up, I mean talk about coy! -- none of them
real raunch by today's standards, but a subtext ignored, even invisible
because of the aura of *art.*
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST