Maybe I'm a little strange, but I think pictures like this one are silly.
It's a classic pose; topless woman, photographed from the side, with one hand across her chest and wrapped around so that you can't see her breast. I'm not talking about the whole breast fetish thing (hey, I enjoy seeing them, too, but I do think we'd be better off shaking that), but just the I'm not going to wear a shirt but I'm not going to show you anything, either motif. What's the point? Am I supposed to hope that at the moment of exposure, pun intended, she'll suddenly sneeze, move that hand, and hey, a nipple! Or a mole, but definitely something! Show or don't, but don't be silly about it. Don't play the game of how much can I show before I cross the line? Its an old game, and it's time for a change. There's thousands, hundreds of thousands of shapely young women (living eternally, digitally, too); do we really need two thousand more every year? One perfect bod after another, all ramping up the standards, all air brushed and Photoshopped to a fare-thee-well? Geez. I think it's time, and past time, to rediscover the delights of the well-draped form, the elegance that clothing can provide even to those of us who aren't perfect in line and visage. To experience the pleasures of linen, of fabric, of gauze -- style, suggestion, sophistication.
At least give it a shot. And in the meantime -- get that woman a shirt, okay?
2 comments:
That picture is very contrived. It's not what I'd call "good"; it does remind me of those pictures that people who don't know any better rave over, for a moment or two. (How hoity-toity of me! :-) )
I don't mind the hand, etc, thing, if it's done well. It rarely is, though.
Helmut Newton. Now there's a chap who can photograph women. (Although one of my favorites of his is one his wife took. He's on a lounger, with shaved legs and high heels! It was in the NY Times awhile back, and I've not seen it anywhere else) :-)
Carolyn Ann
I don't think the hand thing CAN be done well. Its just too coy for me. I know I'm being a grouch.
I've seen Helmut's stuff. I know he's talented, but I had a hard time liking it. It's like the fellow, can't recall his name, who took nudes of little kids, about ten years ago. I really do think he was trying for art, not porn -- but when I saw some of them, porn's what I saw. Same thing with Helmut.
Post a Comment