Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] FW: Friedlander & Madonna: Switcheroo..
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 12:21:40 -0500
References: <7ablht$401d1e@pd5mo1no-svcs.prod.shaw.ca> <BLU0-SMTP12F5BB174F0072D1FD870C8C6D0@phx.gbl> <050120090323.23522.49FA6B39000C934100005BE2223045151403010CD2079C080C03BF970A9D9F9A0B9D09@mchsi.com> <01ff01c9ca0e$20fe4f20$62faed60$@net> <25D12EA955074C8FB40DA0468D19E598@Family> <9297DB8B-1092-43F2-9C01-9658DDA34B3D@mac.com> <050320091426.17175.49FDA98900023CC200004317223245003003010CD2079C080C03BF970A9D9F9A0B9D09@mchsi.com>

And I respect your opinion Gene;
as you're discussing the aesthetic
and technical aspects of the image
from your own perspective.

You didn't refer to the model as a slut;
or question the photographer's intentions;
or bring your personal moral judgement
to the image.

Regards,
George Lottermoser
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist

On May 3, 2009, at 9:26 AM, grduprey at mchsi.com wrote:

>
>
> George,
>
>
> I enjoy nude photos just as much as the next guy.  However, I find  
> nothing good about this photo at all.  The composition, exposure,  
> pose are all bad, a bad snapshot in my opinion.  It gets its value  
> from who took it and the subject, and nothing else.  To me it is a  
> bad snapshot by a famous photographer.
>
>
> Gene
>   -------------- Original message from George Lottermoser  
> <imagist3 at mac.com>: --------------
>
>
>> Well said Douglas.
>> I find the knee jerk, negative reaction to blatant human sexuality,
>> paradoxically, both understandable [because of cultural taboos] and
>> odd [because of my personal appreciation of beauty].
>>
>> Does anyone think this is not a a well composed rectangular frame of
>> a beautiful young woman in her prime?
>> I assume that if she wore jeans some, who object, would find it a
>> beautiful photograph.
>> So does it come down to "we're not supposed to see [or be shown]
>> human genitals in photographs?"
>> It's okay to photograph the horrors of war but not the beauty of
>> sexuality and human desire?
>> Then take the judgement so far as to judge the model a "slut?"
>>
>> If this image were a beautiful drawing or painting would some of the
>> objectors have a less prudish reaction?
>> Most painters and sculptors, we now admire as historically "best,"
>> have similar poses in their body of work.
>> Is the photographic medium just too "real" for reality?
>>
>> Regards,
>> George Lottermoser
>> george at imagist.com
>> http://www.imagist.com
>> http://www.imagist.com/blog
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>>
>> On May 1, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Douglas Barry wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Frank Filippone"  wrote
>>>> $37.5K is cheap?
>>>>
>>>> I am jealous... I wish I could sell some garbage photos for this
>>>> kind of cash.......  forget the topic of a nude.....
>>>>
>>>> I have seen a lot of stuff that I consider garbage, in collections
>>>> like the Getty, MOMA, and others.  Big prints, probably big
>>>> bucks.  I really wonder if art collectors and gallery owners, and
>>>> Museums actually have anyone on staff that knows the difference
>>>> between something worthwhile and something that is worthless...
>>>> worthless in the sense of intrinsic value, qualitative value, or
>>>> otherwise quality in general.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, have to disagree.
>>>
>>> People decide what moves them, and what to pay for it. What one
>>> person likes may not necessarily be liked by you or I, but, for the
>>> person who buys it, it may pull a certain string in their heart.
>>> The fact that the price reached 37.5k was not just driven by the
>>> image but also by the combination of the Friedlander & Ciccione
>>> names, just as the presence of an Olympic recordholder adds lustre
>>> & price to a sports image: a similar image of a club athlete at a
>>> small local sports event would not necessarily have the same cachet
>>> or price.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I liked the confrontational composition which we all seem
>>> to agree was confrontational :-)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Douglas
>>> _________
>>> Douglas Barry
>>> Bray, Co. Wicklow
>>> Republic of Ireland
>>>
>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/DouglasBray/MiguelGeary.jpg.html
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] FW: Friedlander & Madonna: Switcheroo..)
Message from vick.ko at sympatico.ca (Vick Ko) ([Leica] FW: Friedlander & Madonna: Switcheroo..)
Message from grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey at mchsi.com) ([Leica] FW: Friedlander & Madonna: Switcheroo..)
Message from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] FW: Friedlander & Madonna: Switcheroo..)
Message from imra at iol.ie (Douglas Barry) ([Leica] FW: Friedlander & Madonna: Switcheroo..)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] FW: Friedlander & Madonna: Switcheroo..)
Message from grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey at mchsi.com) ([Leica] FW: Friedlander & Madonna: Switcheroo..)