Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/21

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] what we talk about when we talk about women
From: Teresa299@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:34:53 EDT

Kyle and LUG,

Wow.

The power of words, the power of...breasts.

Let me state for the record that yes, I'm a woman.  As such I possess (though 
small) a pair of breasts.  They occasionally hurt when I'm PMSing, can oft 
times offer me as well as others -pleasure, demand once a week checks for 
suspicious lumps, must be covered at times with a bra so as to be 
"appropriate," amongst uptight company.  They're a part of my anatomy, I've 
had 'em for 30 years and quite frankly I feel that I can call them what I 
want.  Tits, breasts, mosquito bites, whatever.  

It was probably my comment to BD that got the ball rolling on this thread.  
After several back and forth comments by Henry Ting who was raving about the 
"technique" of Kyle's photo and BD who was less impressed with "technique" 
and begged to be told what was so special to Henry about the photo.  In jest, 
I wrote, "Tits."

Why?  Because I was amused that apparently a list of 800 (mostly men) could 
look at the photo and besides the obligatory "NICE SHOT KYLE," only discuss 
depth of field and the fogged lens technique as what was needed to be 
discussed by his intriguing shot.  Colleen's flashed/exposed body parts 
(breasts and belly) were literally the elephant in the room that no one on 
the list seemed (or still seems) to want to talk about..which seems pretty 
bogus to me.   Sure, I could have written a one page discourse on Colleen's 
pose vs. artistic intent vs. uses of the body vs. erotic messeges...but I 
don't get the feeling many folks read my posts anyway, so why bother wasting 
my time?  After all, the title of this thread is "WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE 
TALK ABOUT WOMEN," but other than Kyle's defense of Colleen and Lea's 
admonition of the use of the word "tits," I can't see where anyone in this 
thread has talked about women.  

One simple word however, got a lot of attention.  Funny how that works. 

What is the purpose of this list?  For some it seems they'd be most 
comfortable with the list (and perhaps life) only being about tools.  Leica 
ones.  For others,  it's also about using ones tools and sharing the images.  
If one is expected to comment on an image, I hope there is room to discuss 
content other than technique, lest the concept of PAWS merely becomes an 
exercise in composition.  Does anyone want to talk content of shots?  If so, 
then the list, de facto, moves into a realm where different people have 
different perceptions, senses of humour, sensitivities and the like.  

As for the derisiveness of comments towards Colleen, I didn't see any.  Maybe 
the word "tits" is de facto derisive to you Kyle and perhaps others, but 
quite frankly I don't see it anymore derisive than the word "chick" which has 
also been jocularly bantered about the LUG as well.  

As for models, I too use my friends as models.  And sometimes they pose nude. 
 Even though they're my friends, I always have them do the same thing that I 
have my paid models do....sign a model release.  Why?  Because it forces me 
as well as them to intentionally dialogue about what is my intent with the 
end use of the photo.  Is it for our own private portfolios for no one else 
to see but ourselves and perhaps friends?  Might it end up in a public 
portfolio such as a website or the LUG?  If so, I ALWAYS warn them that their 
image will be up for public consumption.  Meaning there will be those that 
will write certain things about them, or the image and I have no control over 
what will be written.  Whats more, and perhaps more importantly there will be 
those that THINK certain thoughts in reaction to the image which I have no 
control over.  Moreover, if the shot is sensual or erotic or sexual in 
nature, even though it's on my website, it can be downloaded, and thus used 
for whatever self-pleasuring pursuit the viewer wishes to do with it.  As an 
artist, I have no control over that reality, but I always make it clear to my 
models, paid or unpaid, my intentions as well as the possible repercussions 
of their participating in a shot. 
 
Brian attempted to resurrect a/the fascinating discussion that MIGHT have 
arisen out of Kyle's shot...which had to do with nudity, portraiture, 
artistic intent and the like....to me the shot was both erotic/playful 
portraiture as well as a borderline glamour shot.  Does the fact that there 
is something potentially erotic or sexually pleasureable or commercial about 
the shot make it anyless artistic?  There were so many possible issues that 
arose both out of the shot and it's ensuing thread, yet, no one else really 
wanted to want to comment on it the elephant in the room.  Strange.  Maybe 
folks are too afraid of being spanked about being not PC, maybe folks are too 
afraid of getting "off-topic" again, maybe we lack the skills to honestly 
admit what we're thinking about the content of a shot.  Maybe the LUG really 
should be for just talking Leica tools and shooting (safe) bugs (the 
non-naked ones) as subject matter.

I don't know.

My 20cents worth.

- --kim


  


In a message dated 4/20/02 9:50:17 PM, kcassidy@asc.upenn.edu writes:

<< >Well said Photo Phreak ... on a subject that is
>"taboo"... to a point that a woman's beauty, is
>becoming politically incorrect to comment on.

there's nothing wrong with commenting on a woman (or anyone's) physical
attractiveness. it is the derisiveness of some of these comments which
bothers me. when you say "wow, nice tits doll" you are not commenting on
someone's beauty, you're deriding them.

while i'm certainly guilty of objectification of my subjects -- and i don't
think that's necessarily wrong -- i do respect them. they're human beings,
they're my friends, and they've trusted me. it's a betrayal of that trust if
they then become the victims of oafish commentary. like the photographs or
dislike them, but realize what risks models take when they put themselves in
front of our cameras, especially when we ask them to take off their clothes
first; they're making themselves vulnerable because they trust us to make
something beautiful or meaningful -- as photographers and (hopefully)
artists we are influencing how people around us think and how they behave.
this is an awesome responsibility. i hope that i do justice to my subjects
when i represent them. there are enough girls out there every day getting
run over by the modeling industry, who get talked into doing things they
don't really want to do by unscrupulous people, i don't want to contribute
to that.

and please remember, this mailing list isn't ted and b.d. and me and marc
and whoever sitting on your back porch drinking beer at 1:00 in the morning
at a hunting lodge in the remote wilderness of wyoming, it's a worldwide
forum with thousands of people listening and a searchable archive. whatever
you think you may be saying to just a few other people is going into the
mailboxes of many.

i may not be serious about much, but i'm serious about how photographers
treat their models. and if i've taken someone who trusted me with the image
of their own self worth and opened them up to mockery, i've failed in that
contract and i need to go back to photographing bugs.

i would suggest that when commenting on someone's physical appearance, even
when you think you are complementing them, (and by this i mean the royal
"you," meaning "all of us") imagine someone else is saying it about your
wife or daughter before you commit it to the public record. because that's
who we're talking about -- we're talking about the way that we, as artists,
are conditioning the world to look at all women.

i happen to think that's a beautiful shot -- and were i to see colleen, i'd
say "hey, you look great."

just my .02

kc




 >>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from "Joseph Codispoti" <joecodi@clearsightusa.com> (Re: [Leica] what we talk about when we talk about women)