Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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