Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/10/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Sep 30, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Kyle Cassidy wrote: > >>>> http://www.kylecassidy.com/lj/2007/liz-dress1.jpg > >> indeed correct Kyle, more than correct...since she as photographed >> looks roughly 14-16 yo... >> by choice I guess... >> I looked at her web site, so I knew she was 33yo. >> So why did you and she make her look 20 years younger...and put her >> into that setting...? >> Why indeed? >> The answer can indeed be found in google...more likely in the words >> ambiguity, titillation, exploitation, opportunism... > > If I could by choice make women look half their age, I wouldn't be > photographing war veterans, I'd be photographing the cover of Vogue > every month. Fortunately for Liz, and unfortunately for me, that's > just simply the way she looks, we didn't do makeup or styling, it > was a spur of the moment thing in the last hour of a Sunday afternoon. > > But Steve makes an extremely important point. If I'd posted this > image with the subject line "Photo of my friend Elizabeth" -- my > guess is that a few people would have clicked on it, but not nearly > as many as actually did because they suspected they were to see > something on the very edges of propriety. My own somewhat > vacillating definition of "work safe" is "no more skin than you can > see on prime time U.S. television commercials" -- so there was > obviously nothing that I thought wasn't work safe about this photo > -- you can see this much skin in church on Sunday in most places in > America, and were there a teenager standing on a street corner > holding a scarf in her mouth like that not even Jerry Fallwell > would have pulled his car over to tell her to stop making a > scandal. So, as Steve correctly points out, I am guilty of > attempting to mislead people into thinking the photo is naughtier > than _I_ think it is. But if I'm doing that because i'm trying to > be ironic or truculent, I can't honestly say, it's just what comes > out of my mouth. > > I do think that if I'd titled it "photo of my 16 year old chewing > on a brightly colored piece of fabric" people would have probably > said "very funny image!" and nobody would have thought it > inappropriate and we all would have gone on about our business -- > it would be an interesting experiment. But what lead anyone to > suspect that there was something off kilter here? I don't think it > was the image, I think it was a combination of the title, and the > revelation that what people thought at first was a necktie was > actually a skirt -- somehow that seems racier than a tie. Those two > bits of information tint the way we view the photo. After all, the > same photo titled "sleeping man" and "murder victim" elicit > different reactions from us, despite the fact that there is no > visual difference. (as an anecdotal aside, I had someone on > photo.net rate an image I took of president bush with a single star > -- the photo wasn't about to win a Pulitzer, but it was obviously > competent and the viewer gave it a rating based on something other > than it's visual merits.) > > over the last ... nine years ... I've posted far more scandalous > things than Liz chewing on a skirt here. I must admit that I'm > surprised that this one generated that much attention for anything > other than the lighting, which i think is nice, but I'm happy for > the opportunity to discuss what are very relevant, deeper, and more > important issues of age, gender, and propriety in photography in > general and fashion in particular. Next time you're in a dentists > office and pick up a copy of Cosmo, or Vogue, or W -- think about > Steve's valid criticism -- where does all this fit in with > "ambiguity, titillation, exploitation, opportunism..." -- because > he's right, it's all there. But why do we click on it? Why do we > read it? Why do we buy it? good questions all... thanks Kyle, Steve > > kc > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information