[ Post New Message | Post Reply to this One | Send Private Email to Jeff Spirer | Help ]

Response to Images of Women Here

from Jeff Spirer (jeffs@hyperreal.org)
So here's a few of my comments on some of the things that came up.

John said: people pay a lot more for fantasy than reality.

Well that's true, but aren't there a variety of fantasies? Ellen von Unwerth has incredibly erotic photographs that are radically different than what is shown on most web boards.

Tom said: Somehow I don't think Jeff's motivation for making this (and most of his images) is how much money someone might pay as a result.

Well Tom is right. I'm thinking of legally changing my last name to Meatyard so expectations are properly set. (Tom will certainly understand this.)

Tom said (stuff about retro)

Tom is, as usual, corret on this, but I was thinking about what is missing - a more hard-edged, personality driven view of women that is out there right now. Check out Vibe, Details, etc. etc. Or von Unwerth.

John said did you think of letting her use the camera?

Not with my Mamiya 7 and 43mm lens. When I hand people the cameras I use, all of which are rangefinders, the first thing they do is stick their finger into the front of the viewfinder window. Yuck. On the other hand, it is a good idea.

Peter brings up my comment about "kewpie doll" in his posting. Well I went and looked up what "kewpie" means and I see that I used it long wrong. From Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com), used for a small chubby doll with a topknot of hair. So far, I haven't seen this here, but someone please photograph a woman as a kewpie doll.

But what I was getting at was woman as photographic object, without any personality, character, or context. Now I'm not objecting to woman as object, but it seems to be a prevalent viewpoint here. And there don't seem to be any woman posters, which makes me wonder.

(posted 8785 days ago)

[ Previous | Next ]