No fashion, no "cheese-art-cake", no "kewpie dolls", no model tests--and certainly nothing anyone is going to pay for! Just a real woman in the midst of her natural cycle. Now may be the time to ponder precisely *why* we don't have more women posting to these boards. BTW, by Shawn's own definition of pornography--"blatent [sic] sexual activity, and nude children"--this image does not qualify. So I presume it won't be deleted?

-- Peter Hughes (leo948@yahoo.com), March 08, 2000

Answers

Michael (whose post is towards the end of this discussion): Sorry to hear that.

As for the moderation: I ALMOST deleted this when I saw it, but it is NOT an "attempt at pornography", even if, in some peoples TASTE, it is 'artless', and even if some of the responses to it are more emotional than rational.

Peter tried to qualify what he was doing from an artistic PoV, and I believe forums are for learning; i.e., Peter was trying to be 'artistic' with this photo, whether or not he succeeded in others' eyes. He was also responding, in part, to a completely valid previous post.

And the negativity this post inspired was a better guarantee that this site does NOT get pornography than a simple moderation rule would bring.

Have a nice day :-)

Shawn

-- shawn gibson (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.

Well, I can perfectly understand Jeff's point, and I agree with him to some extent. This image doesn't bother me at all, by the way (if anyone's curious...). I have to be honest about the cycle thing, though: wording it like you have, it immediately made me think of a woman's 'cycle', i.e., her period, and you seem (therefore) to be editorializing on that aspect of womanhood. Which may or may not be your point...I dunno...?

shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 08, 2000.

I too agree with Jeff's message ( at least to some extent), which is why I posted the above. "Images of women" don't all have to be one thing or another. I spent a couple of years documenting "average" women with my 8x10 camera. (See: http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeterthewomen.htm) But there is an undeniable satisfaction in making a beautiful photo of a traditionally beautiful woman. Now why does such a woman have to be stereotyped as a "kewpie doll"? That's demeaning. After all, she can't help it that's she's beautiful. So what should I as a photographer do? Try to make her less so in my images of her?

And yes, I am editorializing a bit when I draw attention to her menstruation. This is a fairly taboo subject in our patriarchal culture. And the few images I've seen of menstruating women have all been done by other women. It seems heretical to many that a man should make such images.

-- Peter Hughes (leo948@yahoo.com), March 08, 2000.

One extreme to the other.

What was that editorial point? Please make it more plainly so I can get to it... How does this image enlighten me, or anyone? As clinical data? Nothing new there... Is this done with any sense of photographic grace? Nope... Composed well? Nope... Politically astute? Needs some context, man... With any hint of admiration? It's a funny way to show it... Does it illustrate the transformation and amplification of women's spiritual and psychic power during the period of transformation? No...

It is pointless at best, and completely artless. Is this part of your series that you abandoned when you tired of the "artlessness"? When you realized it never would sell? (your words) You cut the head off a bloody body, the light is dead on frontal, completely forensic in application, as if in a medical examiner's office.

Further, you describe women who are not "traditionally" beautiful as "average" and in your website describe your photographs of them as artless. Well isn't that your personal problem? Why don't you try making "beautiful" pictures of "average" women instead of brutalising them with this kind of photographic sensibility. Why do you save beautiful lighting and compositional techniques for "traditionally" beautiful women. I submit it is you that needs to inspect your definition of "beautiful" when it comes to "average" women. You have no idea, your capacity for denial is colossal, the bitterness is overwhelming... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 09, 2000.

And as Jeff points out in his rabblerousing (previous) post "without any personality, character, or context"... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 09, 2000.

This is a personal attack, Tom, filled with invective and *your own* bitterness. The very tone is offensive. And I won't answer questions fired at me in this way.

-- Peter Hughes (leo948@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

Right. That image is a personal attack. Do you think you can put that up and not get an intense response? That's what "pushing the envelope" is all about, sometimes it comes apart in your face.

I'm on the east coast, later... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 09, 2000.

response "All right, let's push the envelope a bit here"

Well, a photographer makes his statements with light. Considering this, I don't see very much. Soft frontal lighting may be OK with a subject like this, but in general it is not very interesting. If the bloody thighs (!) are the thing here, the chest and arms (especially the left) and the right hand are too light. If those areas are the main point here, OK, but I don't see it like that. Very elementary of course, but usually it's better if the most important part is lighter.

Sakari

P.S. I'd like to see her face, too...

-- Sakari Makela (sakari.makela@koulut.vantaa.fi), March 09, 2000.

Peter,

I am going to try to keep my necessarily "personal" response "objective".

I grant that you have indeed " pushed the envelope". But I am not sure in what direction, or why. Even while I begin to express the reaction that I find myself having, it is with misgivings... somehow I feel that I am permitting myself to be "led" to a place I would not choose to go, on my own.

First, I should establish that I am commenting on what I THINK is in the photo. ( dirty-looking marks on the inner thighs... blood?) ( vague object between legs...crumpled aluminum foil "tray"?) (dark substance in tray... blood?)

Trying to grasp the Point?..Statement?..Theme? No success. Seemingly unashamed (proud?) display of "symbol" of femininity (menstrual cycle)... VS seemingly ashamed covering of "symbols" of femininity (breasts).

Re. "women not posting to this site" because of the type(s) portrayed in the postings here; judging by the reaction of my (intelligent, adventurous, proud-WITH-"attitude") girlfriend, if there are postings here that she sees as less than complimentary to womankind, this depersonalised, unflattering, crudely-intimate shot heads the list.

Re. "menstruation as taboo"/"menstruation as photo-subject"; permit some (somewhat lengthy) analogies - It is one of the miracles of human (female) experience that the womb "prepares itself" to nourish a new being. Another such "miracle is the coagulation of blood at a surface-of-the-body wound (stops blood loss/covers,protects wound during healing). Still another "miracle" is the assimilation of nourishment into the body from the ingestion of food. And one more ("miracle"), is the contribution (male) of sperm to the formation of the "new being".

It does not follow from the fact that these phenomena are "wondrous" though, that anything associated with them is somehow a "treasure", with esthetic qualities which make its preservation on film, and prominant display, desirable. This observation accounts for the fact that (respectively) menstrual discharge, scabs, feces, and spent semen are usually consigned to the sewer, rather than the mantlepiece.

Re. the "images" men have, of women...and the "images" women have of themselves; I am wondering if the subject of this photo is "proud to have participated" in this graphic statement, and if so, why? And, with no intention to give offense (this is all "subjective", remember!), I find that there is a hint of "look at the demeaning manner in which I was able to get "her" to pose, in this display. (I am stating my reaction to the photograph...of course I have no way of knowing the thoughts of the photogapher.)

So, I am left wondering what this is all about...other than just "stirring-the-pot" for its own sake. I constantly marvel at the things some of us choose, from all that there is to do with our creativity...but hey!, some people choose to be undertakers. Different strokes I guess!

Long live free expression... "warts" and all!

-- Larry H. Smith (LaryHS@webtv.net), March 09, 2000.

All right, Tom, wipe the foam off your chin, take a chill pill and tell me precisely WHY the image is a personal attack.

Frankly, I don't see how an *image* can be a personal attack. Photography records what *is*; how can you make a value judgement about that?! And if you think the picture sucks technically or esthetically, fine, but that should hardly elicit the kind of emotional diatrabe you directed at me. Methinks the photographer doth protest too much.

Sometimes stirring up the mud is of great value, because it allows the slime that has settled to the bottom to get some light and air, and thus, may allow for a little cleansing.

-- Peter Hughes (leo948@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

oh boy....warts...the man said warts, I don't think this photo "shocks" like the real "shockers" do. I always tear into Peter for his composition and I won't this time although he deserves it again. Peter, I described this series on another forum.... as if it was torn from the Halloween edition of Hustler's Beaver Shots and I'll stand by that. It doesn't shock or disgust or shake my system of beliefs ...it's simply mildly unappealing. This photo remains farthest thing from "dangerous" I've ever seen. It screams "look how hard I'm trying to be originally dangerous in my smashing of conventions"....but falls so horribly short as make me weak at the thought of your fellow alumni seeing it. Sorry pete, but some things cannot be taught.

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), March 09, 2000.

BTW, if I may speculate about why more women don't post to photo forum sites, one reason might be because a great many of the images of women posted to such sites portray them as skinny bimbos in frilly underwear--"Glamour" and "Boudoir" photography being blatant examples. If a woman isn't traditionally beautiful, if she is over thirty and/or a few pounds overweight, she is not regarded as a suitable subject for this type of soft-core porn. And the polite large-format nudes that pass as "art" are no better, skillfully concealing pubic and other body hair; moles, warts and other "flaws"; and denying women's bodily functions as though they were all something shameful.

What I wanted to do in this photo was to attack this kind of neo- pictorialist drivel head-on, with flat, revealing lighting and an 8x10 camera. (I apologize for the JPEG, which is a bit light on the right side. I assure you all that the gold-toned contact print is exquisite.)

BTW, the object between the woman's thighs is a rock, one which my wife found on the beach, and which contains a red mineral that reminded her of blood. The name of the photo, "Moonrock", refers to the woman's "moon time." The rock was bled on and, after the shoot, placed on the subject's altar, as a healing totem; the woman had some terrible issues regarding menstruation that had been imprinted on her by Church and society when she was growing up.

The photo is also a deliberate antitheis to the moon rocks of patriarchal "exploration"--the dead, lifeless rocks that NASA astronauts raped from the moon surface in the name of science--all while leaving piles of their space junk behind. A metaphor, I submit, for the way women (and nature) are raped and explored, er, exploited in our society.

-- Peter Hughes (leo948@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

Trib, if you think this photo was "torn from the Halloween edition of Hustler's Beaver Shots", then you have a lot to learn. And you're right, some things cannot be taught.

-- Peter Hughes (leo948@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

Peter, Thanks for the "context".

Of course, given (which no-one was, at first) the symbolism and personal meaning of the "Moonrock" photo-ceremony, (as well as an understanding of just what it is we are looking at), some different responses may be elicited.

I like to think that some of the "heat" in parts of this thread might have been lessened by a "pre" rather than "post"-sharing of some of your thinking. "Et tu Brute?" wouldn't have much to say to a non-Latin-speaking listener who knew nothing of Roman history or stage-plays. To me the "story-behind-it" is the ONLY thing that gives substance to this somewhat vague (at least on MY screen) and esthetically lacking shot.

My sympathies to your wife on the "church-harm"...nothing new there (unfortunately)!

Larry

-- Larry H. Smith (LarrHS@webtv.net), March 09, 2000.

Many years ago, when I was a student at R.I.T., we were given an assignment to take a photo in the style of a photographer we admired.

Now, in those days, Weston's famous "pepper" was very controversial. The general consensus among us young, male, hot-shots was that "anyone could do it." I often expressed the sentiment myself.

So I decided to find out if indeed anyone could do it. I got a 4x5 camera (I couldn't find an 8x10, nor could I have used one in the unlikely event that I could have found one), bought some sheet film, a funnel and a pepper, and arrogantly set out to prove that the master had feet of clay. Need I say that my shot was a very pale imitation of the real thing? Not only did I discover how difficult it was to get that shot from a technical and esthetic standpoint, but I realized, however dimly, that for a person to even *conceive* of such a picture they had to be a far more evolved soul that I was at that time.

Thus, I propose the following assignment: put your lenses where your mouths are and illustrate the topic of menstruation with your camera. Then post the results to this forum and well all take a look. For those of you who lack what it takes to actually *do* it, I propose a thought experiment: IF I did it, how would I do it? Where would I get the subject? (Wives and girlfriends not allowed.) What if nature didnt cooperate timing-wise? And how would I shoot it? What approach would I use? And (gasp!) what would people say about it?! What, indeed, would my wife (or girlfriend) say if I told her that I wanted to photograph another woman menstruating? (Just to clarify, the subject of the photo is not my wife--though she was present at the shoot.)

I submit that carrying out such an experiment, either actually or in the mind, would be very enlightening for anyone willing to undertake it.

-- Peter Hughes (leo948@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

Don't know how much "heaviness" is behind all these comments,... but it's starting to weigh on this reader (patriarchal==evil!/matriarchal=good?, exploration=eploitation, men=women=rape,etc.).

Weston "conceives" of "pepper" photo...therefore is more highly evolved than Peter (at that time). Peter "conceives" of "menstruation" photo... therefore is more highly evolved than other list members ?!

Some members may lack "what it takes" to accept Peter's "assignment"/challenge/dare, "actually" OR as thought exercise. And this "what it takes" is ? Equipment?.."Gumption"?...or maybe (as in my case) interest?!

Before I could get to the issues of How?, Where?, Who?, etc., I'd want to get past Why?. Speaking for myself, ..can't do it!

Will manage somehow, in whatever degree of ignorance, without the "enlightenment" to be found in the "menstruation" project. (I'm not saying there would be none... just don't feel a "need" for it, personally. I think I "lack" undertaker-enlightment, too. Oh well!)

There seems to be much psychological/philosophical food for thought floating around in this soup. Many of the remarks seem to be emotionally"loaded". Interesting enough in its own way, but not really what I joined this list for (this is not an "off-topic" complaint..just an observation.)

The sun is shining ... not a constant here in Oregon. One thing I DO "lack"..DO feel a "need for , is some "positive" imagery. Think I'll go outside for awhile!

-- Larry H. Smith (LarryHS@webt.net), March 09, 2000.

Correction to above posting: "men=women=rape" should read "men+women=rape".

-- Larry H. Smith (LarryHS@webtv.net), March 09, 2000.

well Pete, I'm not one for competitions or challenges or posing or forcing or any other of the number of things you do so wrong. I'll just let the photos come to me, I'll be the recording device and not an artist....ok?

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), March 09, 2000.

Well, just when I ran out of Pop-photo self assignments, Peter enters with a winner!

Thanks Pete! What's next, aborted long-term fetus eating contest?

Yikes!!

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 09, 2000.

O boy I'm crackin' up! Ain't touchin' this one!!! Just don't slam each other into deletion...

PMRC & Tipper I hear are the culprits, but who cares...

yikes...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

hee oh man a foetus eating contest...I love it...hey robert how bout that witch nativity thingy up there...make you hungry? he should rename it "baby on a blanket" and quit with the kooky titles...or at least splatter the baby's tummy with a pentagram in fake blood (I doubt mommy morticia would really mind)... then put yiddle fangs in his mouth and make it into a campy thing...or simply taken the time to find a natural altar. YYYyyyyyaaaaawwwnnn....gosh everday is halloween....hey Pete you don't hang out at Gothgirls.com in your free time do ya? Here's a novel idea....I'll give it to you free of charge...How bout' hardcore goth boys and girls taken in a kmart or school photo cookie cutter fashion....you know, nice flattering softboxes....crazy Laser-scape paper background....gothy gargoyle ring on the chin...nothing moody about the lighting or anything just sop americana...

-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), March 10, 2000.

Talk, talk, talk! Only a weak image needs words to explain it. Frank

-- Frank Scheitrowsky (fscheitrowsky@interhop.net), March 10, 2000.

OOOUUUCCHHH! Meow... hisssssssss, two saucers of milk and a corner table for two......

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 11, 2000.

Agree with Frank :) I find this thread very interesting in spite of the fact that it was started by the posting of a very average and inconsequential shot. To me the female period is a fact of life, and - fortunately - I was not brought up to find it shameful and unclean. Therefore the picture does not provoke me in any way. My only reaction to it is that it4s simply bad photography - badly lit, badly composed, badly cropped.

:) Christel

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), March 11, 2000.

Another fact of life is taking a dump. Make a close up that at the supreme moment. That will take it a little farther. (lens cleaner?) Shawn, it went too far for me. This has nothing to do with women, just senationalism for attention. Since there is no moderation here, this site will only have a seldom look at to see "what next". Bookmark is gone!

-- Michael Duplechian (miked@beci.net), March 13, 2000.

Michael (and others): please see my reply to your response at the beginning of the post (under the admin. email). shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.

No "cattiness" was intended in my previous post! I simply put forward a criteria for good photography that works for me, that is: a strong image is capable of communicating what was intended by the photographer without the need for explanation. If a photograph is able to communicate, it is effective. Bye for meow, Frank

-- Frank Scheitrowsky (fscheitrowsky@interhop.net), March 14, 2000.

-- alan (adale6@excite.com), April 06, 2000.