I was going to post this image in the "Eyes!" thread by Chris Yeager, but the discussion was getting a bit deep there for this shot. Here we see two homecoming queen candidates at the local high school prior to the coronation.

-- Scott Flathouse (seflathouse.pampa@celanese.com), October 04, 2000

Answers

Which one was the winner?

-- Colin Miller (ckmiller@pond.net), October 04, 2000.

Actually, neither one won. They were two in a field of 7 or 8 candidates.

-- Scott Flathouse (seflathouse.pampa@celanese.com), October 04, 2000.

i think the damn thing is terrific. sure, i know that the creativity factor is about the same level as the ralph nader's position in the presidential polls, but the truth is that this image is wonderfully representative of something that casual photography can supply to a viewer *or to a participant* at an unmatched level of accomplishment: the documentation of the beauty of the human form. if the capture of an instant of reality in a pleasing fashion is "a good thing", then nothing can match representative photography. certainly an effort to make photographs closer to interpretive forms can result in brilliant, beautiful images; and the serious photographic artists of the last several decades have left us unforgettable works that are far beyond the talent of any here to produce. but my point is that this well composed and perfectly exposed image is a joy to the eye, and millions of us can match that accomplishment. that is the miracle of this medium. of course, it would be fascinating to see the results if t. meyer, or spirer, or christel, etc., etc., were set free to approach these two girls in the same environment and simply burn a few rolls with them. it is very likely that the resulting images would be of greater value, artistically, than what we see here. but neither those mentioned worthies, or stieglitz, or kertez, nor any other legends of the lens could do a better job of simply "taking a picture" of two beautiful girls. and that just tickles the hell out of me, as they say in rowan county, north carolina.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), October 04, 2000.

It really is a very accomplished portrait. What I like the most about it, is how it demonstrates the diversity of human form, even within a narrow definition. These two girls are probably the same age and live in the same kind of environment, yet they4re so different. What the picture represents, at least the way it seems to me, is simple appreciation of who they are. That4s a nice feeling to get from a portrait.

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), October 04, 2000.

This is a heavy picture- the Barbie and the un-Barbie- indeed the first thing that sends you spinning is the android eyes on Barbie- then when you've stabilized, in contrast there's the honest charm of the un barbie who hasn't yet learned how to smile with her less than perfect occlusion... You finally settle down into a mode of worshipful awe as you consider the strength and beauty of the instant and the power of the medium that allows us to present it.... I think that was what wayne was saying up there- but ive only read it three or four times...

It's great, Scott- congratulations...

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), October 05, 2000.

If only we could have light like that every time we picked up our cameras.... *sigh*

-- Colin Miller (ckmiller@pond.net), October 06, 2000.

The contrast between the two women is what makes this work, and it's a fascinating comparison. It's also effective in the way the background follows the height of the women. Did you do that on purpose?

This makes me think, I often shoot people alone. Just last night, I approached two women on the street (and didn't get arrested!), and photographed one. They looked very different, and I didn't think of putting them together. If I had been at this event, I would probably have only shot the one with dark eyes...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), October 06, 2000.

It is a gorgeous portrait. I agree with the good things that have been said about it, but I can't help seeing a dark side to the photo, as well.

I see a commonality between the girls and the flower arrangements that they're holding up so prominently. They're all neatly arrayed and presented as objects of beauty to be appreciated on this special occasion, but there is an artificial quality to the presentation. And, of course, their "prettiness" will fade with time.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), October 06, 2000.

mike: i see nothing at all artificial in the presentation of this image. we see two beautiful human beings displayed with all the accuracy that modern lens and film can summon. the lighting, focus, and exposure are perfect. that image is as accurate a representation of reality as can be. they are just as real as the occupants of mother teresa's soup kitchen. they are different in nature, of course, but that becomes a value judgment, doesn't it? and regarding the staying power of their "prettiness": it will last for decades. assuming they are in their teens, any reasonable judge of female beauty will likely be impressed with them for more than thirty years from this very evening, assuming some discipline by both in the area of food consumption. further, what does one say if both girls were plain, or even "ugly": would they be more "real", or more worthy of our observation in silver halide? i think not. i hope you understand that i am not seeking to be confrontational with you. it's just that i wish we could be less judgmental when confronted with beauty on film. the value of art has nothing to do with money, age, or politics. end of rant, for the moment.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), October 06, 2000.

Wayne, Don't worry about being confrontational with me; I don't take it personally, and you manage to do it with civility.

You've misinterpreted what I meant, however. I didn't mean that the photo was artificial or inaccurate; I meant that the subjects had artificial qualities inherent to the situation: the girls are dressed up, neatly styled, and beaming for the camera, and the flowers are cut and stuck together in an artificial arrangement. It's "artificial" in much the same sense that dressing up a usually messy 4-year-old in a suit and tie for church is artificial: it's presents the subject in a way that, while it may accurately convey a certain aspect of the subject, does not present a very representative view of how that subject is most of the time. It's an temporary idealization. I don't mean this as a critique of the photo, but as an observation regarding the nature of the situation.

I used the term "prettiness" to draw a distinction between beauty and a more temporary physical appeal based on youth (or freshness for the flowers); guess I should have made that distinction clearer in the first place. I would not be surprised if both young ladies remain beautiful for decades, but as they mature, the nature of that beauty will change.

I don't think the value or worth of a subject is determined by whether it is pretty or ugly. And I certainly don't think that this photo is not as good because the subjects are beautiful--it does a wonderful job of conveying the situation. But the situation itself is about pretty appearances, and the various elements of the photo remind me of the superficial nature of the situation.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), October 06, 2000.

ditto to all the accolades, I'm also impressed with how you positioned the mountains in the background to frame these faces... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 07, 2000.

First, I want to say thanks to all who responded to what was actually little more than a snapshot. I was a bit hesitant about posting for that reason, and also since the taller girl is the daughter of a friend of mine who asked me to photograph this occasion. However, I was hoping for candid responses, and I think I got them. In response to Colin, and anyone else who is curious, the girl who won is pictured here, on the right.

I do have some confessions to make, though. I can't really take credit for the light, but it was indeed wonderful that evening. And I can't really take credit for intentionally aligning the background; it just worked out that way. Incidentally, those are trees, not mountains in the background. Tom, please don't take any offense but I did get a chuckle out of your response, but only because the landscape around where I live looks like this:

Once again, thanks to all who responded.

-- Scott Flathouse (seflathouse.pampa@celanese.com), October 09, 2000.

jesus, this place is beginning to look like an orthodontist's paradise!

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), October 09, 2000.

There, that's better-

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), October 09, 2000.