The secret behind Mona Lisa's enigmatic smile

[Rob C]

Come to think of it, I would prefer Monica Bellucci; in fact, there's a shot of her in a Pirelli where she has an expression not a zillion miles removed from La Gioconda's in her famous public outing.

Now Gina...

Rob C

[bill t.]

So how do you get to marry a Neapolitan millionairess?

That's easy.  You become a billionaire movie producer and you make her famous.

[David Sutton]

Oh, ah. Gina and Sophia. Did  I not fall to the dust at their feet weeping tears of love and desire.

[David Sutton]

Then I saw "Et Dieu... créa la femme". That was the end.

[bill t.]

Oh, ah. Gina and Sophia. Did  I not fall to the dust at their feet weeping tears of love and desire.

Federico himself could not have said it better.

[Rob C]

Then I saw "Et Dieu... créa la femme". That was the end.

Now you are getting into dangerous territory; just leave Bri Bri alone - she's mine!

Rob C

[Rob C]

Federico himself could not have said it better.

Maybe, but Carlo held the winning hand!

Rob C

[Justan]

All you Italian woman bashers need to bite your tongues.

How 'bout THIS Italian woman?

"Everything you see, I owe to spaghetti."

(Pavlov-like comment here)

[Rob C]

Well, a change from Photoshop.

Rob C

[bill t.]

Well, a change from Photoshop.

Yes, that was well before Filter->Liquify.  Any further liquification would clearly be futile for this gal.  Of course you have to wonder how long she had to hold her breath, Photoshop is so much kinder in that regard.

Also pre J-lo.  Sorry Sophia, no comparison whatsoever.

Edit...OK some monkey is bound to do this, so it might as well be me.

[Colorwave]

It's like a bad haircut, Bill.  Now her hands look to big to me.  Perhaps, if we want to make Sophia look like this year's model, we need to bring in the big guns, like the guy who pulled this one off:

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/200...ut-on-limb.html

[bill t.]

It's like a bad haircut, Bill.

OK, I admit it, much was lost.  The sheer Earth Mother Goddess inertia of the original was not to be trifled with.

I wanna be as good as the guy who did this for a Ralph Lauren ad campaign.  In Oz only, they're skinnier down there.  The flying saucer was cropped out.



http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/...apan&st=cse

[Rob C]

Who, exactly, do these people think they are impressing? Making women look like freaks is hardly likely to make the normal buying public swoon with pleasure and the desire to emulate, never mind part with money! There are ever the exceptions, but in numbers to sustain an industry?

I believe the fashion industry is committing suicide.

Rob C

[Justan]

I'm guessing the person who did the work was trying to hint at someone with the unobtainable. It appears a case of art imitating art instead of imitating nature.

Elongating some body features and truncating others while giving a cold, appraising, even aloof stare as does the model, first sauntered to fame a little while after Leo's work at the top of this thread. With Mona, there is a question of her mood. Not so much with the model above. The question above, i suppose about appealing to jealousy. The model is what the viewer can never be. But the viewer can get the pants, at least.

But in it's way it is captivating. Showing that playing to the perceptions of the viewer makes for compelling work

Unrelated: Does anyone know what Sofia’s favorite kind of spaghetti is?

[Colorwave]

[attachment=17880:ralphblo...again_v2.jpg]

OK, I admit it, much was lost.  The sheer Earth Mother Goddess inertia of the original was not to be trifled with.

I've never been one to resist a little trifling myself.  Tried to interject a little "Earth Mother Goddess inertia", then a few sandwiches.  I'm not sure that the outfit is right for the shape of her face, though.  Perhaps some things are best left alone.  Relating back to the beginning of this thread, does she seem to have a more defined smile to you in this context?  I didn't mess with it.

[David Sutton]

[attachment=17880:ralphblo...again_v2.jpg]
I've never been one to resist a little trifling myself.  Tried to interject a little "Earth Mother Goddess inertia", then a few sandwiches.  I'm not sure that the outfit is right for the shape of her face, though.  Perhaps some things are best left alone.  Relating back to the beginning of this thread, does she seem to have a more defined smile to you in this context?  I didn't mess with it.

A good example of the spaghetti eater vs. the spaghetti itself?

[Rob C]

1.   "I'm guessing the person who did the work was trying to hint at someone with the unobtainable. It appears a case of art imitating art instead of imitating nature. "

But since the model has been turned into a freak, who would want to obtain the same figure?

2.   "The model is what the viewer can never be. But the viewer can get the pants, at least."

Isn't the viewer fortunate!

3.   "Unrelated: Does anyone know what Sofia’s favorite kind of spaghetti is?"

Probably Italian?

Rob C

EDIT: why does the final line about point 3 above (Probably Italian?) appear outwith the box? It wasn't meant to, and in the preview it does not.

[Justan]

> I've never been one to resist a little trifling myself. Tried to interject a little "Earth Mother Goddess inertia", then a few sandwiches. I'm not sure that the outfit is right for the shape of her face, though. Perhaps some things are best left alone.

That was good!

Did you do anything with the tone of Mo’s face? The match of skin tones is remarkable.

> Relating back to the beginning of this thread, does she seem to have a more defined smile to you in this context? I didn't mess with it.

A little bit. By changing context, her eyes appear more inviting (smiling eyes) while the lips give the appearance that she’s both annoyed and amused at what she’s seeing – presumably the viewer. I hadn’t thought of it before but these two features make for an interesting juxtaposition of expressions. Typically one smiles but the smile doesn’t reach the eyes. This is the other way around.

It also makes her a lot more alluring than the original.

[Justan]

me > 1. "I'm guessing the person who did the work was trying to hint at someone with the unobtainable. It appears a case of art imitating art instead of imitating nature. "

Rob> But since the model has been turned into a freak, who would want to obtain the same figure?

The image isn’t intended for you or me. It is likely intended for those who desire to be (or perhaps are) thin beyond reality. The photographer (or photo chopper) is in pursuit of a characature that emphasizes style over content. It’s perfect for those who are shopping for clothing. You can see the concept repeated with almost every mannequin made. It is a theme so broadly used that I bet many young people accept as normal.

Also it’s interesting in that by putting Mo’s face on it, the body language is clearly very open and relaxed while the model’s (not Mo’s) face remains aloof.

[Rob C]

me > 1. "I'm guessing the person who did the work was trying to hint at someone with the unobtainable. It appears a case of art imitating art instead of imitating nature. "

Rob> But since the model has been turned into a freak, who would want to obtain the same figure?

The image isn’t intended for you or me. It is likely intended for those who desire to be (or perhaps are) thin beyond reality. The photographer (or photo chopper) is in pursuit of a characature that emphasizes style over content. It’s perfect for those who are shopping for clothing. You can see the concept repeated with almost every mannequin made. It is a theme so broadly used that I bet many young people accept as normal.

Also it’s interesting in that by putting Mo’s face on it, the body language is clearly very open and relaxed while the model’s (not Mo’s) face remains aloof.

I was a fashion photographer for many years, so I do understand some of the problems and a little about target markets too; but this is different - it is anatomically incorrect, not a "thinness" problem at all. Think childbearing hips...

Rob C