Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: My Body... Finally.  (Read 4953 times)
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1878


WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2012, 10:12:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Then there are folk like me who revere the aberration: who glorify the alleged 'imperfection'.

We are all, each and every one of us, are first and foremost PEOPLE and we share in a common humanity which, sadly, seems not to be exercised with either sufficient vigour or frequency.




W

Peter Rubens frequently portrayed less than ideal beauty in people, following is a well known example:



So did L. Nemoy...


Other examples of Nemoy’s works on this theme: http://www.rmichelson.com/artist_pages/nimoy/pages/MaxBeaut.htm

Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6391



WWW
« Reply #41 on: August 22, 2012, 10:53:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Russ, can you fix it for me to be on the Committee to decide the condition of Ugly?

Not being one (American), I couldn't be accused of Un-American activities, now could I? Or could I, in fact, not avoid that charge by dint of not being American? Think of the advantages it would offer you all! A calm, temperate, objective foreigner with no local political, social, religious or sexual axe to grind! I'd be an invaluable contribution to the State of the Nation. I'd even be relatively inexpensive compared with, say, the Beckhams. And there'd only be one of me. The advantages appear irresistible; where do I sign?

Rob C

Rob, you'd have to talk to the chairman of the Ugly commission. Of course if you had a lot of pull (or suck) with the president he probably would "suggest" the chairman put you on the commission and that would be that. After all those years photographing beautiful women are you sure you really understand ugly?
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6026


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2012, 12:07:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Too bad I can't hide certain posts (as on Facebook).
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2012, 01:46:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Peter Rubens frequently portrayed less than ideal beauty in people, following is a well known example:

So did L. Nemoy...



I'm not sure that Rubens ever painted them because they were considered less than ideal; in fact, anything I've picked up on the topic suggests the opposite, that plumpness echoed wealth and desirability: you had to be reasonably flush (meaning wealthy - nothing to do with sanitation) to eat enough to put on weight in those dark days.

But then, as you know, I see all manner of sub-texts that skim right over other heads. Woe is me that I carry this dubious blessing.

Leonard also shot some friggin' lovely ones (by my personal sense of ideals), so don't overreact to his bad days.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #44 on: August 23, 2012, 03:59:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Coffee Corner?

Hell, this place is more like a crack den!




That's interesting. Now I realise what lies behind all those visits of yours to old Greek houses; nothing to do with photography at all!

You wicked thing, you.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 23, 2012, 05:42:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, I see what you did there, brings a whole new meaning to crack den ;-)
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #46 on: August 23, 2012, 07:17:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, I see what you did there, brings a whole new meaning to crack den ;-)




You see!? You are just as good as I at getting sub-texts!

I shall take this opportunity of exposing another crack, then.

;-)

Rob C


P.S. At least you can see that I'm in a better position than I was prior to my cellpix era - at least I do snap away most days... as it says in those old vows: for better or for worse.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 07:20:18 AM by Rob C » Logged

Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #47 on: August 24, 2012, 07:11:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure that Rubens ever painted them because they were considered less than ideal; in fact, anything I've picked up on the topic suggests the opposite, that plumpness echoed wealth and desirability: you had to be reasonably flush (meaning wealthy - nothing to do with sanitation) to eat enough to put on weight in those dark days.
It's also worth mentioning that in an age of widespread malnutrition and infectious disease, moderate plumpness would have been a sign of good health, not just wealth.

Actually the women in the Rubens painting look pretty good to me. They're heavier than my ideal, but not by much. I'd rather spend an evening with one of them than with one of the stick-thin models that we're supposed to find attractive nowadays.

Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #48 on: August 24, 2012, 10:03:32 AM »
ReplyReply

It's also worth mentioning that in an age of widespread malnutrition and infectious disease, moderate plumpness would have been a sign of good health, not just wealth.

Actually the women in the Rubens painting look pretty good to me. They're heavier than my ideal, but not by much. I'd rather spend an evening with one of them than with one of the stick-thin models that we're supposed to find attractive nowadays.



And there we differ: I wouldn't seek out either; I'd definitely prefer the Page 3 variety of build. For non-UKers, that means 'glamour' but (for me) of the non-siliconed variety. If you need further clarification, check out my Gallery and Gallery 2. (Shameless plug to the curious.)

Speaking of which, and à propos of my stroll along the quay of impossible dreams each day: there's a boat in right now with the name Vogue acros the back; I think that's what it is, but the final 'e' is hidden by the sliding doorway onto the deck, so I'm guessing... if it's there this evening, with the rear panel complete, I'll try to snatch it before I get accosted by Conde Nast guards. Of course, it might have nothing to do with that body at all - probably hasn't.

Rob C
Logged

Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #49 on: August 24, 2012, 06:12:24 PM »
ReplyReply

And there we differ: I wouldn't seek out either; I'd definitely prefer the Page 3 variety of build. For non-UKers, that means 'glamour' but (for me) of the non-siliconed variety. If you need further clarification, check out my Gallery and Gallery 2. (Shameless plug to the curious.)
I'm not sure that we disagree by much. Note that I did say that the women in the Rubens painting are heavier than my ideal. I don't think most of your models are what I'd call stick-thin, although my ideal is a little heavier. (Nice photos by the way.) One thing that I intensely dislike is silicone 'enhancements'.
Logged
NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 958


« Reply #50 on: August 28, 2012, 12:10:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I like this photo. If Maillol could create beautiful sculptures of fat women, why can't a photographer create beautiful photos of fat women?

Clothing models have bodies suitable for easily displaying rather stylized clothes without tailoring adjustment. Some of the women's clothing models are transgender women, and have male skeletal build and female fat distribution (due to exogenous estrogen). Once the clothes reach the store, the designs have been altered somewhat to fit the consumer. What you see in W magazine (fashion trade) is not what is sold in stores.

IRL, body habitus preferences vary.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad