• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Learning From The Greats!

Rachel Foster

New member
Nigel: I apologize if you thought I was upset or if you became upset. I'm an academic and I'm used to discussing such things in a rather dispassionate, analytical way. I forget that might be misread.

I appreciated your input and your points a great deal. They made me think of the image differently, although not the same as you. Thank you.
 

Nigel Allan

Member
But Nigel, that's my whole point. We are humans and we can't divorce ourselves from our cutural, gender, or religious biases. We can try to compensate for it but we cannot.

"I think the issue is not whether you like it or not, or whether it 'exploits' women (sic - only one woman gave her sanction for this and presumably it suited her agenda) and shows them in a bad light and sexualises the female form (God forbid the female form becomes asexual, the race would die out)."

Yes, exactly. That's why I posted the image and raised the question. You see, I know I'm mired in my background, attitudes and beliefs. And, I don't find it offensive, per se, but I do find it (after the discussion) as an interesting commentary on attitudes toward women and men in the last century. I wonder, though, if that was intentional when I look at his other images. He seemed to favor the shadowed eyes.

"Gender agenda." Nice one.

Asher: I only mentioned art as pretty because if it does not evoke emotion, of what else can it consist?

I guess I am not human then :) giggle

Rachel I don't get upset by discussion. If we can't as adults discuss things without getting emotional and defensive over our position and taking offence over another's it would be very sad. That's what's wrong with so much political correctness in the modern world, people are afraid to call a spade a spade in case they offend someone inadvertently.

Thank you for bringing this photographer and his work to my attention. I like it:)
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Nigel, art is everywhere. what appeals to one might not appeal to another. nothing wrong in that.
Arabic and Islamic culture is very very rich in art and literature, as those that have taken the time to investigate have found; albeit not necessarily what the west describes as art and expects to have everyone sing along with it. It is different, and thank heavens for that.

' The issue is very simple and clear cut. Did the picture work? Did it achieve its objective? Did it communicate the message the subject and photographer wanted to convey?'

For me the answer has to be no. i think it is a terrible photograph of what obviously was a beautiful and sexy woman. To me it appears to me no more than a snap shot. Nothing to do with any biases, yours or mine or anybody's. In my personal opinion, if this is the standard Hollywood and others held as
an iconic photograph of someone well known, I guess a mannequin's photograph would make them
salivate, or worse.



This seems to be triggering responses in people due to their particular cultural, gender or religious bias and 'judging' whether the picture is 'right' or 'wrong' from their particular moral standpoint (which is relative) rather than whether it works or not.

I think the issue is not whether you like it or not, or whether it 'exploits' women (sic - only one woman gave her sanction for this and presumably it suited her agenda) and shows them in a bad light and sexualises the female form (God forbid the female form becomes asexual, the race would die out).

The issue is very simple and clear cut. Did the picture work? Did it achieve its objective? Did it communicate the message the subject and photographer wanted to convey?

On all counts I believe it did (partly because it has hit some raw nerves with people who find it offensive for its very effective communication of its message :) ).

For a moment put aside your prejudices and ask yourself, is this an effective, memorable and iconic image of a Hollywood sex symbol?

And that's my final word on this subject :) because we'll never agree if we're discussing things through a cultural, religious, or gender agenda (I am proud to say I don't have a gender agenda - I only said it because I like the play on words)

Nigel

...now what about that TV commercial break, Fahim? There must be some art to watch there
 

Nigel Allan

Member
Fahim,
It may be many things, and I appreciate we all have different tastes (which are also coloured by our cultural background), but, like it or loathe it, I suspect it was not a snapshot. The word snapshot indicates it was fired off without care or intent and was almost haphazard

Apart from the fact that it is probably medium or even large format which would preclude it being a snapshot, this was a major star of the Hollywood studio system and they would never have allowed a careless. ill thought out snapshot to be published.

As I say, you may not like it but that is not the point, it was a deliberately set up photograph and the photographer had a clear intent which I believe he achieved, given the fact that this was also 1946 and taken in prudish, 'wholesome, good ol' USA' the home of momma's apple pie where even today the accidental view of a nipple on network TV is an outrage

You don't believe he achieved his intent and that is your prerogative, but clearly the studio thought he did and so did the star, or the shot would never have been released. These shots would not have been released on the public 'by accident'. They would have been part of their PR machine and vetted very carefully as the the message they were sending and how they might be perceived by the American general public. I suspect this is as risque as they dared be in that climate. I guess the modern day equivalent would be the cover of a porn DVD :)

But as I say, whether you like or it approve of it is not something I am debating since, as you say, we all have diferfent tastes. I see it as a piece of communication

regards
Nigel

NB By the way one of my oldest friends is a world authority on Islamic art so this is not alien to me, and I appreciate much of it, especially the exquisite patterns often seen, but I don't see what that has to do with this subject. Actually I don't see what 'art' has to do with this subject (as I said in another thread the word art is a very loaded term). This is about publicity and communication, although many publicity and advertising works viewed in the rear view mirror are later held up as 'art', which is a very subjective and loaded term
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Whether it was a snapshot or not, to me it seems like one. I see a photograph; I like it or not.
Just because it was for publicity or communication is irrelevant to me. I am looking at the photograph
now and not yesteryear. This imho is simply a lousy snapshot; at the result of the man's work is in this instance.

' NB By the way one of my oldest friends is a world authority on Islamic art so this is not alien to me, and I appreciate much of it, especially the exquisite patterns often seen, but I don't see what that has to do with this subject. Actually I don't see what 'art' has to do with this subject ....'

It has to do with what you said here..

'...now what about that TV commercial break, Fahim? There must be some art to watch there'.





Fahim,
It may be many things, and I appreciate we all have different tastes (which are also coloured by our cultural background), but, like it or loathe it, I suspect it was not a snapshot. The word snapshot indicates it was fired off without care or intent and was almost haphazard

Apart from the fact that it is probably medium or even large format which would preclude it being a snapshot, this was a major star of the Hollywood studio system and they would never have allowed a careless. ill thought out snapshot to be published.

As I say, you may not like it but that is not the point, it was a deliberately set up photograph and the photographer had a clear intent which I believe he achieved, given the fact that this was also 1946 and taken in prudish, 'wholesome, good ol' USA' the home of momma's apple pie where even today the accidental view of a nipple on network TV is an outrage

You don't believe he achieved his intent and that is your prerogative, but clearly the studio thought he did and so did the star. These shots would not have been released on the public 'by accident'.

regards
Nigel

NB By the way one of my oldest friends is a world authority on Islamic art so this is not alien to me, and I appreciate much of it, especially the exquisite patterns often seen, but I don't see what that has to do with this subject. Actually I don't see what 'art' has to do with this subject (as I said in another thread the word art is a very loaded term). This is about publicity and communication. It is not about taste IMHO
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
' The issue is very simple and clear cut. Did the picture work? Did it achieve its objective? Did it communicate the message the subject and photographer wanted to convey?'

For me the answer has to be no. i think it is a terrible photograph of what obviously was a beautiful and sexy woman. To me it appears to me no more than a snap shot. Nothing to do with any biases, yours or mine or anybody's. In my personal opinion, if this is the standard Hollywood and others held as
an iconic photograph of someone well known, I guess a mannequin's photograph would make them
salivate, or worse.

As a matter of fact, rather than taste or opinion, I can guarantee that (a) Hurrell's Harlow image is most certainly not a snapshot and, (b) is a very skillfully crafted photograph that's about as far from "terrible" as can be. Big view camera, slower-than-slow film emulsion, probably a bitchy publicist hanging around, most certainly Jean's insane stage-mother hovering nearly, perhaps half a dozen other shots to do that same day...I'd say George did a decent job, eh?

That aside, reactions to imagery are deeply steeped in cultural norms and expectations. That someone might prefer Jean Harlow images such as this:
jean-harlow.jpg


or this:

Jean%20Harlow%201933.jpg


is anything but unusual.

Interestingly, Jean Harlow was not really a natural beauty. She had excellent proportions and an excellent blank-slate face which could be made-up for almost any type of scene and shot. But you would probably be shocked to see a real "snapshot" of casual Harlow without make-up; it's like looking at a mannequin with a cleft chin. Her overbearing mother went to great lengths to ensure that such images were very, very rare. In those days it was very easy to keep genies, or Jeanies, in bottles.

More broadly, enjoying any form of art requires broad-mindedness and a willingness to see something for its context and intentions rather than for its simple, stark reality. That often, and most fundamentally, means suppressing initial reaction. Yes, there are plenty of works that I do not care for and don't believe carry any meaning. But "terrible" is rarely an adjective I'd use even with them, and most certainly not an appropriate adjective here.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Since my posts have been quoted more than once; let me re-state:

1. To those who like this particular photo...Good, enjoy. I don't want to diminish your enjoyment of this
photograph.

2. I plain and simple think this is a not a good photograph. so just enjoy what you enjoy and let me enjoy what I enjoy. simple!

3. My opinion is that a photograph, just like a painting stands or should stand, on its own. I do not need to know the context of it. It might help but is not necessary.the visual object is its own context, its own story, its own language, its own biases, and it is the end all of that exercise. Else it has, to me failed .
Painters, photographers, sculpture masters whose works I enjoy in museums and art galleries and books stand on their own merit. No pre-ambles, no explanations, no narration. each work is in and of itself the story, the subject and the subject matter.

4. Understanding why one enjoys a photograph ( or not ) is a complex process. Maybe I do not enjoy this photograph because I am devolving! so what?

Praise the Lord.
 
According to Wikipedia, Jean Harlow dies in 1937, so the picture has to predate its original attribution of 1946. This is not to nitpick, but because I think that film material before the war was even slower and more difficult to handle than that of the forties. I think that the original picture might have had less darkened eyes than the one posted here, the second example posted show a very much lightened version. It was certainly set up very deliberately.

George Hurrell was a very competent photographer, he is often considered the leading still/publicity photographer of Hollywood's golden age, Jean Harlow was a major star. The general lighting setup with lights coming from both sides is commonly used, Andreas H. Bitesnich and Greg Gorman are among current practitioners. Usually, such lighting serves to emphasize the statuesque quality of the body shown, and it can be considered dehumanizing. T
his dehumanisation need not be denigrating, it can make a body also into an example, or idolize it. This seems to be the case with the statue of David, which is considered the embodiement of male youthful physical (and moral) perfection, and classical female statuary would fall into this category too. I think this was also intended in the photo of Jean Harlow - the Goddess. As such you would not show her as an individual, trying to show her personality, but as an archetype.

Christoph
 

Jay Clark

New member
I've been perusing links found in the favorite photographers thread and have found some that I wonder about. For example this one is problematic to me because of the shadowed face, particularly the eyes.

***PIC***

My question is...why does this "work?" Or does it?

I found one thing with looking at others' photography is that I try to study the photograph and determine in my head what the photographer was seeing with their work. In the example you posted, I would see that there was something that was secretly provocative about his subject, the woman. The photographer was trying to touch on the features of her body (as pointed out by Asher), so what I would gather is that the photograph was done for the woman's sex appeal.

Asher saw the picture fairly different than I did, and gave a very robust description of the picture that I could also see as well.

To answer your question from my perspective, the photograph works, but everybody can have a different take on what is happening in the composition of the photograph. The photo will work for some, and not for others.
 

larryclark

New member
I've been perusing links found in the favorite photographers thread and have found some that I wonder about. For example this one is problematic to me because of the shadowed face, particularly the eyes.


jeanharlow2big.GIF


Hurrelphotography.com Jean Harlow Circa 1946


In fact, he tended to favor shadowed eyes.

Jean Harlow by George Hurrell


My question is...why does this "work?" Or does it?

Hi Rachel, maybe I can help out here.
"problematic to me because" you have rules. You are stuck in the rules game. Hurrell didn't play by the rules he actually broke them, by mistake, on purpose and to piss people off.
If you look hard you can actually see some of the white of her eyes and that works for Me. It's an intimacy thing, it also helps to make the picture about women, not A Woman, IE Jean Harlow.
For instance this photo I did of a model I like to work with:
l_aa860cf673a34c20bc6af9a0dfc09e95.jpg


It may be of a particular woman her name is Evie Lovelle, but because I have her face in the shadow it could be ANY woman. A thing that works for men or women when it comes to guys. It's a faceless fantasy, rather than define a person.

Hurrell didn't always favor shadowed eyes, he had plenty of faces in the light, but he sculpted with the light and shadow. He used the shadow to his advantage. He broke lots of rules when it came to lighting and was an innovator in his time, including inventing the boom light which he used up until his death in 92.

He didn't play by the rules and became bored with things rather quickly so his photography changed too at times.

throw away the rules and go with guides but thing outside of the box, that will differentiate you from others.

Hope that Helps...

Darkman.
 

Rachel Foster

New member
Ah. That's not a rule because I don't know the rules! It's more a gut reaction.

I'll spend some time thinking about your suggestions. Thank you!
 

larryclark

New member
Ah. That's not a rule because I don't know the rules! It's more a gut reaction.

I'll spend some time thinking about your suggestions. Thank you!

don't take it personally, I didn't say that was the rule, it was that statement that makes me think you have preconceived ideas, notions or rules that might make you not like it. Usually when people balk at something there's a reason why.
 
Food for thought

Usually when people balk at something there's a reason why.

True, but the reason may be very difficult to unravel. There may even be rules, even though we'd like to think they are non-existing!

I've seen a number of experiments where a large group was, amongst others, asked which they liked better; an image of a genuine painting by Piet Mondriaan or a randomly computer generated Mondriaan style image (same number of rectangles/lines but different length/width ratios or colors).

An overwhelming percentage of the audience consistently picked the real thing ...

There are just some things that appeal to our sense of harmony or beauty more than others. So when we are in the business of making things that people like, perhaps enough to part with some of their money to obtain a copy, we'd better consider what "the rule" is if any, or better be independently wealthy or have others sources of income.

Cheers,
Bart
 
Last edited:

Rachel Foster

New member
What makes you think I took it personally?

This is beginning to feel like Abbott and Costello: Who's on first? Trust me, Larry, if I were offended or thought it was personal, there would be no question about that in any one's mind. I'm just curious about the assumptions you are making. (Probably comes with the territory as I am a psychologist.)

Bart, I know there are rules; I'm just too much a neophyte to know what they are at this point.
 

Rachel Foster

New member
By the way, Larry: great blog!

I think the photo of Evie, actually, is superior to the Harlow shot. It doesn't have the same problematic feel at all. The hidden eyes give a feeling of mystery rather than dehumanization. It's simply a better composition.
 

Mike Bailey

pro member
The photograph doesn't seem at all complicated, taken as a publicity or ad photo. It seems like the intent is to grab your attention from across the street. No more, no less. And it does that. And it does not feel as if it has any subtlety, regardless of how it was constructed.

Mike

_______________________
Mike Bailey
The Elemental Landscape
http://bluerockphotography.com
 
Top