Untitled

all nestled in

one of the better fabric photos I have seen on pn.

 

Knicki

How this pic can get a 1/1 beats me, its original yes and for me a 6 and its Aesthetic yes for me a 6. Love the idea and the gray soft tone, nice fabric :-)

Is that what I hate to think it is?

well at least the curves are consistent......can't say I like the subject matter myself

I think it's quite lovely.

original perspective

It's not a ding ding is it?? :D well if it's not, then what are those veins doing there??

Of course it is. It seems to get a lot more low ratings than most of the nipple close ups on the site. I've never seen anything like it, that's why I did it, and I will stand by it. And I wil probably post more of them in the near future.

Interesting! It provokes and approaches our phallic fears and desires more painlessly and insidiously than anything else... well done!

Poor thing looks bored though.

This is very original; the first time I've seen a photo presenting the male anatomy in this way. Black & white is great for this image; avoids being what some might call 'graphic', and offers nice tones. Love the idea of the material here.

 

"It seems to get a lot more low ratings than most of the nipple close ups on the site. I've never seen anything like it..."

Well, Bill, neither have I. Made me think about this as a "work", and not an exploitive image.

It seems that the female anatomy is supposedly an acceptable, often photographed, and highly admired subject--even up close & personal-- and is presented to both male & female viewers. At least, here in PN. I'm thinking--and it's only my guess-- that the gender of the rater has some correlation to such low rates.

 

Then again, I wouldn't know. As of this writing, there are 40 rates, but only 10 comments excluding your own. One more thing: Wendi made me laugh!

On my screen, the glans (head) is roughly 2.25 inches (6cms) across......Is this life size, or did you use macro?......

Geri, you bring up a good point on the rates. Wonder what the general male rate is compared to that of us females. I didnt rate it though as I just havent figured out exactly on a scale of 1-7 aesthetically it stands for me.

 

Knicki

LOL, Knicki, I looked at the names of the raters, which I know may or may not reveal the person's true gender. There are predominantly 'male' names, which, if truly reflective of the gender they indicate... would say something to me (emphasis on *me*, no stone throwing, please), about a reason for the low rates.

 

I don't want to destroy Bill's comment area here, (too late?), but I think discussion of the perception of this subject matter is acceptable. SO....

 

It is the reception of this type of image that intrigues me. As a female, I am able to look at photos featuring both male and female anatomy as art, if it is presented as such. I wondered if there was an issue here, where gender barred the viewer from being able to appreciate any aspects of this image.

Geri, I think there is truly a gender issue here. and to further destroy this thread. I wonder how many men walked away from here thinking why didnt I think of that? or how come mine isnt as artistic? or didnt go and do something really manly to make up for the viewing.

 

Knicki

Knicki, all I can say is:

 

                                 LMAO!!!

According to my wife, this is just nasty. "That flaccid deek is just not attractive". She contends that the female anatomy is art, this is not. I would have to agree.

I like the photo. I like the light and the distinct differences in tone between the cloth and the "subject". I also like the way in which the cloth immediately below the penis is in sharp focus, while the focus on the glans is slighly soft. The soft focus also gives it a bit of a vintage effect. The photograph works, and works well.

 

I'm relatively new to PN and I have noted the great chasm between the reception of nude females vs males. But, I have also noticed a disparity of opinion when female genitals are boldly displayed vs simply hinted at.

 

I'm very much a heterosexual male, but find the above disparities quite amusing. Certainly not all nude photography is art, or even artistic, but neither can it all simply be discarded as tasteless or or pornographic. Aesthetics are personal (this photo isn't my cup of tea), but the photo is well shot, and originality is off the scale. Come on guys, how many of you would have conceptualized it, or had the 'nads to do it?

 

 

 

Speaking of Nads to do it...yes this is a self "portrait", but Bill Lafham is a pseudoUser for the sake of protecting Grandma and other family members who regularly visit my actual user's photos.

 

Yes it is macro...

 

And to answer Steve's comment about the beauty of this flaccid penis, Steve, that is you and your wife's opinion. As far as I can see there is nothing inherently ugly about a penis.

Great photo Bill, You have pushed the envolope in a tastful and artistic mannor. I have rarely seen genitaila (male or female) photographed with as much creativity or thoughtfulness.

7/7

I am tired of people rating 1/1? I would not expose myself like in this photo - but if you are easily offended! Get away from an Arts site - spend your day in church, or a temple a sinagogue.

Great picture,

 

Bram

Its not that original but it does make people look twice if you can imagine it being in a gallery, obviousely to those who never seen one will be wondering what it is. Knicki, do you know what it is? I thought it look like a Satsuma bowl.