Girl on a beach

The consistent association of “girls” with titillation makes a kind of sense, though an unfortunate kind. The open book represents not just a sexual cliche but a sensibility discernible from revealing pics, icon included.

Yes Fred, very feminine, very charming and well aware of her sensuality and appeal. I don't think she regards it in any way as titillation, both photos were un-posed. However, some may see it so, though others certainly will not. Edited January 20, 2019 by John Peri

Yes Fred, very feminine

I wasn’t questioning or discussing the woman’s femininity. I was discussing my impression of your body of work’s portrayals, not the women themselves. Please let’s not confuse the two, which are very different matters.

I don't think she regards it in any way as titillation

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this were the case. Nevertheless, I think it’s that for many of your viewers. Thankfully, how the model or subject of a photo sees and interprets the photo and how the photographer sees and interprets the photo may or may not carry some extra weight but certainly does not necessarily dictate how I or any viewer sees and interprets it. I made no claim as to how the woman portrayed regards the photo and however she may regard it is not necessarily more influential than how anyone else does. I’ve made enough photos of people to know how differently they may see themselves and the photos than I do and than other viewers do. I even find that, sometimes (repeat, sometimes) the person pictured is less likely to be in touch with the portrayal than others for obvious reasons having to do with objectivity and other factors of involvement.

I wasn’t questioning or discussing the woman’s femininity

No Fred, you were not, but it is a key feature of the work and I am confident that others will be sensitive to this and the other qualities I mention, and will continue to judge the work accordingly, as in the past.

 

For reasons that I suspect I know, and others possibly too, you have returned to PN under an alias, do please ensure that it is more than a shadow of your previous self.

it is a key feature of the work

What I see as a key feature of the work and the greater body of work is one man’s specific and narrow take on femininity. Many photos of people, my own included, say as much about the photographer and the photographer’s view as they do about other things. They may also say something about the subject’s own view of him or herself and I have no reason to believe your photos don’t do all these things. Thankfully, when a photo is shared with a viewer, a viewer is allowed and might be welcome to react to all these views as well as giving his or her own view on the photo and the handling of the subjects or content of the photo. Photo criticism is not usually directed by the photographers of the photos being viewed, though in some settings, including that of PN, having the photographer weigh in can be an added feature in discussions of photos and can help provide insights into the photographer’s own understanding of the work. These discussions which can make evident varying tastes and understandings can be of great value.

Edited January 21, 2019 by The Shadow

Photo criticism is not usually directed by the photographers of the photos being viewed

 

in the same paragraph: " Many photos of people, my own included, say as much about the photographer and the photographer’s view as they do about other things" ... nothing changes!

Edited January 21, 2019 by John Peri

PN is special in that it allows for more self critical input from photographers and that can be enlightening, and not always in the ways we would expect. No matter what you or I may say about our own photos and no matter how much insight our own words may add, we are not ultimately the final say on what our photos mean or stand for. As strongly as any photographer believes in and may voice his own perspective on his work, sharing ithe photos means giving up control of the many and varied reactions there will be to them. I do think that, sometimes, the more power we give to certain criticisms, the more that may say about our own view of our work and that can even sometimes call into questions certain protestations to the contrary. A viewer’s reaction to a photo can be as telling about the viewer as it is about the photo, and I know that’s the case with my own viewing of photos. A photographer’s reactions to viewer response can also be quite telling.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with people using the term “girl” to refer to women.

Many men and women do that and no one gets their feelings hurt.

It is a simple matter of dealing with people as individuals and not lumping them into groups.

Classic political correctness run amok.

Grievance mentality from the same old worn out reliable source who thinks nothing of using profanity laced tirades against other members here, making fun of and ridiculing other members’ personal faith, ridiculing the moderators, ridiculing the site itself, or using deception to circumvent site policy.

 

And we need a lecture on referring to some woman, unknown to the detractors, as a “girl on the beach”?

Don’t think so.

You go girl!

Don't call me a "boy" 'kay? Nothing to do with "political correctness". Would you actually call a picture of a man "Boy on Beach"?

Let's dial it back a bit - Dietrich singing The Boys in the Backroom, The Boys in Company C, Boys Night Out, Boys in the Hood, BoyToys e.g. Pickup trucks, Hot rods, Motorbikes, Snowmobiles, UTVs, powertools, etc. A compliment - being "one of the boys", Boy meets Girl and so on ad absurdum. An accepted language convention in regard to both sexes - even today when there are more distinctions. Nobody gonna convince anyone on this argument. Heck, there's even a student who chose "Your Majesty" as his personal pronoun.

Dietrich sang The Boys in The Back Room in Destry Rides Again in ... 1939, a mere 19 years after women got the right to vote in the U.S. and a quarter of a century before the Civil Rights Act took effect. Ahh, yes, those were the days. But it’s good to know the cultural reference points of those who still think of women as girls. By all means, though, let’s dial it back, right after we make anachronistic references to the good old days when men were boys. Listen to the song carefully some time and you may get some idea of what Dietrich was actually singing about, not to mention the persona she was creating for herself which was a far cry from the portrayals of a couple of these girls on the beach.

Maybe Dietrich summed it up well when she said,

I am at heart a gentleman.

After all that has been said, I still think that "girl on the beach" should have a "female" as a subject!

must have been Cristiano Ronaldo :):)

girls become women but girls never get old.... ask one?

 

[ATTACH=full]1271020[/ATTACH]

Is that one of those sea lions?

Out with the boys?

You go girl.....

Don't call me a "boy" 'kay? Nothing to do with "political correctness". Would you actually call a picture of a man "Boy on Beach"?

 

 

Yes, as have many others.

The Beach Boys

The Bedford Boys

The Boys of Pointe Du Hoc

Edited March 25, 2020 by Moving On

Boys/men, in general, haven’t experienced the same degree of discrimination, the same numbers of rapes, the same inability to vote until the 20th century as girls/women. Seeing men as boys in a diminishing and disrespectful way doesn’t have as full a history as seeing women as girls, though if you ask many black men if they’d like to be called “boy,” you might get an earful because of their perspective on the history of the use of “boy.”

 

In any case, a music group from the 1960s called The Beach Boys or even a more contemporary group so named would seem to have very little to do with a thread referring to women as girls in 2018-2020.

 

“Girl” and “boy” are counterparts but let’s not pretend they’re equivalent in how they’ve been used.

You might want to revisit the fact that my post was a reply to the post of another from a while ago.

You had plenty of time to make the same point then but chose not to.

 

Funny that.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

The post you were responding to was making a reasonable, if not perfect, point and was said with good intentions. Yours was neither making a good point nor in good faith. That’s why my response was stimulated by your post and not by wogears.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

And, yes, the slur is clear. Thanks for showing your true colors.

Nice try but that dog won’t hunt.

It is a Shakespeare quote.

Apparently he didn’t get your memo.

The eternal egalitarian dilemma of the perpetually offended.

Everything is a “slur”.

Lighten up

Edited March 25, 2020 by Moving On

The post you were responding to was making a reasonable, if not perfect, point and was said with good intentions. Yours was neither making a good point nor in good faith. That’s why my response was stimulated by your post and not by wogears.

No.

It was a simple direct question directed specifically to me.

Mine was a direct answer to that direct question.

Read it again and quit making things up.

You aren’t nearly as close to the center of everyone’s universe as your posts indicate you think.

There are more important things these days for me to worry about than Internet jerks, so ... IGNORE.

Freedom of association is a beautiful thing.