Well, Molinier certainly didn't beat around the bush in his photos. So, perhaps, as a homage to that, I'll say Arthur moved briskly from "porn" to "weird" to "suicide." And that's a pretty straight line. Anyway, that's what I make of Arthur's recent contributions here. Certainly nothing more. On a lighter note, however, here's something I read about Molinier, and I can't help but think he'd smile at this being brought up right about now ... "Molinier said that the legs of either sex arouse him equally, as long as they are hairless and dressed up in black stockings."
"Molinier said that the legs of either sex arouse him equally, as long as they are hairless and dressed up in black stockings." perfect photo accompaniment sam! "... and I can't help but think he'd smile at this being brought up right about now" You can definitely see he had a humorous side. "Certainly nothing more" I was hoping for more ... but with the silence that followed I stopped caring.
Moderator's note: I would remind posters that the Photo.net terms so use state that you can only post pictures that you have taken your self. You can post a link to other photos if you want to
The photo of mine you deleted is one I took myself. What made you think I didn't take it and why didn’t you ask me if I’d taken it before deleting it? I am reposting it. Moderator note: I apologize to samstevens for deleting his photo. The conversation led me to believe that it was a photo by Molinier. I regret my error.
Yes, I think we can posit a direct line from Porn to Fine Art Porn to Weird Porn to Suicide. Mental illness can be a problem, even in photography. I certainly hope I haven't offended anyone.
A viewer showing a lack of sophistication and understanding about life and photography isn't offensive to me. It's enlightening.
"What made you think I didn't take it...." Like I said it is the perfect photo accompaniment sam! to "Molinier said that the legs of either sex arouse him equally, as long as they are hairless and dressed up in black stockings."
On a performative level, the thread as it's unfolded probably does art, photography, and Molinier a degree of pulchritudinous if not outright flamboyant justice!
When 'Fine' and 'Art' are hypothecated in photography what falls out is crassly commercial, whether trad or digital. It typically incorporates landscape or the partially clad. It is primarily made to be sold to people of limited discernment who need something nice to fill the big wall behind the sofa, so it can be ignored in favour of the TV - which is in front of the sofa. It's typically of a high technical standard, because otherwise 'I could do that.' It may be true to say that even painters of pretty seascapes for little galleries in pretty coastal towns are less hidebound by dull convention than 'Fine Art' photography.
Or the deliberately inharmonious and downright weird/confusing - such that any unpretentious viewer might be afraid to criticise it for fear of being branded as lacking sophistication and understanding. Or maybe the unsophisticated have sufficient understanding to know when (poor quality) wool is trying to be pulled over their eyes?
That style mostly 'self-identifies' as 'Documentary Photography' and definitely not as 'Fine Art' Also, Just to help you figure the difference, in the digital world 'Fine Art' photographers still like to refer to inkjet prints as 'giclee' when there are gullible punters around. 'Documentarians' and plain 'Artists' tend to refer to them as 'Digital Prints'
Are not the mocking tones in the three comments above as condescending as any hypothetically exaggerated “fine artist” who suggests a lack of sophistication in her viewers?
