eva lux stretch...�

Any thoughts welcomed...

delightful. i like it. very candid in a wicked way.

very nice. Just enough shadow to keep it tasteful... and playful.

The white just beneath her shadowed naughty bits is the front part of the thong. The heels are 5" posture stilettos (sic?) there is quite a bit of heel there, just out of view, which the material is wrapped around..

Very creative. Extremely provocative, yet tastefully done. Wonderful photo.

Excellent tease shot!

Very nice. It kept my attention for a long time. Great composition.

An Image forever burned in the mind, frozen in the recall of youth, she will captivate me forever... Sorry started babbling Just wanted to say, I love it...

Sorry, I think it's just lame. I actually thought (no kidding) that her high heel was a Free Wire transmitter on a camera hot shoe. It reminds me of so much art school photography in which many bad decisions are made in an attempt to be hip and spontaneous (like the camera was operating itself and the photographer discovered this frame only after developing the film, and recognized her assistant was screwing the model when she was supposed to be sweeping the studio and filing film). Damn. Now I've been inspired by this image to write lame porno scripts... t

Tom, you really need to stop playing with Barbies and tripods, it's starting mess with your head. But thank you for the utterly useless journey through your stream of consciousness.

 

Perhaps when your done inventing cheesy porno scripts, you could actually make a useful comment about what you feel are the bad decisions in the image. Contrary to your lame art school analysis, this shot was intentionally framed and lit.

glad you enjoyed the paddle-less trip up the creek. Can you belive some guy actually rated that picture of a tripod I was selling? Like it was art or something ...jeez.

I get the Catholic girl fanatasy here, but the crop is pretty pointless, or rather, it gives us only one point to consider. This idea has potential intellectual weight, and a few obvious hot buttons thrown in (Plaid Catholic school skirt, spike heels, thong underwear, short and tight sweater) not to mention the sexual presentation of... well that's enough. But it's a little too Christina Aquillera for me. Sex in my face and I haven't even been kissed yet, if you know what I mean. I like a picture that takes longer to get than this. Even after I figure out that it's a high heel and not studio equipment, it's still the same one note samba. "Oh... that's what it's about. Okay, that's what it's about. Okay, I get it, that's what it's about. Okay Okay Okay! I get it!" Since I don't need explicit images to be aroused, this image is quickly understood, and then it's time to go since there's nothing else to "get".

I don't really know anything about the girl, and that's what I need to be sexually interested in someone. It's not just "ass" for me, it's the brain/spirit that moves the ass, and that spirit just isn't in this picture. Now some guys don't want a person, they just want an ass. Maybe that's your intended audience, and I'm sure they're very happy with this picture... all the accessories they require are there. But I want to know about the girl.... t

how's that?

I think that pornography is not really about sex, but is really about power, where sex is done to a person, and they just have to take it. Unfortunately, I think that's what you have here. We have no visual clues that she wants to be like this, or is enjoying being like this or for that matter, even knows she's like this. What clues do we have about her state of mind. We have to presume that she dressed herself, since these clothes (loaded with innuendo) are the only clues we have to her personality, and that requires further assuption on our part that she did dress herself.

How's that?

I'm suprised, given your own dappling with the iconic "woman" that you feel the need to know the individual. But then part of what this shot is about is that intersection of the icon and the individual.

 

In most of my work, I rely on primarily the eyes to convey the spirit. This shot is designed convey it without the usual visual cues of a face. An attempt to glimpse the spirit in the movement of the ass.

 

As for visual clues, the curving motion of her back, the costume and the act of hooking her panties with her heel are part of the spirit and sexuality of this particular woman. The shallow depth of field is meant to highlight the overt tease of the action.

 

I'm a little confused by your last paragraph. I've no problem with the term pornography applied to the shot, but I'm unclear why you would interpret a woman spread out and pulling aside her panties as having something done to her. The locus of power in the photo is owned by the woman. If anyone has to just take it, it's the audience. As for the rest of it, the clue to her state of mind is the act of revealing. Not sure why you wouldn't assume she dressed herself...it is afterall a shot of a person. But ultimately, I think the mystery of context adds to the dimentionality you find lacking.

Yes that's an interesting point you make about my dabbling with the iconic woman. My photographic musings on that subject are not so bound to the sexual aspect as this image is... while sexuality is certainly part of my affinity for the feminine mystique, I have a hard time (no pun intended) seperating the sex from the spirit.

As for this particular image, not only couldn't I tell that that pointy shape was a stilletto heel, I couldn't tell it was hooked into the thong. That she (supposedly) did this herself, that is, hooked her own panties with her own high heel and positioned herself just so, impresses me with her dexterity. I'm trying to imagine that action, which is fun in itself, but seems awkward at best, and laughable otherwise. I'm sorry but most of my comprehension of this image is due to your efforts to explain it, so according to our mutual choice of visual media, maybe you would humor me and try again? See if you could improve the visual conveyance of this scenario, and depend less on a verbal explanation. I'm sure you'll enjoy trying. As I said earlier, there is good potential in what I now understand of your concept, I just don't think this image delivers it.

I've been trying to get my wife in a plaid miniskirt ever since she told me she was raised Catholic... and that's 12 years now with no luck. I really would like you to get this right. :^)... t

Once again, you've somewhat failed me in terms of explaining the visual failure. And I'm not really being defensive...I just don't know how else to visually communicate the the catholic school girl tease of the model.

Perhaps I'm too close too the image, but the hooking was her idea and I'm not sure how to make it more apparent, It is obvious to me and I was quite pleased by the response of film that shaded her pussy. What I like about this image is the overt hint of it.

I do think it is bullshit, the seperation of sexuality from the celebration of woman. Let me be more precise - I abhor "fine art nudes" for their peculiar denial and adolescent quest to divorce sexuality from their subject. Strikes me as immature giggles. The sublimating psychobable of the artist ruminating on landscape curves is just that - a sad, restrained soul incapable of admitting that T&A are absolutely gorgeous. But I've seen enough in my day to be immediately bored by a photograph that just presents that.

I've no desire to adjust my observation to conform with your fantasy. I quite like the subtext hint of uniform in this shot. I've honestly, no idea why you struggle over the obviousness (to me) of the high heel and the panty hook. And I'm not alone in that observation.

And yes, ultimately, your own musings are tied to the sexuality of this shot. Don't be a hypocritical ass. The form of woman is celebrated because whatever the context, it is remarkable for both it's sensual curving and the mingling headspin.

Mystique is fun to play with. That's the fun of it and it's sharks tooth. Only a wanking moron assumes and enjoys the illusion. I love the mystique,, the process of transformation as much as the result. It wasn't laughable, it was sexy, that urge towards revealing.

I don't get the sense from your dialogue that you are comfortable with the duality of adoring a sinking towards orgasm and the moment that inspires it. the sinking towards orgasm, for me, is intimately wrapped up in the spirit. The moment that inspires it can be both tawdry and profound.

As to the image, I'm not sure how I could reshoot it to please you. Nor do I care. What I like about it is the overtness in all it's subtle shadings. That and it looks great as a 13x19 print.

My verbal explanation strikes me as instinctive and obvious description. Your a thoughtful asshole, which I tend to appreciate. But fuck you, it's my image not your fantasy. And while I may actually find it interesting when you are capable of articulating what is so damn visually wrong versus explaining your own neurosis regarding sexuality and gender, you are a bit of an uninformed curmudgeon. Fashionable in it's fascist way, but still the frontlines of screaming whore at the woman that excites your wallet. Sorry, but that's my spin.

I'm not particullarly intimidated by your caustic demeanor, but I'm equally bored by arrogant commentary. If you can't figure out my picture, boo hoo on you, Not that I'm a freak talent, but somehow, your commentary has informed me more about you than my shot. I'm not looking to solve your marital issues with a picture, I think I did get my headspace right - it's why I shared.

And as much as I enjoy the philosophical dialogue (as i do) , spare me the superficial swipes. I recognize a heel hooked revealing. It's somewhat annoying to explain the laughable dexterity of it. Perhaps you should temper your response with the idea that your mental masturbation is not defining. Just a thought.

Not every image that triggers your fantasy is concerned with your response. I shoot what compells me. And that ass, that taunting, compelled me. In all your bluster towards making the image conform to your expectations, you neglected the obvious (a peculiar habit of the loudmouth critic) Given your understanding of my goal in shooting, how would you improve it. It's obnoxious to suggest that I temper my obsessions towards what you like. Given the glimpse into my thought process, be useful, and suggest an alternate to my vision that captures it more precisely.

that is the point of critique - the excercising of one's mind in a way that indulges that which it tears apart. There is no point in pithy bullshit that just exerts it's ego.

All it does is alienate. I much prefer dialogue. That actually stretches us. You strike me as intelligent enough to offer a unique viewpoint,, when you escape the desire to dominate via witty derision.

When you stop using your intelligence to vault a fragile ego and turn it towards a more productive use, perhaps I'll actually listen. But currently, I seem to be dialoguing more about the turrets impulse to shout whore than my photograph. Get over it.

"And I'm not alone in that observation" ... hmmm are you a roomfull of re-critics editing together an appropriate response to my "witty derision"s? What fun. Send me a picture?

"I'm not looking to solve your marital issues with a picture...""ultimately, your own musings are tied to the sexuality of this shot." Well of course... did I deny that my own musings were familiar to your pretext? or did I explain it? My marital "issues" don't need solving, thank you. I mention them as a way of indicating your concept's personal relevance to me. I have, indeed, mused for years on this very subject, with pleasure and without frustration. I am attempting a dialog here, not a diatribe, despite your defensive posturings.

My initial response to this image was brief, because not everyone wants to engage in "the point of critique - the excercising of one's mind in a way that indulges that which it tears apart", as you evidently do. Once you responded in a way that indicated you might actually welcome criticism, I was happy to oblige. I enjoy contentious dialog, there's too much polite backslapping, outrage at nothing and resultant timid innuendo going on here at photo.net.

"The form of woman is celebrated because whatever the context, it is remarkable for both it's sensual curving and the mingling headspin." I think I agree with this but I'm not sure what "mingling" means.

I earlier said that "My photographic musings on that (women/sexuality) subject are not so bound to the sexual aspect as this image is..." and I mean (as clarification) that your images place a larger emphasis on the sexual attributes of a woman and let other facets lie hidden, while I attempt to illustrate sexuality as one component of a subject that is complex in many ways. I would like my photographs to show sexuality as being influenced by many interior sources as well as the external observer.Like quantum physics (and every other "system" in the world), the observing of a woman alters her behavior. All artwork is as much about the artist as the subject, and most good artwork is even more about the artist than it is about the subject.

"The moment that inspires it can be both tawdry and profound." The best moments in my life are both tawdry and profound. I choose to emphasize the profound without denying the tawdry,while you emphasize the tawdry, and (at least in this picture) only hint at the profound.

"If you can't figure out my picture, boo hoo on you..."Indeed. That I can't figure out your image is as relevant to you as you care to make it.It certainly won't cause me any discomfort, although I am enjoying this conversation.photo.net is really pretty boring or petty at best. At least I'm talking with someone whose ego isn't made of glass... and at best I'm disagreeing with an intelligent person, even if you are belligerant and defensive.

"Given your understanding of my goal in shooting, how would you improve it." The symbols you use are potent and effective. But let me clarify... The panties are light in tone, the shoe is black (I suppose) and if the thong were slipped over the shoe's heel I would expect to see that contrast in tone, indicating the thong is wrapped around the heel, which I don't. And what's that light streak at the top?

"the frontlines of screaming whore at the woman that excites your wallet" What? I'm not sure what I may have said that would inspire this comment. Let me hold a mirror for you: "your commentary has informed me more about you". "Whore" hadn't yet shown up in my consideration of this image. What's up with that? "Not every image that triggers your fantasy is concerned with your response." No argument with that, but since this is a critique forum, I thought I'd share my response... all right?"when you escape the desire to dominate via witty derision..." Please... should I aquiesce? should I be more dull?... t

No need to aquiesce, but you might wish to demonstrate a bit more initial tact. My last posting may have been a bit beligerent but It was that sort of day.

 

As you correctly pointed out, my ego is more akin to marble than glass. I'm not being defensive over the image. I am quite passionate and defensive over the dualistict notion that sexuality is seperate from spirit and I get really cranky over the notion that one is a more refined and elevated dialogue.

 

I've argued in circles with the fine art crowd over pornography. To me, it's pornographic, (using your earlier definition) to lop the head and limbs off a woman, as so much "fine art" does - and than yammer on endlessly about form, shape and texture. - all the while stripping the soul from it.

 

To me, sexuality is intriciately intertwined with the complexity of us and can't be unwound without missing the point. The teasing flirt of the panty pull in this shot speaks volumes about the woman doing the flirting. Hiesenberg aside, I liked this shot, out of a litany of others, because the ass spoke volumes for me about the woman. It's actually one of the few non face shot's I've ever done and I did it intentionally and not to rob her of identity or reduce her to mere form, but to convey her personality. Succes or failure to convey aside, It worked for me.

 

I submit that there is a personality to the gesture of that we adore. The particular way we linger over fingers, envelope each other in a snuggle or the peculiar rituals of how we fuck. Those details are what make us unique and convey alot more than mere physical pecadillos. They are fused with the interior dialogue, giving birth to a more overt examination of another's soul. The scent of a lover becomes fused with who they are.

 

Photographically, your right about the streak of light. That was an unplanned accident (Just switched to new lights - one a fresnal I've no experience with - I'm a soft light freak) But it grew on me in time, so rather than burn it out, I left it. I like the echo of mystery in the why of it's presence in the narrative of the scene. The panty pull thing we will just never agree on. The action seems clear to me. The stillettos are hobbling shoes - the heels are 5 and 1/2 inches, which is why gravity dropped the actual wrap below the line of vision. To me, that adds an interesting element, but I may be more familiar with the visual codings of the fetish world. Not seeing the wrap is a clue to the shoe present and enhances the overt tease of it. It's not immediately obvious, but that's a good thing. The visual confusion leads to a question and the answer gives you a clue about the person. To make the wrap obvious moves the image closer to cliche and away from a layered meaning.

 

There are certainly a million ways to play with the catholic girl theme. But as my work is about fetish and I'm so tired of cliche'd and generic images spewed forth, (myself included) what I was trying to capture was a more subtle image. I like that it's not obviously a uniform. I like the implicitness of overt fetish and shadowy explicit. I like the submissive posture interjected with overt wanting. It's part of what bondage and fetish mean to me and it's inherent in the act. That's why this image is successful to me.

 

I know this is a critique site. But what bothers me isn't the ego gladhandling but the watering down of critique that splatters immediate, superficial reaction to a photo gulped down in 30 seconds. It's a wierd sort of consumerism where more is better. There are certainly images whose visual impact is the entire point, but not everyone is shooting for that goal.

 

A photographer is his own little context. Images are individual quarks that make up the body of his or her visual interaction and observation of the world. Understanding images is often aided by dialogue, by filling in the context. Understanding a Diane Arbus shot is enhanced by knowing the context of her particular story.

 

Often, I think, in our headlong rush to see the next image, we forget to linger awhile. We become lazy viewers, incapable of reading the clues or even bothering to figure out the intent behind the visual elements. It's difficult to do on a photo critique site, because the assumed presumption is that critique = pointing out flaws, rather than discussions of intentioned images. Compound that with the focus on technical flaws - contrast, blah, blah and you do get a sea of uninspired blathering.

 

Either way, discussion only refines the fire of creating by filling in more of the details of why certain images move you and gains a more nuanced language in how to convey the particular idea understood darkly....Nice doing business with you...

Oh I love this shot Critter. Definitely a very cool pic here.

I arrived here via another one in this folder ("Lip look") and it is very interesting (and fun!) to see the discussion with Tom M. I think if I saw this shot first I might well have had the same reaction as Tom's, because we don't know the scenario (I remember seeing a similar heated discussion on one of Amy Powers' fetish shots). Having seen the other one it was easy to follow your (Critter's) description of her enthusiastic participation and so IMHO the picture works much better when seen as a part of a series than as a stand-alone.

 

Anyway the slightly haphazard layout and lighting works well with the scene and it succeeds in being erotic without being too blatant. ... Jonathan

What a thread! It takes me a week to say as much so here comes my boring, to the point, statement. I like this. I wish that the little highlight by here head was either not there or just different. Also, even though I knew it was a shoe, that whole area(including the shadowy area under her "naughty bits") was a little awkward for me. Something about the intersection between the out-of-focus heel and the sharp panties, I think. Somewhere in there, it sits wrong with me. Still cool, though. Not as cool as your self-portrait at the convienience store(!!!), but cool. cheers

Remember it's just a pic. Nice one though, the upper body might look better if it was sharper, like the overall feel.

 

Lol... I like blur. My peccadillo. And i's never just a pic...especially when lusty conversation is involved...:0

The comments are almost as interesting as the photo. Maybe it confuses men, because it seems to be porn, but it is not. This shot is too interesting to be porn; very classy too. I have this and several others of yours as my highest rated. So, I thought I should leave my 2 cents. Evocative on all kinds of levels.

Just to update - this shot got published in Secret Magazine's "Fetish Anthology 4" along with another. I'm quite honored, as there are some great photographers in it.

your work is very deserving.