'Yevgenia' No. 2

If you are referring to your question of whether this is the woman in a previous folder, my answer is clearly stated above, in my reply 'NO'.  I know you have dim eyesight, but you are sharp witted, and I am surprised you are mischaracterizing my response.

My response is at the top of the previous reply; it says 'NO' quite clearly.

If you seek the characterize that answer as ''the short answer is 'yes', obliged' you are dead wrong.

This is Not the same woman.

Not in 1,000 years and as stated in the Request for Critique.

As I stated before, you owe me and this woman an apology for calling her a prostitute, it is defematory, regardless of your personal feelings on the subject of your own relationships with photographing, living with and buying drugs for prostitutess; I don't do such things. 

I don't knowingly hire them either, in large part because the organized crime trade is so heavily infiltrated into that business, and the presence of photo equipment revealed makes a handy target, all moral considerations aside.

john

John (Crosley)

Tayyip Erdoğan still awaits an apology.

He's Islamist leader of Turkey, and the Armenians feel he and all Turks owe them an apology which apparently never will come.

Still stirring the pot?

I await an apology.

Perhaps this your way of saying 'when hell freezes over' for calling my model a prostitute with not even a whit of evidence other than this photo, which says nothing except a depiction by me of her nude?

john

John (Crosley)

"Still stirring the pot?  I await an apology."

Here's as concept that is no doubt foreign to a über-narcissist like you Crosley.....IGNORE IT and don't reply. It seems that you are the one still hell-bent on stirring the pot with your rationalizations. Or won't your over-inflated ego and sense of self-worth just not allow you to NOT have the last word in every conversation?

I found the discussion here interesting even if it did get a bit out of hand at the end.

I’m a sex worker myself working as a prostitute for the last almost 20 years. I like photography. 

I think everyone agrees she is disengaged and distant. What arrested me when I first saw it was her pose. John Crosley says she posed naturally so I gather the pose was hers and not arranged by the photographer. The pose is exactly my pose after my reveal to my date. Most hookers use a similar pose if we have a bed to work on. The reason is that you want to be open and inviting to your client and he can look at you. You don’t cross your legs or arms. I agree with the comments that you need to have no qualms not only about nudity but to being ‘open’ to a man. So I don’t see her pose as not being a sexual invitation and with only an engagement in the intellectual process of being photographed. I see the reverse. A sex worker (perhaps only a nude model), in a pose that does invite a man and “entice and arouse” him. That’s why you show your slit and tits. The ‘deadness’, I think, comes from the nature of the sex industry for women. They may use our body but not our mind. One thing you all miss but to me it is obvious, is her small forced smile. Almost Mona Lisa like. But its forced and only the corners of her lips curl slightly. I can read this like a book. It’s what you do – you smile at your client and pretend to enjoy it but she looks bored, “here we go again” and she forces a little smile. Of course she’s distant and ‘dead’. Any sex worker has no modesty about their body after about a year and opening your legs is de rigour. 

I don’t think you got her essence at all. John says “when in fact I depicted her precisely as she was; I got to her inner essence with this photo; reserved and inside herself, but observing.” I think the very reverse. She is a model and you got exactly what you paid for – a body to photograph. She gave you nothing of her real self. No sex worker does be they prostitute, stripper,  model or porn star. What you get is an outward appearance of the real woman. But we hide the real woman from you where you cannot find her. So what you have is a really good photo of a woman, apparently open to you, but actually only presenting a defensive shell. There is the provocative pose, both her slit and boobs are open and on offer, it a prostitute’s “come and join me pose” but it’s a professional at work and she puts her body into it but not her soul. You can see this from the forced half smile and the distance everyone has commented on. 

I think the discussion makes another point. It is that when you create an image and put it into the public domain, the creator loses control of it just as a parent does when a child leaves home. John Crosley makes it clear that he still thinks its his image and he defends it against other interpretations as he feels he has some authority to dictate its interpretation as its creator. In fact, now every one’s interpretation is equally valid provided it is thoughtful. This is a point Andres Cerrano makes. The artist loses control of his work. He also asks where does art stop and pornography begin?

I see a sister another working girl. I think she may well do some stripping and some hooking too. It is working girls that get that far away look as a defence to what we do. I like it because I think you have caught in your photo this duality and paradox. You have a girl with her legs open inviting sex with her, but it’s not real – you are only getting her body and her real self is safely protected. 

I commented on a photo of a prostitute by Samuel Meir and he got her true self and sad self for reasons I explained at his photo. He got flamed for saying What I know is that a post of a beautiful prostitute looking like "come fuck me" is going to gets lots and lots of viewers (like me) regardless of  its artistic content -or lack of. I read this in the context of the posts about the value and meaning of most views. I thought he was saying that it may be the subject not the work that attracts a lot of views and that a hot hooker would get a lot of views regardless of its artistic merit just as pornography does. I didn’t take him to say the model was a prostitute (although I feel she may well be). So I don’t think the flaming was on point and results from a misreading of what is a fairly self evident point that was being missed – that the number of hits does not necessarily correspond with artist merit.

Further, all comments are obviously a comment on the image not the person in the image. I’m sure we should all keep the distinction between what is real and what is an image. If a model poses as a prostitute, or the viewer feels she poses as a prostitute, then for the purposes of the image it is an image of a prostitute. Why the fuss? When I first saw the image I automatically assumed she was a prostitute because of her pose and her distance and disengagement. It such a typical prostitute’s pose. In real life you undress your client and take your clothes off, do whatever, then you lie on the bed exactly like that inviting him to join you. If he’s a bit slow you beckon him with your finger. The pose is and invitation to join you in bed and that’s why you put your hands behind your head. All hookers know your date likes to see your slit and tits.

 I’m used to being denigrated because of what I do but why John is your image being interpreted as being of a prostitute (even though it wasn’t) such a horrible and bad thing that demands an immediate apology? Who is a reference to a prostitute so offensive? Why isn’t it a compliment or at least neutral? Surely it is the role of the artist to see through such social stereo types and show the truth not just repeat existing prejudices? I ask the question of all the other posters of a similar view too. We are human too, and hardly ever is it our career of choice. Why should being a prostitute mean you’re worthless and any reference that an image that references us is so offensive that all this heat is generated. It wouldn’t be if it was a reference to homosexuality, jewishness or colour. Why still single us out for discrimination? We are still the victims of most oppressive laws against prostitution. What about the men that use us? Thanks to those who see us as real women in difficult circumstances.

 Thanks

 Anne Jackson

I have a duty to my models not to misrepresent them or to allow them on a public forum to be misrepresented; there are laws of libel (and slander) to be accounted for, and my duty to my model is to protect her reputation, as all are amateurs.

If someone says, and says so truthfully, as you have done, 'this woman looks like a prostitute' showing 'her slit and her tits', then that is really no problem with me at all, for that is not outside of the person I have depicted.

It is, as you have well, authoritatively, (possibly definitively) pointed out, a very apt description of what I have depicted.

There is a slight but MAJOR legal and moral difference between describing the MODEL (a person) as a prostitute and her depiction )the photo as the photogrraphic depiction of a prostitute.

Unless and until I get into the business of hiring women I know to be prostitutes (as Meir has), then I am not so qualified as he to say who 'LOOKS" like a prostitute, but I am absolutely qualified to say that MEIR DOES NOT KNOW ONE WHIT WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOMAN IS A PROSTITUTE, as he has had no communication with her or other knowledge of her (outside of viewing this photo), and he has acknowledged that.

Like it or not, there is a matter of disrespect in society (and in law) against implying infidelity and licentiousness (even nowadays) to women, and even women who pose nude. 

To say 'she looks and poses like a prostitute' is one thing, and one can say that well of many movie stars, say, for instance Melina Mercouri, who made a reputation of portraying an 'uncommon' prostitute, beloved by all, in Greece, vs. the woman who IS a prostitute because she makes her living selling sex.

The two are NOT the same, and cannot be confused.

Meir intuits and not more, that this woman is a prostitute. 

Would he say the same of any movie star who portrayed a prostitute and did so convincingly? 

I think not, but he does so with my model.  My model is entitled to my protection unless and until she steps forward and says herself that is her profession or until she tells me and agrees that I can disclose that fact.

Until that day arises, and I have little doubt it never will come to pass, then I must defend her; or any other model of mine, or John Peri's models or any other women who pose nude for a photo, will be called prostitutes with impunity. 

To allow her to be called a prostitute without evidence of same and without a defense from me, leaves me open possibly to legal action, though possibly my release covers that . . . . but I don't want to get into fine points about my release.  It's just the right thing for me to do, to  prevent any woman who comes to me as an amateur (yes, she came to me as an amateur) to prevent her 'real self' from being associated as 'fact' with her image  a fantasy.

You are uncomfortable with prostitutes being denigrated, and yet at the same time say for many it's not a profession of choice.   I hope you are aware there seems to be an inherent contradiction in those two positions.  I won't explore that.

I don't have much or any experience with women who do as this woman does - lie back and expose themselves, so I am a poor man to judge that she does or does not look like a prostitute, as you say you believe a prostitute should (and you do yourself) portrays herself.

I do know that I had a long, engaging talk with her, lying on the bed, she nude, us both head to head on elbows, while my friends (both women and both close), were in the other room, and our discussion after the photographer was over with this woman as personal. open, and wide ranging.

As opposed to an earlier commenter who at first said I was apparently photographing a woman I apparently intended to bed (not true at all), I was interested mostly in her mind intellectually, and her body for the professional aspect of improving my photography. 

I did not take this photo professionally, and had no place for it other than in archives.  I do not sell, and then had no plans to sell.

I only posted this because of all the nude photos I have taken this struck me as having some 'truth' and good composition to it; I was reviewing many past captures, and seeing this just caused my hand to strike my forehead and say 'why didn't I consider that for posting?' though it's strong or maybe even because it's so strong.

I was right. 

It is a powerful photo, and think it does capturer that duality you wrote of, and perhaps I missed the true duality -- I may never know for certain.

You may in fact know her better than I; your eye (and even Meir's) may be more discerning, but he cannnot speak about this until he KNOWS the truth, given the legal climate.

Is this woman a prostitute?  It is only for her to say.

Did I portray her as a prostitute?

I have never seen a prostitute portray herself as such, so I can only guess and acknowledge that you among your clientèle have apparently in your minds a stereotype that is outside my experience, which is perhaps why I was able to 'see' and 'capture' this -- if it had been within my experience, then I might have just passed it by . . . . as being an 'ordinary view' that many men have encountered and thus possibly hackneyed.

Perhaps it is the view that is familiar to many businessmen and traveling men or men who otherwise pay for sex.

I am outside that experience, which is not to say that I have not lived an interesting and worldly life, but I have NEVER had a woman present herself to me like this, and frankly if I had, I probably would have walked away.

This is a presentation I do not value, if I were seeking sex; as I value intimacy and coyness far more than such a display.

I do not quarrel with you at all, when you present your thesis -- as you present yourself as an expert, and apparently are.  In my experience, prostitutes of some long experience either really LOVE what they do, or they get very hardened to life, and have a bad life - living for the day . . . spending their money immediately, knowing they can make big money the next and not planning for the future when their beauty fades.

I have mentioned before of seeing in Amsterdam's biggest newspaper a photo of the mayor giving the city's oldest prositute a plaque celebrating her long service upon her retirement well into her late '50s or early '60s.

Interestingly, the geishas in Japan have another take on this.  They would never present themselves thusly; they believe in intimacy, listening, talking and NEVER revealing themselves, and even if they fall in love they are unwilling to act on it. 

It is an ungeishalike act for a woman to do more than accept gifts; not to sleep with her clients . . . yet for that she is a prostitute and maybe of a high order . . . for she touches her man's soul many times . . . . he is made to think often he is 'in love' and for that her pays her, but gets no sex at all. 

Then when he's out of money, he's also out of favor, except in rarest of circumstances.

Meir has interjected his personal life, and certainly this photo has touched some part of him, perhaps in a way that surprised him . . . . as he is the NUDE PHOTOGRAPHER, whereas for the most part I am the street photographer.

He has spent most of his photographic (artistic) life seeking to portray nudes his way, and then I come along with this interesting view . . . . and somehow I think it touched something deep inside him . . . .(you've seen his comment . . . . and I think you may agree).

I took a photo of a young woman in Odessa several years back showing self-inflicted cuts on her arm ['Inna the Cutter']- who nowadays would be called an EMO young woman.  She was a self-mutilator - her father beat her, and to escape her hell, she created with knife or razor a little personal, self-controled miniature hell and then when she stopped cutting it stopped hurting.

That photo evoked a tremendous discussion and response.

This is the 80Th comment to this photo, and for that, I think it says that no matter what this photo depicts or how I meant it to depict something, it is a powerful photo.

I know you are correct; I no longer own the image's interpretation and have no qualms if someone wants to THINK she's a prostitute;  that's their prerogative, but they cannot tell others they KNOW my model is in real life a prostitute, as that is probably an actionable tort (a legal wrong on which someone can sue).

Also it goes against my ability to recruit models in the future if I do not defend my model's integrity to the end, and be able to show that defense.  Otherwise being hired by me would indicaste license to call future models prostittutes the world, not for what they portray (fair game) but for who they are (not fair game).

Are you right?

I cannot say.

I would not say.

That is not within he purview of this discussion.

I think we all agree, this is a powerful image; otherwise, why the enormous discussion surrounding it?

And, why, when I reviewed past captures did I say to myself 'How did I overlook THAT ONE?'

Ms. Jackson, you are to be commended for speaking your piece, and also know that in many parts of the world, outside of the United States, prostitution is known and regarded as a public service. 

One old man (a horny coot) got Netherland's public health to pay for his visits to a prostitute. 

Nearly every German city or town has a 'red light' district

"This is the 80Th comment to this photo, and for that, I think it says that no matter what this photo depicts or how I meant it to depict something, it is a powerful photo."

John, this is where I disagree with you. The amount of comments has nothing to do with the power of the photo. It has to do with the kinds of comments that are being made. Most of the comments are about other comments, some quite controversial and pointed, not about the photo at all. Actually, if one wanted to, one could consider this a weak photo because it hasn't been discussed much as a photograph, but rather more attention has been paid to the reality of the model herself (which distracts from the photograph per se) and the politics and legalities around statements, and responses to your statements about the photo itself. But considering it weak because of that stuff would be a mistake, too. It's strengths and weaknesses lie within the photograph, not in the discussion that surrounds it. 

I do very much agree with Roxie that I experience this photograph as not capturing this woman's essence. And I don't for one second think capturing a so-called essence is any better than capturing something significant on the surface or in the realm of the purely physical. It seems, as Roxie suggests, much more a picture of a model than a picture of a woman. (BTW, In my own photographs, I enjoy playing with and exploring that difference and the overlap of the two. I think personas and masks are very important to photographs and I think getting caught up in essences can be very tricky and misleading.)

You are a wonderful commenter with a terrific way of expressing yourself -- highly articulate and skillful.

Rather than take umbrage with what you say, I encourage readers ALSO to read what you have written, for it adds to the discussion.

For some reason, no matter what the reason, many of Photo.net's most worthy commenters have found it worthwhile to comment on the interchange between the model and the depiction of the model, whether in a legal, ethical, moral, sexual, professional or other context, and for the most part the discussion has generated a highly intelligent discussion, especially given the 'charged' context.

You and I do not have to agree on everything for me to respect your mode of expression or your point of view, but many times I share all or part of a point of view you have expressed (here or elsewhere), even if I may not seem to, especially when I emphasize other things when I comment.  I think in shades of gray rather than black and white and am quite open to your point of view . . . . and give it fair consideration.

And I entirely respect nearly all of what you write; you are one of Photo.net's most respected contributors, and what you write almost always falls into the realm of good (or better) criticism.

Again, I urge all to read both what you AND Ann (Roxi) have contributed here today about this photo. 

I do not claim to have or know the truth about this photo, only that I took it, know the circumstances, and was overwhelmingly surprised by what a stir it has caused AND and the astounding number of views on this site where female nudity and sexuality are commonly shown, and often quite explicitly.

Thanks, Fred, for your contributions (here and above).  Discussion is the stuff of life. 

john

John (Crosley)

[and just when I thought there was little to add that would be helpful  . . . .  ]

You are defending the Alamo. Its time to run up the white flag.

Last I heard, the Mexicans do no not possess the Alamo, despite their 'victory' in a battle long ago.  I guess you are not a student of history.

Still stirring the pot, hunh?

john

John (Crosley)

In otherwords you will go down so that photo.net can survive?  :-)

To attempt to put words in my mouth.  Please refrain.

Please stop stirring the pot, Meir; let those who have something to say about the photo have their say, as they have with great success in the last 24 hours, regrettably excluding your comment(s) today which have no apparent purpose other than to troll, which is forbidden under the Terms of Service.

John Crosley

Photographer

Hi again,

You guys are having a lot of fun with each other over this! Very entertaining to read.

First for the record my real name is Anne and my working names are Roxanne, Roxi and Rox and sometimes Rox the Box for obvious reasons.

Thanks for the replies. Its really interesting to have the feed back.

The point I was trying to make was the difference between an image and reality. Images are not real and hence not the truth so images can be objectionable of religious grounds which is why the Taliban destroyed the ancient Buddist statues and indeed impaled TV's on stakes outside the cities. While I don't agree with the Taliban, their action is nevertheless sincere given the world view of imagery.

None of us here (except John C) is talking about the real woman here. None of us know her. We can't talk about the real woman. So we are all talking about the image. So if someone says "She is a prostitute" [and I can't see anything wrong in that :) ] really what is being said is a short way of saying "My interpretation of the image of the woman I am looking at is that she is a prostitute". It can't be anything else and it is not necessary to add the qualifiers because it must be the interpretation of the image and not the real woman.

John I sincerely think, as you know both, and are the only person here in that position, you blur the distinction. I think you see yourself as defending the real woman whereas you are in fact only defending a paper and print image reproduced here electronically. What I think you are hearing is something like "I know that woman in real life, she is Katie Smith and she is a prostitute" and therefore defending her honour is appropriate.

The analogy of a film actress playing a prostitute is not an accurate one because again we all know in the context of watching the film that she is an actress playing a role. Your photographic image John image does not say "Caution: the woman in this image is a model of good virtue and no inference to the contrary should be drawn". A better analogy would be a still taken from the film of the actress playing the prostitute and shown out of context. It could be reasonably said that it is an image of a prostitute. Again it would be unecessary to defend the actress's honour as we are talking about the image not her - even though it may appear we are talking about the real woman it is obvious we can't be talking about the real woman.

I think it is a really interesting discussion that brings out some fundamental concepts of art. It is also amusing that we all seem to agree it is a great image but for different reasons. I think Fred G understands the philosophical nature of images and puts it very well in terms of "personas and masks" (reality and image) and hence his caution about essences. Such a good point.

I would like to add that I respect John C enormously in his replies. Most people seem to have a rusted on position and reject any argument against their position. John, on the other hand, is prepared to analyse and weigh each argument and be persuaded if he thinks the argument has merit. Not many people can do this.

thanks for reading

Roxi

What you feel is 'obvious' about the statements above, that the woman "IS a prostitute' was stated so categorically' and without disclaimer by Meir above.  He subsequently stated he didn't know one way or another whether or not she was, but refused to apologize; I take (took) my models from newspaper (then Internet) advertisements, and found many to be highly educated and frankly the only 'working girls' who showed up  were so hardened they were shown the door, so far as I know.

This woman was polite, respectful, highly educated, erudite, could hold her own in a conversation, and had many attributes that I respected, and I still respect her. If she is a prostitute, that is a personal matter for her for she has not shared that with me.

Meir, on the other hand has stated, that based on his experience he KNOWS EXACTLY that she is, and refused so far to apologize for his mischaracterization of her as a  prostitute.  Speaking a 'fact' when one knows one does not know the truth or falsity is an act of deceit and fraud under US and the Common Law civil tort/contract system and therefore actionable, if one thereby libels someone.

It may easily be libel to claim a woman is a prostitute if she is instead a student, housewife, or simply a person who just is not a prostitute, and that brings the potential for legal problems, and as a long ago, one time attorney, I am wedded to the legal principle that no one shall speak untruths about my models.

Meir defends by saying 'he has slept with prostitutes, administered drugs to them and essentially 'knows one when he sees one'.   End of story so far as he is concerned.

Not so far as I am concerned.

I happen to respect the profession and while not engaging the services of a prostitute, preferring real affection rather than a fanciful charade from which I can feel no soul, I thnk that prostitutes fill a real service in this world, and frankly so does the US military, and indeed the term 'hooker' was coined as an acccolade to one General 'Hooker' who apparently in the Civil War encouraged good relations with camp followers.

I have known a variety of prostitutes and sex workers; and been acquainted with those in the sex film industry, though mostly on a tangential basis -- e.g., I met such people outside of their work and not part of any sexual pursuit of my own and have learned much about such work from them.

It's work, just like any other such work.  In the end, it's a job like any other job as the folloing story will illustrate:

See my photo of the man with the 'ripped' abdomen being admired by several women in my B&W Then to Now folder. He has his shirt up, he is called in the photo 'louche' and the women are called 'high class' or something to that effect.

It was taken at a photo exhibition which he attended.  The photo was taken when this porno star (or erstwhile 'star') was (1) having his explicit publicity photo with erect member examined by one of the women (left) in mye photo, (2) another woman examnied with her uptstretched hand his ripped abdomen, and (3) a third had her tongue out from watching the experience.

I left those details out of the commentary; I didn'y want to interject the 'sex worker' business into the photo commentary, and wanted the photo to 'stand on its own' and not derive any 'standing" (please excuse the expression) on the basis that he was a short 'porn star' of some substantial dimension 'where it counts'.

And, after telling his story to me, I  introduced him to the women, and he proceeded to retell it, complete with the tale of the sore genitals of his co-worker and his 'thrusting' which she found objectionable'

In short, to these women, he recounted his day of having sex with a woman sex star who had in several days made several sex films and was very sore from the encounter, and he (as he said) liked to be 'rough', and there was 'considerable friction' (in more ways than one), on the set.  She was sore and hurting and apparently they didn't get along because of her pain and his propensity to thrust.

All in all, it was just the tale of  a 'bad day at work'.

Soon thereafter, I answered an ad for a place to live, found a nice place with a very elderly, very tall man, and after moving in for a planned few months into a room (in the San Fernando Valley) he took me aside one day after move in and said 'you should know I was a founder of the adult industry and the reason I rented you the room was I just lost my job . . . (he was in his mid-late '70s with a 28-year-old stripper girlfriend. 

His first houseguest was a convicted child porn purveyor from long ago whose case had gone to the Supreme Court, a most odious fellow, who took it upon himself to offer me unwanted medical advice. 

He lived out of state, which I think kept himk from having to wear a California sex offender tracking ankle monitor, if I understand Calfifornia law, or even to register as a 'sex offender' while he lived there while on vacation. 

I only learned of this after the fact, in any case.  The man I rented rom became active once again in the industry and his son (who had a collection of stolen DVDS worth enough to buy a Mercedes) would drive porn starlets to their appointments on those rare days he could work; a most unsavory young man, though incredibly bright and totally unschooled, except through the SCHOOL OF WATCHING TELEVISION, for which there should have been some sort of cum laude degree, and for which he should have been the first recipient, as he knew more 'facts' than there have been answers on Jeopardy, based on his extensive television watching. 

A wasted life, as far as I could tell.

I got outta there as a roomer, as soon as I could, delayed by severe and life-threatening medical reasons that easily could have been averted had my insurance paid me money they admitted was owed me.

[there'll be more on that for sure, and maybe some names named, too, regarding the insurance -- not the individuals as their identities are never intended to be revealed]

I think, Roxi, based on your humanistic writing, I would have been much more comfortable sharing a house with you, even if you were working your profession at home, than with these people who never uttered 'bad words' and kept the most prim premises -- as the very old, very tall and very active man was obsessive, compulsive about 'dirt'  (interesting hunh?  He constantly scrubbed, swiffed, polished and sniffed, hunting for anything out of place.

He had a curious kind of ethics/never spoke a 'bad word', always called it the 'adult film industry' and recounted with glee the story of how he put in an advertisement for 'filthy pictures' and to respondents, he rubbed dirt into the photos sent, so they'd truly be 'filthy'.  Hah Hah Hah.

(Now wasn't that worth the time spent reading?  Maybe you know of this guy, again who willl not be named, but is a legend, possibly still alive.)

The fact is Roxi, that when a model places 'trust' in me not to allow her to be denigrated (which I promise within my power) in her person, not in her depiction, then I go to geat lengths to honor my word.

It is that honoring that has caused so many words to be written; and it appears you have just simply slipped by the main point when you write that it appears obvious to all that it is the depiction which is being described.

That is not so in the case of Meir, who, based on his extensive experience with prostitutes, he tells us, can 'spot one' [my quotes] and thus he 'knows' she is one and therefore is unable to admit she may not be.

And I am perfectly willing, based on your very apt description, to accept that somehow, inadvertently, I have created a photo with my model that is emblematic of something far greater than I knew: the 'tits' and slit' you write of and the inviting pose.

I have always known that the image I lose control of once others look at it and interpret it, and anticipated that in my release, as I recall, but I cannot tolerate others changing their rank speculation into assertions of fact . . . . and it is stated as 'fact' and not based just on an interpretation of an 'image' but based on one man's claimed 'absolute knowledge' based on his 'extensive experience' (again my quotes added) with prostitutes that for sure she is one, then later admitting he does not really know.

Given the legal context, and for the protection of me and this servcice with the state of libel laws, that calls for an apology.  I give my pledge of honor and my apology herewith to my model, who is deserving of it, not having represented herself as a prostitute but the man who made the assertion should also make the apology. 

If he made it as observation based solely on the 'look' of the photo, there would have been no argument; he would be entitled to his own opinion, but his 'opinion' transgressed into the forbidden area of an absolute statement of fact from which he adamantly has refused to back down.

My legal instincts, training, vast reading of libel law in the US, UK and common law jurisdictions, tell me that is a chancy proposition, and although I may be covered, I cannot be guaranteed this service is not, and thus he may have exposed Photo.net throgh his own carelessness and stubborness.

Statement of opinion:  You can say just about anything, so long as it bears some reasonable relationship to the depiction.

Statement of FACT:  You are limited to what you absolutely know and can prove, especially if a claim is made and it states a defamation.

That is the basis of this extensive colloquy and what may

I love the leading lines and the tonality, nice treatment. Why the bracelet/watch on her hand, was that intentional? Also, to me, the blown highlights on the top left detract a bit. And also, I'm not sure I like the knee pointing at me. The dead center framing of a body part that's frequently subject to interpretation puts the photographer into the frame.

With the technicalities out of the way, her posture and expression conveys a sense that she's relaxed and waiting for something to happen (that may or may not involve her), and I'm not sure what to make of that...

A haunting image, very well done!

Thank you so much Indraneel for your thorough and interesting critique.  I think it cuts to the essence of this photo more than almost anything anyone else has written about it AS A PHOTO alone, as opposed to the sociological/socio-sexual implications and the name-calling.

It's presented on the level of discourse I had expected of my commenters, rather than what I received disappointingly from some.

'A haunting image, very well done.'

I think that cuts to the chase and somehow explains in very few words that which your critique pointed to.

And yes, she is waiting, watching.

Maybe there are other implications, too; I'm not so schooled in that part of things, and listen to what Roxie added with great interest.  

And maybe somehow, I have made a very serious capture/study of something few or no one else has done before, which is why all the hubbub.

Thank you, sir for a fine, serious critique. 

My hat's off to you.

john

John (Crosley)

I refer to Michael Freeman's book 'The Photographer's Eye' the only (and by far and away the best) book I ever could imagine on the subject of design in photography.

In that book, which I highly recommend, the author examines how photographs are constructed in relationship to their underlying 'design' elements.

Now, if you are interested in 'design' (and as a photographer you probably should be as it's important to your craft), and if you've had a chance to peer at Freeman's book, I invite an analysis of the 'design' of this photo.

You see, however, much 'sound and fury' has been expended above, this was a carefully constructed photo, even if taken ad hoc while standing on a springy mattress, hovering over this model, for an instant.

The remarks suggest this photo is powerful, though many don't like WHY it seems to be powerful, but that is part of its strength - it has 'impact', and although many confuse it with porno, porno is often the last breath utterance by people who in their gut don't like nude depictions and really don't understand  at all what porno is and how and why the two often differ markedly.

Porno is about fantasy, about things that are not 'real', the seduction in many cases, and often an invitation for the viewer (in his/her mind) to step into the scene.

Do you, as viewer, want to step into this scene? Or is it more like the photos of Nann Goldin, a personal glimps into something that about which you may be intensely,  almost morbidly curious.

In any case, the structure of this pose was no accident.

There were thousands of ways to take this photo, and I chose this one:  why?

Are there design elements, and if so, which ones?

Were they successful, given the reaction?  Am I justified in my suspicion that the power of this photo is that it MUST be looked at, people can not look away, but many feel they must look away or disavow having looked because they feel bound by convention and this is a personal look into a life they choose not to be (publicly) associated with.

The Russians/Ukrainans have a word. 

Mooshna? 

It means 'may I' or 'just question'.

It is used all the time, an-all purpose word.

Mooshna well reasoned response?

I'd be most grateful.

john

john (Crosley)

I'm going to extend an invitation as well. How about analyzing and critiquing the design of someone else's photo? Your eye and your insights are needed elsewhere on the site. It may not be your cup of tea, but I'll tell you that looking carefully and articulating things about the photos of others not only has value to other members of this community, it can be helpful to you as well in considering your own work. Not only looking at, but actually talking about others' work specifically often opens my eyes to new ways of looking and seeing. It may or may not work for you. But as long as you were in an inviting mode, I thought I'd do the same. And, as you suggested here, it doesn't have to be strictly critique, I like, I don't like, this is good, this is bad. It can be, this is what I see in your work, this is what I'm getting out of it. It all goes into the creative spirit.

I honest to God cannot believe that this thread has not died a natural death and been relegated to the annals of irrelevancy where it belongs. Crosley is STILL posting on this. I did not write as much on my freakin' Masters thesis as he has written on this photograph. A textbook definition of obsession.

Let it alone.

Good faith comment were invited, not kvetching.

You have done nothing but complain.

Go away.

You are a pest, as noted by Gordon Bowbrick, above, and I am told are widely known on Photo.net as a pest.

If you complain I should 'give it up', why are you here and who appointed you the policeman of Photo.net?  Do something better with your time -- go take a photograph or something worthy instead of griping, if you are capable.

This is my photo, and you should look into your own obsession with it and why you are here, seriously.  Apparently you have other obsessions with nude photographs as reported to me by others.  I think you need to examine your motives; your post is in bad faith and borders on evil; it certainly is against terms of service.

John Crosley

Photographer

Thank you John Peri, Roxi, John, John, Scott and all other I cant quite remember, for such a wonderful reading. I couldnt get a read on a more elaborate discussion between ethics, law, artistic merit, subject in photography, and good laughs on meaningless (for me) fights. For me, and its FOR ME :-) this photo has the value of its text above, AND the things the photo itself say to each person. I remember the sandwich photo of Martin Kovalik ;-) how many comments. But it was more porn/no porn discussion. They say a photo equals a thousand words. And I am reading tens of thousands outside the photo. :-)

again thank you all!!!

I had just by chance looked at the year's most commented photos, found this was no. 3, and was amazed.

I also was amazed really that even one-twentieth of the ultimate number of viewers wanted to click on this photo, let alone the vast number who commenteed on it.

I'm not one to shy away from a discussion  on any topic I am familiar with, and this was one I am most invimately (not in that sense) familar with, together with certain ancillary topics.

I cannot take credit for the contributions of others, and I can't read your comment while I am writing but I think you did leave out one prominent contributor (almost essential) to the discussion, who goes now by an 'initial' so let's not forget him also. [Fred G.]

It seems like this discussion almost has been without end -- but I'm glad somebody has drawn something important from it; I certainly learned a lot, both in posting and in defending (or discussing) my post.

Remember, without viewers like you Billy, and the numberous others viewers who click and especially those who contribute to discussions, there is little worth in posting.

Thank you for kind words (from my part at least). I won't speak for others, but you might drop them a line with a URL pasted to your comment on this discussion if you want them to notice your comment.

Thanks again, Billy, somehow you have helped make it all seem worth while.

john

John (Crosley)

Several viewers have remarked negatively about the feet being cut off.

It's symmetrical.

The hands are cut off too.

john

John (Crosley)

John- I find this simple, open and matter of fact! It shows a woman who is very comfortable in her own skin. Not contrived, not complex and not porn! I am astounded by the running dialog this image has generated. How can such a simple and immediate image end up being construed as so much more. I was waiting for someone to say this might be the work of the devil! But we all know controversy stirs the kettle of public interest and of prurient interest. Looks like a few have come out to gaze (or should I say graze?). Always appreciate your work John. Have found that the discourse on PN has degenerated on average into one line comments; "Good photo, or nice picture." Definitely not the case here!

I appreciate the thoughts expressed so well in your comment plus that you obviously buried yourself in the 94 or so comments above yours before making your offering.

That's real dedication.

I defend my images and my models.  If this woman is a prostitute, that did not show with me, and in any case, it's irrelevant.

Did anyone suggest Melina Mercouri was a prostitute in real life because she acted as one so well in her famous film, 'Never on Sunday'  -- and same with other actresses who have made great depictions of women practicing the world's oldest profession.

I think what galled many who saw this as 'porn' is that it is extremely well done.  This is not meant to be self-aggrandizing; it it were any old depiction that suggested prostitution, and were done with mediocrity, the cries would have never been made or died out almost instantly.  Instead, it's become a cause celebre with some.

All kidding aside and same with self-aggrandizement, this is a very well composed shot, with symmetries throughout, even to the point where it meant cutting off her feet, which for me was a plus, not a minus, as the feet  detracted considerably and broke the composition.    When I figured out what to do with the feet, the composition was made; it was one of those 'why didn't I think of that before' strokes that one occasionally gets, and this time not too late.

Since her hands were not visible, feet not being visible seemed the 'right' thing to do -- with the result, symmetry almost throughout and this seemingly 'simple' photo became very appealing, which really must have galled the blue noses!

Some kvetcch and complain.

I just do.

I also defend what I do, usually quite ably.  I have good command of the language and arguing skills that at one time people paid $400 to $800 an hour for.

I had actually found this photo in older captures -- a one-of-a-kind shot -- and had started playing with it, as I do so many old shots, especially when I get new Photoshop skills.

In fact, I have saved 1/2 million or so old shots, which contain some that I recognized as having 'potential' but were well beyond my then ability to present them with my very limited Photoshop skills. 

Those skills still are lagging; many first year members have higher skills.

I just go out and take new photos if I have trouble with trying to 'save' a photo by editing it, although I am getting better at doing just that, with sometimes amazing results, and I do some scattered postings going right back to my first year taking photos here.

I'm also photoshopping scans of captures from the first year I owned a camera (1968), as those are some of my best work ever, and I plan to publish that work.

That year and the ensuing three or four years plus scattered years and decades since saw not too much but some wonderful work - some lifetime best -- and lasted until eight years ago when I began participating here with extraordinary activity.

I never had had an audience before, save with the press, and the feedback was limited.

So, essentially no one except  basic photo editors had seen or evaluated my work since I quit as an AP and magazine photographer (also a writer/editor for both) until I came here to Photo.net and another service.

If I had to do it over again, I'd do this photo just the same - no changes -- and I'd answer the criticisms essentially the same as well.

I'd also show it as representative of my best work to a well-educated audience that I knew and understood and that wanted to see my 'BEST' work, even at the risk of being offended.

Frankly with still photography, I just don't do pornography, or at least that's not my intention.

John Peri, premier glamour photographer on this service, also comes under plenty of attack, and his models too (go to his 'other site' where he posts and see all his warnings and see how many comments he's had to suppress, because of offense to his models by crude language and other ill-advised observations from viewers there (I won't name the site.).

Here, it was far worse, but I'm a grown man, and I think my model here would be proud of me and my defense of her right not to be called names.

In a way, don't you suppose those names she's called are hugely flattering to me as an artist; they suppose that instead of my 'art' depicting this woman that way, that instead she is what they call her, and I just 'happened along like some poor bumpkin on a turnip truck, perhaps armed with a Brownie, Instamatic or point and shoot to take the shot that anyone else would have taken.  After all, it's just a 'true depiction' and I just happened to be the one, I think they would try to justify.

Hah!

Thanks for a most enjoyable comment.

You're very welcome here any time; your comments are always appreciated.

john

John (Crosley)