Only For You . . .

 i dont find the model at all attractive, and as the title implies Only for you...  you should have kept it just for you.

Another little boy with an empty profile playing on mommies computer . . .

Tracy, hint... you'll find a whole different audience on Deviant Art dot com.  Some of my images that receive a cold reception here, are received quite well there.  Just a different, and much larger audience there.  Give it a try!  Regards, Michael

that's simply vulgar. It doesn't belong on a site for artistic photography.

Michael,

These are boys with empty profiles, often its the same guy using different profiles, that view this site to find nude pics to get aroused and then leave provocative comments rooted in the juvenile scope of their intellect at this point in their lives to grasp abstractions necessary to appreciate art.  Since they can only understand this image, and others like it, on a base level of reasoning, they comment in physical terms.  Since they cannot possibly grasp the artistic meaning of the work, they use the very limited vocabulary of boys to express their anger at their ability to only have a physical response to the piece rather than an intellectual response as is the case with all children.  It really speaks to the inability of their parents to police their use of the internet more than anything else.  For the most part this is the same kid using different profiles on the site.  Since there is nothing that can really be done about these boys I just incorporate into the piece.   Think like Andy Kaufmann here--there comments are the actual art and not the piece I've posted.

Tracy

I like he way you are experimenting with single light photography. There is a sexual feel here but certainly not vulgar. The light looks a bit like late evening light as she anticipates the pleasure she might get from the objects also on the bed. 

Thanks Mark.  I should probably respond to that crap when I'm not tired late at night.  I see no vulgarity in this at all either.  I shot this when I was playing with using a single, fixed light source for color instead of B+W.  My inspiration was Kubrick's Lolita but with an older, of legal age, non-virgin, sexual free-spirt-so yes there is an undercurrent of forbidden, taboo sexuality updated from 1962.  I do not understand wh someone who is not an artist, and someone who shoots only mundane, boring landscapes would be actively seeking to critique nudes.  If it makes them so angry, hostile and abusive, then why click on the thumbnails?  My art says more about a few deeply disturbed critics than it does about me, the model, or the themes I work with.  Thanks for the, as usual, thoughtful, intelligent and helpful criticism.

Tracy

Thanks for the suggestion Michael, and I will check it out.  I know you get your share of rude and personally abusive comments from the not so bright, repressed minority.  I do think that I will continue to annoy the unenlightened here...it is just so much fun to read their obvious melt-down at pubic hair and the sexual themes that comprise the human condition.  It is actually quite fun for me to read their hateful, abusive reaction to my art. 

Tracy

Well, I'm glad you enjoy it Tracy.  :o)   The narrow-mindedness and rudeness is just about more than I can take however, especially on sites such as this where the majority of photogs are here to both learn and to stretch their art-nude work into new dimensions.  

There's just no room for those juvenile airheads who don't and won't appreciate art.  Wished we could just virtually shoot them!  :o)  They really need to go back to their cherished porn sites and do what they do with them!

Dear Tracy,

All well, and i don't think its vulgar either, but art???

Sorry Tracy, but i don't thing this is art!!

Beautifull grill bytheway!!

I'm so glad that we all have you to decide what is and is not art for the rest of us.  What did I do creatively before you came along to explain how misdirected some of us are.  Thank you for explaining it all to me.  I just wish you would make yourself available to consult when we get a creative idea so we can check and see if we should bother pursuing our vision.  Thank you again so much for your comments about my grill.  What did you think of the girl?

Tracy

I'll write for the millionth time, art is subjective.  The image was designed to evoke a response.  Call it art, call it vulgar, call it whatever you want to call it but there's little point in debating one person's reaction.  My personal opinion is that the model (at least what I can see of her) is not unattractive but the photograph is far from what I would consider artistic (again, purely subjective).  I agree with Mark that the single-light works well and I appreciate your nod to Kubrick yet I still find the photograph at once static and, at the same time, in your face.  Perhaps a bit too in-your-face to invite any curiosity.  Some will appreciate it, others will not.

I wonder, do you consider this to be perfect?  What would you, as the photographer do to improve it?

One last thought, if you want your retort to be taken seriously I wouldn't suggest minimizing the endeavors of other photographers for no apparent reason.

If you can't find an apparent reason, you don't deserve a response.  

I was just critizing your picture, didn't know that true you i address the total art movement.

Anyway, i agree with Michael, virtually shoot the idiots who don't agree with you, but please, don't forget to shoot the self proclaimed artist as well... while you are at it.

My apologies to all of you virtual victims.  Instead of an intelligent critique, you lead with your chin by sanctimoniously declaring a work not fit for exhibition as art, then cry like a little boy when you are called on it.  Spend some time reflecting on your actions and try to improve yourself.  The first mistake is believing you have a monopoly on truth or that art is defined by a majority.  Food for thought, huh?

Tracy

I like the suggestive element of your photography. It feels almost like a deliberate ploy to see how you can engage with the viewer's sense of appropriate and perhaps more acutely, perception of the nude. This is an age old debate and so much has been written and said about 'the naked and the nude' that some feel there could not be anything added to that debate. I personally don't feel that any debate is closed and your gallery is a testament to that. In challenging the norm, in attracting praise from the voyeuristic element and scorn from the prudes, I think you are performing a noble duty!

There are times when you or your images to be precise has an unashamed sexual presence. The imagery, the implication, the suggestive lighting, the props and most importantly, the desire in the viewer to really wanting to find out what was photographer was thinking in representing the female form in this posture. This to me is erotic in a sexual way but I don't see this sort of representation being sleazy. Sleazy is in the mind of those who are afraid of the truth.

I like this and had to pay my homage in black and white. Nothing drastic, just a bit of play with the channel mixer followed by adding to the red channel. I'd love to know of your response.

Thank you.  I love your interpretation in B+W.  I shot this the same way I shoot B+W, but with color trying to see if I could get the same mood and feel.  Kubrick shot Lolita in B+W, which was my inspiration for this, and I wanted to bring it up to date from 1962.  The toys are hand-blown glass from a local artisan and I hoped would bring an undercurrent of taboo sexuality to this obviously sexually mature and experienced model.  I used constant lighting instead of flash to create the mood and feel.  I was trying to show the dichotomy of her turning away toward the pillow, and yet offering her most intimate self which is the tension I have always believe exists in Lolita's character in the film--sort of I hate this, but I wan't this even more.  I was hoping to get feedback on using this type of lighting for color work, and instead my model was debased in an abusive and misogynistic manner and my work was marginalized as vulgar, something beneath art, and unfit for exhibition.  I was patronized by the banality of sophists in my rather quick response to these folks.  Your criticism and interpretation are a breath of fresh air.  I should not have to defend my model and the right of my work to even exist--but I will unequivocally and without apology.  You are right that my work is intended to be dynamic and evoke a response in the viewer--but not ad hominem attacks, abuse or violence directed towards my model or myself.  I enjoy hearing how others interpret my work, what thoughts it evokes in them, and disdain explaining what it means to me--what is important is what it means to you the viewer.  I grow as an artist by honest critiques of my photography.  I hope my work will spark discussion about the content, and not my right to express that content.

Tracy

what does the incredible foot tattoo say?

hrdfortoes