Morning

I would love to learn how this foto was made. The colors and setting lend themselves to a 3-dimensional feel...almost with texture. I want to reach out and touch it. Well done.

Maxim, I do find the top left picture and the attendant spacing on the left to be detracting. Unlike many cases, we have an opportunity to ask you what you intended / thought about it. Care to enlighten us?

I doubt if Hurell could have executed something with the finesse you show here. My hearty congratulations. Sure,one could look at the pieces. Looking at the whole,the gestalt,it sure works for me. The interior space and the exterior space are well defined,giving the intimacy effect. The exterior space,the light source is a little crowded,and if I block the picture with my hand,it is more intimate,and sensual and voyeuristic. Now,tell us what this body painting is all about in this instance. And how it works,or give us a better link. Tell,tell,spill all for us netskys,elves,and harpies...Aloha Gerry

That picture reminds me the the dusty 50's magazine I was seeing in my gran'ma place when I was child. Every details are careful adjusted and chosen, colors are past, furniture are antique, hair style, clothes and towels design are of an ancient fashion, even the position and attitude of the model is not 'modern'... a great 'etude' Maxim.

'Morning' you said, sounds a bit nostalgic... sounds like it is now evening time..

The reference to morning has credibility as she appears to be preparing for the day. Angle of sun and title are enough for me to suspend disbelief.

Skin tone shift seems to indicate the woman is morphing (perhaps due to arrival of morning?) from a porcelain doll (greyish skin) into a real live woman with the blush of life's blood spreading over her. This might explain texture/body paint/tattoo/desaturated skin.

Exposure is quite close to that of an actual room at this time of day, which stands as an interesting contrast to the fantastic nature of the transformation taking place in front of this mirror. Contained in this image I see the challenge many women face every day, to transform themselves from a real woman into a living doll... t

Regarding comments about "too soft" and simple light please note the quality of the shadows off her foot and the chair legs and the dappled light on her left knee/skirt indicating a "natural" world outside the window...subtle and cleverly done.

While not perfect to the absurd degee many gushers proclaim, neither is this photograph thematically empty nor simply lit. I'd be proud to have it in my portfolio... t

(but I would darken the left edge of the "towel" at right (or lighten the shaded portion!)a little more. It indicates a light source that is shaded by something outside the frame. I can see it's source in the pitcher under the dry sink, but not whatever is supposed to be shading that light.)

Well done sir! Absolutely stunning. I would not change a thing!

This is the sort of sentimental, artificial and derivative garbage that some of the first

photographers did to imitate paintings. You might find it pretty, it might be good for

selling Pears soap -- but it ain't art in my book.

Mr Grass Hopper, IMO, is correct. The photograph is stunning, it's a great blend of Odd

Nerdrum, Armin Mersman and especially Manet. There are striking similarities between

this and Manet's A Bar at the Folies-Bergeres ( http://www.art-and-artist.co.uk/

impressionist/impress-gifetc/manet-folies-bergeres.jpg ), and Olympia. But as beautiful

as this is (btw. I think that the bright corner pushes the photograph in a bolder direction),

it is too derrivitave and therefore not exceedinly memorable. I think that if you were to

produce these at an alarming pace for 6 months, always concentrating at the one in

progress rather than the ones that came before or will come, you will have something

absolutely spectacular and quite unique. More burned film, less thought!

Beautiful light, model and palette. Feels a little like Cindy Sherman

and Sandy Skoglund because of the palette/body painting which blends part of the figure into the background and because of the figure's pose which is a little affected/stiff/not completely natural which creates some dissonance between the her and her surroundings.

Can I have her phone number?

But, seriously, I think this is a great image. These days, very few artists give such care to the setting, the lighting and the pose, Maybe not perfect, but you really have to nitpick to find flaws in it. The setting reminds me also of Rockwell, but the girl is all Vargas. There is nothing significant in the upper left, so the overexposure does not bother me much. It draws your eye for a moment, but then forces your attention back to the girl. I like the repetition of the lace and floral patterns in her hair, skirt and body painting, as well as throughout the antique setting. The reflection of her arm can be easily removed in Photoshop. Perhaps we see too much of her nose in profile, so her face should be turned more toward the camera. Now, can you send me her phone number?

The picture looks like a classic painting. I really like the taste of the lighting and the way this lovely girl act. It's all great!

Nobody seems to have mentioned the extraordinary DECADENCE of this photograph. How recently the USSR collapsed.

it's a shameful trend in some contemporary attitudes that beauty isn't worth celebrating through the arts.

As if, by recognizing with artistic endeavors the beauty in the world and it's transient, political, personal, psycho-social, historical and tragic components, we somehow will neglect all other aspects of life... t

Tom, this photo is undeniably beautiful. Everybody above has said so, I hardly needed to say it again, although perhaps I omitted to acknowledge the photographer's success (Maxim, it's divine).

 

I was simply amazed that everyone took this image at face value. You imply that it is pure escapism. That means you have chosen to overlook its historical context and other circumstantial realities - it doesn't mean that such baggage has gone away.

While I admire the skills required to put this photo together, it looks quite contrived to me.

well, hard to agree there's some added value here. Is this a photographie at all? I'm in doubt, it seems like a painting from the XVIII century (not sure about the century number, but certainly not a XXI).

 

beautiful, no doubt, but boring to death. sorry, I guess some honest opinion has some added value here...

The brightness in the upper left is a bit distracting. But then again the pure look of the image is really nice anyway. Striking yes. Well done.

"it's a shameful trend in some contemporary attitudes that beauty isn't worth celebrating through the arts. "

 

What is beauty? Is beauty contrivance? Would the shot appeal less if the subject were a man? A fat woman? A woman (or man) of color? An unattractive person? A person with deformity? This shot has technical beauty - no doubt, and the model is hot, and the light is very sensuous - but the photo as a whole is a big faker that could be used to sell mirrors or body paint. I'm not attacking the photographer - obviously a person who knows their way around the gear, but at the end of the day, this brings nothing to the table and doesn't even ask a question of itself or the viewer. It tries, instead, to trick us - is that beauty? Or deception? I don't like being tricked for nothing more than a paint-by-numbers appeal to beauty.

Simply beautiful. The look of yesteryear with the sensuality of today. You have really captured a moment here. Congrats!

This photo is perfect! I guess we need some words from the photographer - how in the world did you manage it, settings etc. Great work!

-Naveen

Sorry, this photo really puts me off. First there is the cadeverous skin tone on her right arm that mysteriously ends in mid-forearm (photoshop, I suspect). Then there is the blown-out UL corner that is virtually posterized. And, what's with the painting of her breasts and left shoulder/arm? What's the point of that?

 

Frankly, the beauty of the model and setting have been severely compromised by technique for no purpose whatsoever. A straight, well lighted photograph, with maybe a more meaningful pose, would have hit anyone as stunning. The gimmicks make this just a foto.

Jonathan Reynolds:"You imply that it is pure escapism". I implied nothing of the kind and actually stated exactly the opposite. "That means you have chosen to overlook its historical context and other circumstantial realities." No, it means you haven't read what I wrote in my first post. You seem to be defending a point of view that I am not attacking. wazzup with that?

...............

I think many people are put off by a photograph that appears to be purely a celebration of beauty and symmetry, and therefore don't take the time to look for other layers of meaning. While images that appear to be of negative conditions are carefully inspected for redeeming signifiers and bestowed with noble motives. Many of the responses to this image are of the same sentiment as dumb blonde jokes: they boil down to "it's pretty, therefore it's vacuous". I submit that this attitude is a shallow and self defeating one that denies the fullness of the human experience. There are plenty of intelligent blondes and they can be great fun to hang with... You cut yourself off from much if you dismiss all "pretty" things as empty.

.................

Jeffery Abelson: "It tries, instead, to trick us - is that beauty?" You trick yourself with a predeliction, and deny the fullness. Of couse the photograph could be made different with another type of human in it, this is obvious. But that's not a valid condemnation of how this photograph is. There are other works of art that address those issues, I'm sure. If you are dissatisfied with this depiction of life... you find it incomplete and feel that the world of art ignores some aspect of living that is vital to you, then go make that art and show it however you wish. This work harms no one and yeilds poignancy to anyone who cares to see it... t

Q: why is this photo so attractive?

A: because it is so unreal! (by the wayis this model real flesh and blood? :-)

Ayn Rand once said:"We all need that fuel!" Imagination is carburant for our soul.

I understand Rousseau who askedwhy his own life is more real to him when he writes about it than when he was living it.

He thinks this is due to theweakening of his "reality function" by his habit of imagination, ...which also explains why he finds ["imagination"] more satisfying than ["real life"].

Q: What is art?

A: If I understood Rudolf Steiner (my favorite philosopher) correctly,with the least number of words possible I'd say, Art is implanting imagination into real world objects.

See The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception, Chap. G. CONCLUSION, 21. The Activity of Knowing and Artistic Creativity

so you've got something to read for the week-end; that's what I call fuel for the mind! :-)

I'm very glad about so interesting and intensive discussion!

I don't think that this photo is technically ideal (I have seen some of my mistakes and your discussion had shown me some new mistakes)...

And I think it's probably not a best example of photography art (especially in modern art)

But I like this photo :)

And I like the photo-story about some relations between woman and man. A symbol of this relations is necklace. (here is the story in 10 photos).

"then go make that art and show it however you wish"

 

If ever my photo should make POTW, I would hope that criticism is not met with the age-old "go do better..." These images are here for discussion - if one can only fawn to be legitimate, I think we're missing the point here.