'Tenderness'

Expressions of love can be of many sorts, from rough to tender; this is

for me an expression of love's tenderness. Your ratings, critiques and

observations are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly,

critically or wish to make an observation, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; thank you in advance for sharing your

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Enjoy! John

This is not a 'snapshot' but one in which I had a good 15 minutes to take as many photos as I wished with a moderate tele lens.

This couple continued like that for that long and longer and almost never took their gazes off one another, except for her to turn around to invite getting kissed on the neck, etc.

They were extremely tender, hence the caption (title).

Thank you for your comment.

john

John (Crosley)

I had a great number of photos of this couple, as they were better than hiring models -- their actions were 'genuine' not 'invented' for a photographer.

And in public of course, they invited being photographed and since I did not bother them (they were 'involved' and it would have been rude), I can only guess that both would be very proud of this photo.

In fact, the young man showed remarkable affection in his way of caressing, and she also:  a great couple.

john

John (Crosley)

John...  One of the more intriguing things about street photography is the possibility of many different scenarios from the same image.  While the young man is definitely being tender, there's something about the young lady; the downcast eyes, the hands in the pockets, the very stiff posture and the slightly parted lips, that tells me that.... this guy is in trouble and knows it ;-).  But then, it could be something totally different... excellent b/w work and presentation.... Mike

Edit:  Well, your comment above passed with my entry in cyberspace.  I see that this was not as I imagined, but then, it was a fun observation for me.  Have a great weekend... Mike

It is important to remember that each photo, as opposed to film or video, is just an isolated moment in space and time, as seen from one viewpoint.

Without my eyewitness explanation, above, yours easily could have been the 'correct' explanation for this photo; in fact, maybe I should refrain until all the commenting is done, on how I have 'seen' the whole scene, to give each potential commenter (commentator?) a chance at telling us/me what he/she sees in a photo.

Each interpretation such as yours, is equally valid for the single moment in time in space as captured.

That your speculation was not continued in my retelling is no rebuke at all, and does NOT say you should not speculate further on this or other photos.  In fact, you may have taught me a lesson; just leave some things alone - at least until the end.

Any comment about a static view captured from the active and continuing has the possibility of being correct, and from the point of view of the viewer, it indeed is 'correct'; after all, without an 'eyewitness' to complete the 'story' all is 'in the eye of the beholder'.

So, I encourage you to participate further on other images I post that may be subject to interpretation, and I may indeed try to withhold comment on their exact meaning at least temporarily to give all viewers a chance to express their opinion(s).

Fact is, when psychologists testing individual, show a photo of a person (or a drawing) making a laugh, a yell, or crying, or whatever, a great number of viewers mistake the image from what was captured.'

We all think we are great at interpreting single images, but in fact, they are highly subjective -- a point I think you and I together have made clear with our colloquy.

I'm a little chastened, and maybe I'll try to withhold comment far longer in the future.

Your viewpoint was interesting, to say the least, and I think there really was no 'correct answer' when viewed as a single image.

Remember, often 'art' is 'art' because it is very subjective, a point I will try to remember myself when posting images.

Thanks Michael for helping me learn a lesson.

john

John (Crosley)

John...  Absolutely no self flagellation necessary on your part.  There is value in first impressions and truth in observation.  Who knows, in spite of the extended lovey dovey behavior, he may have been in trouble when it all started.  Believe me, with a 33rd anniversary coming up, I know how long I have to be nice to be forgiven ;-)... Have a great weekend...  Mike

Appearances, even ones observed over an extended period, may indeed be deceiving, as you noted.

Having watched this pair for a while, I concluded that they might have been separated for a while, or were going to be separated -- perhaps they live in different parts of Kyiv and only could meet in the center?

That's my projection, now.

In fact, any projection that stems from a photo and any time spent trying to figure out the intentions or ideas of the subjects is to my mind the sign of a successful photo; it has drawn in the viewer, and the viewer's ideas about the depiction becomes part of the story.

In that way, I measure this a success, at least between you and me.  That's why I take these photos, to capture some sorts of 'universality' out of life's microcosms, or maybe just a little aesthetics from a chaotic world.

I thank you for your comment; l was doing less self-flagellation than thinking about how I had taken from my viewers that chance to reflect . . . . and was just instructing myself to let 'art' sometimes emerge from my little photographic depictions . . . . .even when sometimes I don't see the 'art' or the subjectivity, because as photographer, I already know the beginning and the end (of photos like this).

Other photos are just captures and I never know the beginning, middle, end or any other part than I 'caught a moment' that was interesting and/or aesthetic.

Thanks, Michael.

john

John (Crosley)

So wholesome! One of your best IMHO. GJ

PS My initial interpretation was the same as Michaels'.

A really lovely shot, John!

Tenderness??? Ha. All he wants is to get laid. And if she gets pregnant see how long he hangs around.

Thank you for the very kind compliment.

I had a large variety of shots to 'edit' from, as they were in varying positions of embrace and flirtation for some time.

I decided to choose this one because of his 'smooch'; it was most unusual and showed reticence, or patience, and and a great amount of tenderness.

This young woman is lucky to have such a careful and caring lover, I think.

They obviously together were very much in love, even if on first glance it doesn't appear that way.  A review of the whole series would reveal that, but I probably shouldn't have spelled it out.

Thank you again for the compliment.

john

John (Crosley)

good captation, i like it.

I've watched a lot of couples smooching, and I've done a lot of people watching.

I've come to the conclusion that although modern women may not want to admit it to everyone, in many private, confidential conversations with models and others, it appears the women want it as much or more than the men, but they want it on their terms.

He wants to get laid?

I observed them for some time, and it didn't appear he was trying to get her 'hot' nearly as much as just showing wonderful affection for her, and in turn, she rubbed against him, turned, would put her head into the air, exposing her neck, obviously hoping he's put a kiss on her neck.

Some women like their hair pulled; those are the tough girls who like it 'rough'.

This girl/woman obviously is a bit different.  She likes 'sweet guys' and he's one of those.

I tend to be far more sweet than sour; and have little in common with women who like it 'rough; - they can pass me by and no loss.

Some women want to find their teeth on the floor, or next to it, and provoke men to get that response; not this woman/girl who did appear every much as 'in heat' or aggressive in a very mild mannered form, very genteel, as much as he.

They are my 'tenderest couple' I've seen in the last six years of photographing, and I have to say, I admired his style.

He was NOT aggressive, but waited for her to hint or show she'd like more, then he parceled it out.

He may get laid, but he deserved it.

She may have wanted to get laid, and she'll get what she was wishing -- a sweet guy, in my estimation.

No bruises, no teeth on the floor, no hair pulling and so forth.

They seemed well suited for one another.

You frequently refer to the word 'fuck' in your comments.

Whether it's that word or just lovemaking, without it, there wouldn't be any people, and not everyone has to be as cynical as you are about this guy and his intentions.  He seemed in it 'for the long run.'

I'm not so cynical obviously.

I'd give them a chance.

john

John (Crosley)

'Captation'?

Do you mean 'capture' as I think you do, or caption (title)?

I think possibly you meant both, and ran the words together, but have no way of telling.

But here the 'caption' is good enough, but I've produced some great captions; this isn't one of them; it's serviceable and descriptive, but not GREAT.

So, probably you means capture?  Can you enlighten?  It is clear you meant  a compliment, and I receive it as such, with great thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

A belated and very large 'thanks' for your perusal of my photo.  I'm glad you like it.

john

John (Crosley)

Only when appropriate. And I am in good company. Susan Sontag, Talluah Bankhead, Kurt Vonnegut, and a million other dignified college graduates. Oh and don't forget Rod Blagojevich! It is not appropriate  in this photo.  But that is too complicated to explain.

Kurt Vonnegut, Susan Sontag, Tallulah Bankhead AND Rod Blagojevich lined up together to support any proposition, let alone when the 'f' word is appropriate.

You, sir, have made my day!

john

John (Crosley)

I forget Rahm Emanuel

A lot of people who have come up against Rahm Emanuel also would like to forget him, but they can't.

He's too 'in your face', and unabashedly so, too.

We'll see if he gets to be mayor of Chicago, and if so, it may be the start of the Emanuel tradition instead of the Daleys.

john

John (Crosley)

Rahm's father was born in Jerusalem. His father fought against the British in the underground Irgun.  His uncle was killed  in Jerusalem during Arab-Jewish fighting. Rahm volunteered and worked with the Israel Defense force during the 1991 Gulf War.  He  cut his middle finger during H.S. (his first utterance of "fuck")  and part was amputated. But again has nothing to do with the photo. Above is from Wikepedia. 

It certainly has nothing to do with this photo.

But, I remember the words of a teacher of some brilliance who on retirement had a 'Look' Magazine editorial written praising her career and her (also retiring) partner teacher (and lover).

She said if ANY MEMBER OF CLASS could make her smile, then that person automatically got an A.  (Esther Hettinger)

It didn't matter what they said or how they said it, or even how smart or 'on topic' or 'off topic' they were, if they made her smile big or laugh, they got an 'A'.  It was hard as hell to make the old biddy laugh, too, and nobody got an 'A' for that reason . . . . really none that I can recall, except just once, and regrettably not by me.

But she was one person you didn't utter the word 'fuck' in her presence. 

Indeed, most junior high school students where I went to school, had barely a passing acquaintance with that word, and none uttered it then, in ninth grade, within earshot of most students, teachers or adults.

It might have been safer during those Eisenhower years just to commit suicide than say that (then) dreadful word.

On topic or off, sir, you just got an 'A'.

john

John (Crosley)