SHARKFORUM: OPINION WITH TEETH
art, music, politics, humor, lit, opinion, David Amram, Andrea Bauer, James Beckman, Mark Staff Brandl, Kim Christoff, Marilyn Cvitanic, Richard Dobson, Joel Dorn, John Haber, Paul K, Wesley Kimler, John Kruth, Jim Lasko, Norbert Marszalek, Simone Muench, Ray Pride, Rick Rizzo, David Roth, The Shark, Ursula Sokolowska, Nicholas Tremulis, Lynne Warren, Todd V. Wolfson
|
|
I adore photographing women!
I adore these women.
My photos are imperfect.
 | More Blogs by Todd V. Wolfson | Email Todd V. Wolfson
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.sharkforum.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2725
« PREVIOUS |
HOME
| NEXT »
(c) and TM 2007 Sharkforum and the Sharkpack
All blog post texts are (c) 2007 the individual authors. World rights reserved.
|
CONTACT SHARKFORUM
|
|
Comments
Posted by: Circling Shark | May 22, 2006 04:04 AM
Posted by: anonymous | May 22, 2006 09:56 AM
I am an ignorant idiot... but not for whatever reason the person (or you, dear reader) might think.
I usually show horizontal photos, here on the Sharkforum pages. I was only making a comment on my choices being vertical photos,and that these women are my friends and adored by me.
The phrase "You don't look at art, art looks at you.", is really the only thing I have to comment.
That someone saw any of this as offensive is THE NEW GUARD. Screw that in and light it up.
Posted by: Todd V. Wolfson | May 22, 2006 11:39 AM
It's hardly news that straight men get aroused by beautiful women, and I'd love to know how such arousal, or the celebration of the female form, is somehow an objectification of women.
If I'm missing somehting, please clue me.
Posted by: David Roth | May 22, 2006 02:16 PM
Posted by: Steve Smith | May 22, 2006 03:31 PM
Posted by: todd V. Wolfson | May 22, 2006 03:58 PM
Posted by: androgynous | May 22, 2006 04:14 PM
Posted by: Still me, really laughing now..... | May 22, 2006 04:31 PM
Posted by: ..and now for something aural....... | May 22, 2006 04:38 PM
slang for a vagina, as in "vertical smile?" you're reaching, I say.
"With that context for viewing these photos, it's no surprise that these images can be read in a sexually offensive manner."
hmmm.
"The objectification occurs when these women are viewed just for the arousal."
Sorry, Steve, but I think viewing others purely for arousal is human nature. I view art purely for arousal, albeit a different form or arousal. Since when is it wrong for a man to get aroused by the image of a woman? I could see the problem with, say, bondage, or other forms of blatent pornography which clearly subjegate women, but these shots? Come on...
"How is your arousal a celebration of the female form?"
Are you serious? In what way is my arousal NOT a celebration of the female form? ......blink...blink.....
"Let's not encourage the male gaze.""
um...why not?
Posted by: David Roth | May 22, 2006 05:43 PM
Posted by: The SHARK | May 22, 2006 05:44 PM
Posted by: Todd V. Wolfson | May 22, 2006 06:19 PM
Posted by: Declan Mantis | May 22, 2006 08:27 PM
An excellent point. Since the word "vertical" seems to come too close in reference to the tumescent male member, and the word "horizontal" comes way too close to the long-standing oppressive patriarchy of the missionary position, I hereby insist that Mr. Wolfson, or any straight photographer of the female form, must hereby shoot only in medium or large format, thereby fitting all subjects into a frame which is square.
As a result the worst that he'll be accused of is the brazen suggestion that his subjects are somehow un-hip - Now for something SQUARE - 4 women.
It's pointless arguments such as this one which caused me, several years ago, to tell some "friends" that Madonna was the ultimate feminist. Her book on sex had just been published, and the couple in question (both straight, one of each gender) were utterly scandalized by the suggestion that Madonna was fully in control of her sexuality, and required neither sanction nor permission from a man to do whatever she damn well pleased.
This just in, folks - straight men are aroused by the image of beautiful women, and there's nothing wrong with that provided they don't invade the rights of other folks. In other words - keep your "verticality" to yourself, and nobody gets hurt. Hell, even gay men seem to celebrate the female form. The suggestion that the mere portrayal of female anatomy is somehow objectification or subjegation is just nonsense. If you can't see from these shots that this man respects these women then you just ain't looking all that clearly.
Ain't we got nothin' better to ponder?
Posted by: David Roth | May 22, 2006 09:45 PM