Blogging by Proxy

I don't know how many of you read the comments from PGS readers but, sometimes, a reader provides in-depth, well-said, take on my bullshit and/or emotional outburst which, in my opinion, ought to be on the front page. Besides, I love it when someone else writes the update for me!

PGS reader, James, responding to yesterday's rant regarding glamour photography as a "lesser art," had this to say:

"For some people glamour = porn and porn != art, so via the transitive property glamour != art. Me, I've seen some arty porn and porny art, but some believe that the two can not coexist in the same expression. I think maybe you missed an important part of the issue. That is the *treatment* of the subject. Glamour sensualizes the subject and to say porn eroticizes the subject is an understatement. :) There are purient interests in both glamour and porn and it's the close tie between the two that makes people say neither can hope to be art. "Artistic Nudes" however do not attempt to sensualize the subject, in fact they strive to depersonalize them to make us wonder soley at the beauty of the human form.

What TGS (Timothy Greenfield-Sanders) did was actually quite interesting. He didn't shoot glamour or "artistic nudes". He didn't sensualize or depersonalize his subjects. His project made a series of nude portraits. In this book I'm reading (The View Camera Made Simple) there's an interesting quote. "He [the portrait photographer] must be a diplomat, yet not a liar. He must tell the truth, yet make that truth appealing and persuasive." That's what TGS did, he told a truth about pornstars and made it appealing. He didn't lie, he didn't put them in a ton of make up (some but it looks pretty natural), use slick lighting and have the subjects put on the "I want it/you" face. He prods the viewer to make a personal, yet non purient connection with people who happen to work naked. Just in case that's not enough he heaps a spoonful of art down your throat by purposely quoting a theme developed by Goya. This actually follows my theory that (in the US) if you want people to consider nude/erotic expressions art, then the closer something is to porn, the more art you have shovel onto it. So when you think about it, TGS's work contains socal commentary by forcing viewers to acknowledge on a personal level people who are sexualized (or objectified if you want to go that far) for a living. And it can be appreciated on multiple levels in the context of Goya's work. That beats the bujeebus out of my glamour work in terms of arty-ness.

I've never called or even really thought of myself as an artist. Usually if someone calls me that I correct them and tell them I'm a craftsman. I do my best to make darn fine images but (at least currently) there is no larger purpose to them. Those are my thoughts on the subject anyways."

Thanks, James! Well said. BTW and for the record, I also generally refer to myself as a craftsman rather that an artist, although the definitions of each closely resemble each other.

The image I crafted for James' update is the lovely Charmane, captured last year in the studio.