I think when we say "it's a beautiful portrait" we are reacting to everything as a whole, i.e., the model, the lighting, the pose, the frame. If we just think the model is cute but remain unimpressed by the presentation we would've just said "the model is cute" instead of commenting on the portrait.
I agree with Christ that it's just not interesting when a nude picture shows everything.
Lee
Chris <nimbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris <nimbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When I see the portrait of a nude woman, it is mainly her figure and that
she is young and nubile. Some poses are better and lighting is important,
but it is the human (female) figure that makes it for me.
Well that's honest!
When I capture images of a nude woman, I find the images are a real
disappointment I've never taken a "good" nude figure. Basically I'm too
distracted by the subject ... after all there are other things you can do...
The images of nudes that I have seen hide essential details in some way and
thus make them "erotic". Seeing an electronic strip show was interesting
until all the model could do was shiver and I lost interest and went back to
my dinner.
So there it is, a nude with the essentials (front bottom) missing is
interesting but if it is all there most of us lose interest and it don't
sell.
Pictures without human interest sell for other reasons, something to do with
our instinct to seek out other places especially to tame the wild outdoors.
Ansel Adams landscapes are wonderful and will continue to sell well after
Yellowstone park explodes (!), especially afterwards. They seem to show an
untouched wilderness with wonderful places to explore. I suppose there is a
resonance with our brains visual processor that enjoys the shades and
contrasts of the monochrome image.
And how many waterside images get taken... millions. We humans like a
waterside place to walk by, to photograph and to camp by. Some of us will
have been conceived in a waterside setting. So that is a type of image that
sells.
Actually experience has taught me that an abstract image where the subject
is obscure creates more interest than a straight image and in art an
abstract image, where there is no obvious connection with a real subject
create the most interest.
Well there's my penny's worth (is it a dime in the US?).
Chris
http://www.chrisspages.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Marilyn
Sent: 03 May 2004 17:10
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: What sells?
I was just reading a magazine and came across this information.
"Everything else being equal, experts say, [art] collectors will spend more
for a portrait of an attractive young woman than for a portrait of a man or
a woman of a certain age. Horizontal canvases appeal to buyers more than
vertical ones. Landscapes with water sell better than those without.
Nudity beats modesty. And bright colors trump paler ones. New York dealer
David Nash offers another observation: 'Paintings with cows don't sell.'"
(ARTnews, May 2004, "Why 15 Apples Are Better Than 3.")
This quotation brings up a point that has bothered me about photography for
some time. When we say, "That's a beautiful portrait," are we reacting
to the model or the portrait, i.e. lighting, posing, framing, etc,?
Marilyn
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
