On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 7:24 PM Herschel Mair <herschphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There’s no shortage of male nudes too. I think there’s a natural fascination. But, of course some is definitely exploitation.In Africa many cultures wear no upper clothing at allAgree!! In high school, an art teacher told our class that the exposed breasts were meant to symbolize "motherhood." I thought that was "unlikely" 60 years ago and still do.
Bill Pettit
-----Original Message-----
From: PhotoForum educational network <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sep 12, 2021 4:08 PM
To: <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Female exploitation?
On 9/12/2021 12:45, Andrew Davidhazy wrote:
> I’ve been wondering/pondering about the often natural or implausible > and sometimes ridiculous instances where undraped female torsos are > included in a photograph (or painting or sculpture). The subject has > probably been exhaustively covered in the literature I am sure. So > this is just me thinking about it in isolation. Attached is an > example. It is a painting but such examples are all over. Any thoughts > on the topic?
They're looking less and less tolerable to me as time goes on. I have some old photos that now look kind of gratuitous and hence exploitative.
The sort of thing the painting you showed as an example has always struck me as weird. And yeah, playing to the male gaze, exploitative.
Let's not even get into cherubs!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Words Over Windows http://WordsOverWindows.dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
