HOME | DD
e-string β From
[NSFW]
Published: 2009-08-20 23:11:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 18145; Favourites: 430; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Gary wanted me to put on some panty hose and pull it all the way up to my shoulders, with my arms on the inside no less. And then pose on a tiny stool. Who am I to argue with that?
Copyright: Gary Breckheimer
Related content
Comments: 47
I love this image for many reasons; itβs sexy, sensual, and erotic, but itβs also so full of classic form and grace. The angle from which it is shot really highlights those beautiful curves of the modelβs body. The grace of the modelβs arms that flows directly into the soft curves her hips and legs-a continuous line that your eye follows from shoulders to feet in one graceful gaze. With the model in a box-like setting, it keeps the composition tight, not allowing your eyes to wander away from the modelβs body, keeping the image edgy and exciting to me. The strange nylon textures that are created by stretching it over her shoulders really makes the image interesting as well, forming a βTβ smack in the middle of the modelβs composition and creating yet another path for the eye to follow downward. The gritty black & white tone of the image plays perfectly with the shadowy edges of the image as well as the rough physical textures of the nylons-great choice! In terms of what the image is trying to say, I really enjoyed what the other critique had to say, but I have difficulty nailing down one definitive answer to this, as I believe it says many things all at once. In my opinion the best art is always subjective to the individual viewerβs interpretations. I like the way it suggests a graphic explicitness yet doesnβt show us everything, letting our mind fills in the blanks. This image is classy yet has a harder edge underneath, and itβs the duplicities that seduce me into the image. And the title, From, what does it mean? The modelβs name? I have no clues as to the answer, and would like to know where the artist(s) were coming from (pardon the pun) on this.
I love the vision of the image (the fact that it presents many themes and ideas), and it feels fresh in itβs originality; I canβt ever recall seeing a piece quite like this before. It definitely shows the technical expertise, in lighting, tone and composition. I confess Iβm a big fan of Erinβs modeling work and Gary Breckinridgeβs photography and truly enjoy both of their bodies of beautiful work, this one just continuing to add to their brilliant portfolios. Wonderful image!
π: 0 β©: 0
After reading the comments on this image so far I felt compelled to write a critique. Most have responded to the erotic nature of the photo and indeed this is a beautiful model in a highly provocative and suggestive pose. The tenor of the comments so far suggests that the purpose of the confining the model's arms within the pantyhose is simply to heighten the erotic content. While it may do this do some degree, that's far too simplistic a response to this picture. I see a whole lot more here than just a nude woman bent over as if she's waiting to be taken from behind.
Since I don't have the photographer here to ask questions, I can't know his intent and have to interpret the meaning of the photo strictly based on its content. (I should note that I won't be commenting on the technical aspects, e.g., lighting, etc., as these are all professionally executed to high standards.)
So what does it mean to put a nude woman in a confined space, further confined in tight pantyhose and bent over, hands grabbing her buttocks? The photo is making a powerful comment about the confining nature of the way we look at women sexually.
We don't see the model's head... her intellect and personality are apparently irrelevant to inciting an erotic response. She is depicted as being there for a single purpose, confined in a "ready-to-go" position until such time as it's convenient for the man to take her. Apparently we don't want to know her, we don't want to see her face when we penetrate her, we just want her ass spread wide and kept at the ready.
The diaphanous panty hose is see-through enough to maintain our excitement at the woman's nudity and still restrictive enough to prevent her from moving out of the ready-to-go position.
One could make the case that the artist isn't making a comment at all; he's simply showing a beautiful nude model in a position that speaks to his erotic interests. Perhaps this is just a fetish idea that he is exploring.
There's nothing in the photo that prevents one from seeing it this way, and from the comments it seems that this is the way most people are taking it.
I come from the school of interpretation that believes one always gives the most generous interpretation possible to a work of art, and I prefer to believe that the photo is making a comment about how sexual desire can be confining and impersonalizing to the object of one's desire.
I suppose one could argue that this interpretation isn't any more generous than a simpler one suggesting this is nothing more than an exploration of a certain fetish idea. I'm a fan of some fetish photography, and I am not trying to make any judgement against it. I prefer the former interpretation, however--perhaps for no other reason than I've seen a lot of this model's other work and I have a hard time imagining that she would support a notion that her beauty is there simply for the erotic satisfaction of others, and that her own personality and desires are irrelevant.
Finally--and this is what makes this a powerful photo for me--the photo succeeds in making one question one's own response to the erotic content. Because it is there in my visceral response and that of several others; there's no denying it. A work of art that causes one to evaluate one's desire and its implications is very successful indeed.
π: 0 β©: 0
This amazing photo was featured here >>> [link] <<<
π: 0 β©: 0
This is very beautiful, and even though you are "spread" (for lack of better words, forgive me) the decency remains. I love the shot. Kudos.
π: 0 β©: 0
Your photograph has been featured in my journal
Existential Refinement Vol.75 [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
Before reading the intro...it look like tan lines but inverted...glorious
π: 0 β©: 0
...i am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO jealous.
bravo, doppelganger; bravo.
π: 0 β©: 0
I love the way this pushes boundaries. First assesment of the pose is truly erotic, but with all of the other elements I feel it mocks the typical erotic photo with everything it will never acheive....grace, texture and ambiance.
π: 0 β©: 0
Erotic in a very very weird way. Such a weird photo. Great work again w/ Gary.
aF
π: 0 β©: 0
I think noughtagroos is missing the point. The truth is it's a choice to ask for and assume eroticism in an image. It's also a choice to accept at face value as what I see as a wonderful form of self/artistic expression. One can obsess over the dirty nature of that pose... or just bask in the beauty of it and move on. That's what I do. Asking why a pose is erotic is, for me, like asking why there's gravity today.
What I love in this image are the densities of textures and a feeling that such raw sexuality may be contained in the box but threatens to explode out of it. From a strictly monochrome art photography perspective, those densities and textures are really complex and beautiful. They give this image dense weight and gravity.
In that context of density within the box the artist made a great, humorous playful decision and had this pose include the affectation with the panty hose. Let us not forget that pantyhose has a whole fetish contingent of adherents in the world so the meaning of the hose adds a layer of meaning to the whole. She does something unusual with the object pulling them up so high. At first I wondered if I was looking at photo-manipulation until I realized the hot clear graphic quality had been achieved with woven nylon, painting a broad T across her shoulders, the base of the T beginning at her cunt. The change of weave and density in the hose paints the graphic on the body and accentuates the sexual pose. The manner in which the hose encases everything reinforces that feeling of containment and the sexual energy about to explode.
Last, the pose, the framing, and the overall composition absolutely celebrate the powerful magnetic attraction of this model's astonishingly wonderful ass.
This image is a gift to everyone. It is amazingly well made. Gary B. is one of America's great erotic artists I think.
π: 0 β©: 1
As I began reading your comment I was very open to the possibility that I was, in your words, "missing the point." You make some great observations about the excellence in technique in the photo and how it heightens the erotic experience of it and your comment about the panty hose being a "humorous playful decision" expresses a dimension to the photo that I did indeed neglect in my critique.
However, when I got as far as the words, "the base of the T beginning at her c###," I was completely floored. How can you not be aware of how highly offensive this word is? Or perhaps you don't care and you have no respect for the model whatsoever?
Make no mistake, that word is hate speech, and it suggests that you don't see a woman in this picture at all, and all that you care about is the erotic impact she has on you. Your phrase, "this model's astonishingly wonderful ass," further exemplifies the way you depersonalize the real woman--who is one of the most talented models in dA, by the way--as nothing more than curves and genitalia on display for your pleasure.
I enjoy artistic nudes, erotica and some fetish photography; there's nothing wrong with it. But if all you can do is reduce the model to her sexual features in the most crass language imaginable, your time would be better spent on Hustler or Penthouse. Your foul language has no place in a serious discussion of art nudes.
π: 0 β©: 1
First of all I reject your bizarre desire to attack me. I certainly did not offer you any such provocation. Second:
I'm astonished at how well you've made my point. Truth is I know just enough about the model to suspect she's a very good person. Clearly, judging by her choices for making imagery, she's not only beautiful but rather sexual by nature. I reject your assertions on several levels. As much as this is an image of a woman, it's is a structural, physical image of sexuality, raw and finite, made to challenge precisely people like you to question your constricted misconceptions. This is not a personality portrait. It is a sexual composition. I'm sorry you feel the word Cunt is so hateful. Not only do I disagree with you, many women I know and dearly respect far prefer that term for its honesty and lush connotations.
Your ire at my temerity in discussing the graphical construction of the image and placement of pertinent elements based on my choice of plain honest words, and observations which would be obvious to a dunce, makes me simply wonder and shake my head. You, like far too many others, see erotica, enjoy what you see, struggle with why you like it, and just like the overstuffed at the museum, assuage your erect ego with, "oh no dear... this is art." Maybe art can also have a cunt. Maybe art can have a hot ass. Grow up and open your mind and think again about attacking people who are being complimentary, because their ideas challenge your preconceptions.
I would be rather grateful if the model would choose to weigh in on this discussion. If I've offended her in any way, then to her alone I'll apologize.
π: 0 β©: 1
You've misunderstood me, at least in part. I have no problem with your discussing the raw, sexual power of the image, the "placement of pertinent elements," etc. My original critique acknowledged that aspect, and in my first comment to you I also acknowledged that I gave too little credit to the "humorous playful" element.
My interpretive issue is with a response to the image that reduces it solely to these elements without also considering the "editorial" statement that the photo is making. Both the sexual and the intellectual are at play in this photo; there's no need to reductively pin it down to either one or the other. There's also no need to ascribe a definitive interpretation to the picture; like most great photos it invites multiple responses and it also invokes intelligent ambiguity.
The above is something we could agree to disagree about; interpretation is always subjective to some degree.
The offense I took, however, was not about your interpretation but your use of the word "cunt," which most women find to be highly misogynist. Women I know who use this word among themselves do so in the same way that many African Americans are OK with calling each other "nigger" but won't stand for a Caucasian using the word.
The history of the use of this word has been closely associated with misogyny since its first use in the Middle Ages. According to Henry Rawson's Dictionary of Invective, it has been described as "the most heavily tabooed word of all English words." Germaine Greer said "it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock."
You may not think it's a big issue using the word, but you're not in control of the impact such a derogatory word has once you use it. You can no more use it innocently than you could use the word "nigger" in a description of an African American model. While you might even find one who herself didn't take offense, you can be certain that the majority of those reading your comment would find it offensive and racially inflammatory.
The cavalier way in which you use the word "cunt" in your comment reduces the image from a celebration of sexual energy of both the model and the viewer to a power dynamic in which the model's sexual being is secondary. The discussion is reduced to a crass appreciation of her anatomy and the way that it serves your sexual desires. It's no longer a dynamic experience; instead it's just about how her physical beauty gets you hot. Yes, the pose is highly suggestive and she's extremely "hot," but both she and the photographer have achieved something artistically that's about more than just that, and about more than how much it gets you off.
π: 0 β©: 1
"My interpretive issue is with a response to the image that reduces it solely to these elements without also considering the "editorial" statement that the photo is making. Both the sexual and the intellectual are at play in this photo; there's no need to reductively pin it down to either one or the other. There's also no need to ascribe a definitive interpretation to the picture; like most great photos it invites multiple responses and it also invokes intelligent ambiguity. "
That's nicely said... in your own way with your words you've managed to say almost exactly what I was saying.
"You may not think it's a big issue using the word, but you're not in control of the impact such a derogatory word has once you use it. You can no more use it innocently than you could use the word "nigger" in a description of an African American model. While you might even find one who herself didn't take offense, you can be certain that the majority of those reading your comment would find it offensive and racially inflammatory.
The cavalier way in which you use the word "cunt" in your comment reduces the image from a celebration of sexual energy of both the model and the viewer to a power dynamic in which the model's sexual being is secondary."
This is your opinion. I truly believe that opinion is prejudiced and just plain wrong. I use the term as a reverent celebration of the power and beauty of that most sacred part of a woman. Your assertion that by using that word, it, "reduces the image from a celebration of sexual energy of both the model and the viewer to a power dynamic in which the model's sexual being is secondary."
I can't in my wildest dreams imagine how using honest loving terminology could possibly do such a thing. You're hammering on against my critique based on the use of sexual terminology to describe physical sexuality in a erotic image? All I can smell is misplaced feministic political correctness (from a man by the way who doesn't even have the anatomy he's so offended by my naming.)
π: 0 β©: 1
So "cunt" is "honest loving terminology"?
How is that any less ridiculous than it would be for someone to say, "'Nigger' is honest loving terminology" for the beauty of black skin, or that "'slant eyes' is honest loving terminology" for the beauty of the eyes of someone from Vietnam?
"All I can smell is misplaced feministic political correctness (from a man by the way who doesn't even have the anatomy he's so offended by my naming.)"
By the same logic, would you take issue with a white person who objected to hate speech directed at blacks, or a heterosexual who objected to hate speech directed towards gays? Somehow the fact that I don't have a vulva disqualifies me from taking offense at the vulgar word you used to describe one?
I leave you with that to ponder; I'm done with this discussion.
π: 0 β©: 1
What does an objectionable racial slur, never used for anything other than to demean a whole race of people have to do with a very sexually blunt term used to identify a woman's vulva? Your overwhelming need to associate those two terms is laughably contradictory and if your determination weren't so potentially damaging, I'd say it was just silly.
You're trying to bolster a weak argument by comparing apples to airplanes. The two terms have not one molecule of relation to each other, either in the use (interpretations aside) or in your conjured relation to prejudice. One describes a race negatively and the other names female anatomy. Resent my decision to use the term if you must, but please stop using that fatuous argument. It's dumb.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'll beat you to it... you're going to say by calling a woman's vulva such a name I'm automatically casting a negative dirty, demeaning, objectifying cloud over all woman and womankind as a whole. You will say I'm identifying myself as a misogynist woman hater because I care for and use that term.
For the final time, that assertion is BS. If I was using it to describe a woman to her face I would certainly wish to know her well, but I was using it to describe the salient facts of a very intensely physically erotic image and at no time do I think the term was either disrespectful or inaccurate. Essentially you seem to rabidly object to the though that critique of art can also be as gutteral and visceral as the feelings and ideas the art conveys. Please reconsider.
π: 0 β©: 2
The word is very powerful and never used in a "good" way, at least that's my experience. I've only seen it used as a hate term and that is why I reacted negatively to your post - because I didn't see any reason to hate this photo or model (it is a magnificent shot and she is beautiful). I understand that was not your intention, but using the word will encourage people to misunderstand you because it is "loaded" (like the "N" word). Can easily be avoided by use of another word.
Just my $0.02.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know many people, and many of them women, who don't feel that way about the word... especially if it's said in a context of love, or fun, or jest, or with honest respect for women and erotic sexuality.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm a woman and if i hear anyone say it in my hearing range i gladly punch their lights out. I think it's a disgusting, demeaning and filthy word.
π: 0 β©: 0
i have to agree with naughtagroos.....very compelling statement made here...
π: 0 β©: 0
It is quite interesting and i am glad i looked at the image for a while before reading Artist's Comments. Because before reading the comments i could not work out what was actually happening.
π: 0 β©: 0
this is a super erotic pose, but it works due to the pantyhose.
π: 0 β©: 0
quite an interesting surrealistic yet erotic piece.
π: 0 β©: 0
