answer: A bottle of whiskey and a box of condoms. Just kidding. Forget the condoms.

question: What do you want from the store?

She must be sick of me by now.


9 responses to “answer: A bottle of whiskey and a box of condoms. Just kidding. Forget the condoms.

  1. Now, I wouldn’t be thinking about going to the store, or any other place for that matter.

    Too bad her face isn’t a little turned towards the camera. I know that she is looking at the photo of some guy but I prefer that subject interact with the viewer. As in ignore him, pay attention to me. A friend of mine likes to say that “it’s important for me to matter”.

    When the subject isn’t looking at the viewer it gives the impression of voyeurism which to my mind is a type of passive aggressive predatory act. Whereas looking at the viewer is less ambiguous and implies consent. To me, consent is sexier.

    John Berger talks in his book “Ways of seeing” about the concept of the viewer being the owner of the image and by extension, the owner of the subject of the image.

  2. Interesting perspective/interpretation.

    To me, something about the subject looking at the camera is almost pornographic, acknowledging that someone is at the other end, enjoying (or not) in some way.

    Two sides of the coin.

    I think the voyeur aspect is what drives the popularity of blogs, reality tv, and the look-at-me-constantly culture.

    What do you think of:

  3. “To me, something about the subject looking at the camera is almost pornographic”

    That’s what makes the image (to my mind at least) sexier. I like the idea that the subject willingly engages with the viewer. There is an intimacy in the photo above that implies that the viewer and subject know each other and are “involved”.

    “What do you think of:

    I think that “home of the vain” is a great name.

    Some of the shots are O.K. but I’m over the stupid pose thing. What’s that shot on the couch all about? I also can’t understand why the models have their gear off other than to perv on them. I prefer the suject to be in a context that makes sense. The picture above makes sense to me.

    I used to work in the high end of professional photography (as an assistant) and I’ve met quite a few models including a few Penthouse and Playboy centrefolds. The trouble is that there is no “glamour” for me in seeing scantily clad bimbos (haven’t met a smart or interesting model yet) with their “come and get me” looks on their faces, because I know what they tend to be like in real life. Amazingly shallow, self-absorbed, vacuous and above all, BORING!

    Glamour is an interesting word because it means “illusory sexual allure”. It’s all about illusion. The centrefolds that I met (before the shoots) didn’t look so great in real life and I was shocked when I saw how great they looked in the magazines. I remember that the Playboy model in particular had the personality of a plastic cup. The Penthouse model on the other hand was an absolute, head up herself, pig.

    What I liked about the photo above is that it has the look (it was probably staged) of being spontaneous. I also like the fact that the room is in disarray as though the subject and viewer have had one of those days in bed when people first start a relationship.

    I find the image quite romantic and I think that it could’ve been improved if the subject had turned her head a little towards the camera and smiled a small loving smile at the viewer.

    I prefer the idea of erotic love over sexual predation. One is willing the other isn’t. Willingness is sexy whereas victimisation isn’t.

    I hope I’m making sense?

    (there’s a first time for everything ;-)

  4. I don’t disagree; engaging with the viewer has its perks…but I also see why so many lean towards the voyeur aspect. You say predation, which is an apt description, but others will categorize it as pursuit. Similar.

    Not surprised to hear about the centerfolds. The work I’ve done with actresses can be astonishing. They roll in looking like a truck backed over them and then the finished video has every guy in the office trying to get a peek.

    I love the photo above, and you’re right about the context – it seems utterly real.

  5. pictures of people without pants on, but wearing socks and a short shirt make me so uncomfortable I can’t even explain. It makes my belly button feel inside out. Even hot chicks, yes.

  6. Wow. That’s a complex reaction. And how do you know if she’s hot? She could be missing a nose.

  7. ok, let me rephrase this: even chicks with butts.

  8. Hey Smack, how about you fill out your blog profile so I can see your blog.

    I have to agree with you though, women without butts aren’t hot.

  9. She won’t – her photos are all butt-less. Shame, really.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s