Scrambler
Well-known
Sorry Lawrence, just an attempt at humour that missed the mark. I'm afraid the best straight answer I can give is not really any better: Language drifts over time. I don't think there's a reason.
tomtofa
Well-known
I think in each case it's the feet that make the photos work.
Nikanon
Newbie
It's really awful work, just magazine illustrations, it's not photography.
summaron
Established
The Herb Ritts photo looks to me like a riff on 1940 calendar girl photos, a sort of parody. The muscle-bound boy's not a mechanic but a stand-in for one, right out of a modeling agency. The tires, as Dominik points out, are doubles for his rippled chest and arms.
What my eye first goes to in the Marilyn photo are her feet turned inward and the line of red toe nails against the blue floor. Then the white gauzy skit, the cleaness of everything against the black background. So nice.
Here's one of the Sander photos mentioned above – Pastry Cook -
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/sander-pastrycook-al00033
What my eye first goes to in the Marilyn photo are her feet turned inward and the line of red toe nails against the blue floor. Then the white gauzy skit, the cleaness of everything against the black background. So nice.
Here's one of the Sander photos mentioned above – Pastry Cook -
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/sander-pastrycook-al00033
willie_901
Veteran
Technically both photographs are excellent.
These scenes remind me of Winogrand's analogy where he said “monkeys make the problem more difficult". GW was making the point, that for him, a good photograph solved the photographic problem of composition vs subject matter.
In these photos the subjects are extremely attractive (based on contemporary views of attractiveness). This means balancing content vs form is a challenge.
In my opinion the form for these two photographs is overwhelmed by the content. How could you look at the second photograph and think about anything else but M.M.? I'm not sure how their form could be improved. In this context the photographs are interesting (to me).
These scenes remind me of Winogrand's analogy where he said “monkeys make the problem more difficult". GW was making the point, that for him, a good photograph solved the photographic problem of composition vs subject matter.
In these photos the subjects are extremely attractive (based on contemporary views of attractiveness). This means balancing content vs form is a challenge.
In my opinion the form for these two photographs is overwhelmed by the content. How could you look at the second photograph and think about anything else but M.M.? I'm not sure how their form could be improved. In this context the photographs are interesting (to me).
Greyscale
Veteran
I have to disagree with you on this. The asymmetry in the curtain mirrors the asymmetry in the dress, which contrasts with the perfection of Marilyn herself, and enhances the sense of somewhat naive, even rumpled, vulnerability that Miss Monroe projects here. I think that the photographer knew exactly what he was doing with that.