 |
| (Sorry, this is the style all the way through.) |
But don't get too excited; it is not all that great. In fact I would say it's just about as boring as it could be.
This photographer, Terry something, gets the chance to photograph one of the world's most famous young singers in the the nude (what a chance!)... and what are his preparations? They were:
1: Saying 'Take off your clothes.'
2: Saying 'Stand in front of this plain white background.'
3: Putting a flash gun directly on the camera, guaranteeing the most flat and boring light we could get.
There were a couple of attempts to be "provocative" with a black dildo and such, but other than that, clearly neither he nor Miley thought this event to be worth going for any interesting, pleasant, or exciting expressions, poses, or compositions.
Of all the 120 photographers I dealt with when running my nude sites, I don't recall any of them ever sending me a submission which was this lazy and boring. And most of them could have done this job way, way better.
I think things like this gives nude photography a bad name, as if it needed it.
[If you're still interested, here they are.]
Terry Richardson is pretty well-known for being a creep: http://jezebel.com/5494634/meet-terry-richardson-the-worlds-most-fked-up-fashion-photographer
ReplyDeleteAs for Miley, she looks pretty much like any scrawny 100-lb girl would naked, I guess. I am not sure whether there's a clamor for her nudes or if the rest of us proletariat just revels in seeing famous people naked. But don't you find, in the internet age, that most people end up looking exactly like you thought they would once you see them nude? There isn't so much mystery any more.
Just awful, a total lack of class.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't she have found a photographer with real talent and produced something that would make people go wow in the right way.
emptyspaces, I agree with your last comment.
ReplyDeleteProbably mostly a good thing, anything that can de-mystify and de-charge nudity might help the hysteria about it.
--
She's not a stunning model, but if she'd kept her hair, uses her nice smile, and if the photog had done a good job (heck, any job), and if they'd painted over all those awful little tattoos she's peppered herself with, I think it could have been quite attractive and maybe even sexy.
I was sometimes almost shocked over the difference between the hottie from the shoot and shoots taken when not posing.
Yeah, awful in just about every way. But I also cannot stand tattoos, particularly in photographs, and especially nudes. My photo instructor, lo those many years ago, was firm in his belief that in composing a good photo, you need to have "flow" for the eye to follow, and to avoid things that would catch the viewer's eye and interrupt the "flow." Tats do this to an extreme degree, at least for me. The eye catches on to it and tries to "resolve" it into something, and takes away from everything else in the photo.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that I took the time to look at them. Such Raw Beauty, NOT!!!
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, there's only so much even the most talented photographer can do. When he's given chopped liver, even Gordon Ramsay would struggle to produce a feast.
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed not very flattering. Looks like a mugshot.
ReplyDeleteBTW, tatoos don't bother me that much, but belly button jewelry is something that needs to die...