a multi-disciplinary dialog
Posted by Richard Rothstein on May 20th, 2007
Filed in photography,sex
Your nudes are more veiled and erotic than male nudes painted by Jacob Collins
Is the guy wearing socks? If so, is that part of the statement, or just to keep his feet warm
I find the first image interesting because it has a quality of the flate figures painted on ancient Greek vases. It is as though the figure is constrained to exist in the flat plane of the window.
Karl’s comment on the “Greek-ness” of the figure intrigues me. I was thinking of an isolation, above the lit city is this silhouetted figure, pressing against the glass. Almost as though he were a prisoner of the glass. All that untouchable glitter beyond him.
But the middle photo, which shows only the torso, brings me back to knowing there’s someone else in the room, the photographer. The solitary angst is denied by my sudden realization of the other person, who of course, may only be interested in the torso and thus contributing to the angst of the model.
Just meandering around my thoughts and your photos…
For whatever it’s worth, we had just had sex and he was admiring the view of Times Square. I grabbed my camera and enjoy him, the light and city. The socks were to keep his feet warm. The ledge on the window was ice cold, as was the glass. Other people light up a cigarette, I grab my camera.
I am intimidated by men nudity. In life drawing classes when is a male model I cannot draw it or even look at him…. it shocks me!
I have no problem with my husband though…
James Elkins, a prolific writer about art, says that in figure classes there’s always an undercurrent of sexual tension. I wonder if he feels that way when the model is male. He doesn’t address that issue.
I have a wonderful dining-out story about a class called “The Field Guide to the Human Figure.” Next time you are in Portland (Oregon) I’ll regale you with it.