W.G. Rowland wrote:
I know a lot of people will quickly bark up GWC and crap photography.. But in all honest I have seen as much or more crappy fashion and crappy art photography as I have glamour..

A lot of crappy fashion and crappy art is trying to sell clothes or say something about the world.

A lot of crappy glammer is trying to pretend it's not just crappy porn.

Brian Diaz wrote:

A lot of crappy fashion and crappy art is trying to sell clothes or say something about the world.

A lot of crappy glammer is trying to pretend it's not just crappy porn.

All selling is a form of prostitution..  Or at least objectification.. 

I generally feel if you have to sneer down at something else to feel better about what you do.. Then you probably should be examining more closely what you do.

My point is simple.. I see more than a few people who put as much time, effort, and skill into photography projects where the end result is making the subject beautiful as I do in ones that sell something or project fashion..  Yet all glamour is cheap and tawdry by MM canon..

That seems a little fucked up..

Technically, by this standing.. I think Max V becomes a GWC..  That thought makes my brain hurt.

Brian Diaz wrote:

A lot of crappy fashion and crappy art is trying to sell clothes or say something about the world.

A lot of crappy glammer is trying to pretend it's not just crappy porn.

If you honestly believe that these crap ass fashion shooters are SERIOUSLY tryng to sell a product or make a statement then I don't know what to say to you.

Glamour is honest.   It's T and A for the sake of T and A.  It's not hiding behind "art" or trying to "send a message"  it's crotch candy at it's most raw, and if you ask me is one of the HARDEST genere's to do well and be lauded for because it will often be called "cheap porn"  by elitists that are insecure with their own boner.

Ransom J wrote:
If you honestly believe that these crap ass fashion shooters are SERIOUSLY tryng to sell a product or make a statement then I don't know what to say to you.

Glamour is honest.   It's T and A for the sake of T and A.  It's not hiding behind "art" or trying to "send a message"  it's crotch candy at it's most raw, and if you ask me is one of the HARDEST genere's to do well and be lauded for because it will often be called "cheap porn"  by elitists that are insecure with their own boner.

LOL!  I love the J.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
All selling is a form of prostitution..  Or at least objectification..

I agree, but while commercial images objectify clothing (or other goods/services), glamour images objectify people.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
I know a lot of people will quickly bark up GWC and crap photography.. But in all honest I have seen as much or more crappy fashion and crappy art photography as I have glamour..

But I've seen glamour done with great technical skill on the photographer's part.. It seems like 2 out of every 3 models wants to pose for it..  Many are willing to pay (in fact it seems like the one market where photographers and still sell their services to models on a vanity service basis..)

And yet it seems like while almost everyone is doing it, almost everyone else is taking a giant snooty dump on it.

Why?

I don't personally do glamour photography because I don't have the eye for it.  I can make pretty pictures and I can make naked pictures.. And sometimes I can make naked pictures pretty.. But there's a commercial aspect that goes into good glamour photography..  There is a science (or art, if you prefer) to it.. 

I almost don't want to post this thread and ask this question.. Because there's plenty of photogs out there who I don't consider very good and they call themselves glamour photographers, too.. But..

It's a valid question.. Why is such a popular form of photography work so villified?

Rowland,

Shame on you you should never shoot nudes or glamour.  Have the model come to a fashion shoot and then hand her her clothes.  How does that fairy tale go where the king has no clothes?  Tell her they are invisible to the naked eye but will show up on digital!

Just say trust me.

Shyly wrote:

LOL!  I love the J.

And i love the Shyly!

Ransom J wrote:

And i love the Shyly!

She's Nanner-licious.

Brian Diaz wrote:

I agree, but while commercial images objectify clothing (or other goods/services), glamour images objectify people.

All modeling objectifies people.  Glamour is just obvious with it.

Brian Diaz wrote:
I agree, but while commercial images objectify clothing (or other goods/services), glamour images objectify people.

Nope.. When a person is reduced to a coat-rack or a piece of eye-candy to draw attention to a product (whether it be clothes OR otherwise).. It's objectifying the person.  It's just a bait-and-switch..

Viewer: Ooh, she's pretty.. I want her..

Seller: Here's your sports drink.

How is this better?

Ransom J wrote:
Glamour is honest.   It's T and A for the sake of T and A.  It's not hiding behind "art" or trying to "send a message"  it's crotch candy at it's most raw, and if you ask me is one of the HARDEST genere's to do well and be lauded for because it will often be called "cheap porn"  by elitists that are insecure with their own boner.

I disagree.

Porn is honest.  Porn's objective is to aid people in masturbating.  Porn is awesome.

Glamour pretends it is something else.  It pretends it is mainstream.  Otherwise it would not socially acceptable for FHM and Maxim to be read on the subway or in the dentist's office.

Ransom J wrote:

If you honestly believe that these crap ass fashion shooters are SERIOUSLY tryng to sell a product or make a statement then I don't know what to say to you.

Glamour is honest.   It's T and A for the sake of T and A.  It's not hiding behind "art" or trying to "send a message"  it's crotch candy at it's most raw, and if you ask me is one of the HARDEST genere's to do well and be lauded for because it will often be called "cheap porn"  by elitists that are insecure with their own boner.

Well spoken from a man who shoots glamour really well.  I don't shoot certain types
of things well so I try and stick to what I do shoot somewhat well.  I won't
pretend to have some higher artistic ideals or concepts and I'm a man who enjoys
a well done or even half ass (pardon the pun) booty shot.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Glamour pretends it is something else.  It pretends it is mainstream.  Otherwise it would not socially acceptable for FHM and Maxim to be read on the subway or in the dentist's office.

If it's read on the subway or in the dentist's office it *IS* mainstream, by definition. No pretense about it.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Wow.. This thread is actually going somewhere.. How'd that happen?

DON'T jinx it!!!!

Ransom J wrote:

All modeling objectifies people.  Glamour is just obvious with it.

You're right that modeling objectifies people.  I concede on that point.

However within that definition, I do not think that glamour is more obvious.  It's that glamour is more sexually dishonest.  A glamour photo may show a girl in a g-string, but it never admits that the purpose of the photo is so teenagers can beat off to it.

CL Photography wrote:
Everyone does think perv when you mention glamour shots and it is funny because now glamour has lingerie and clothes in most cases, but in the past glamour always meant no clothes at all!

In fact, "in the past" Glamour was the term used to describe any image that was about the model, as opposed to the clothes. Glamour Magazine was a respected ladies monthly aimed at young women, and had no nudity whatsoever. Pin-ups were Glamour, and always covered, though considered risque for their day.

This constant prediliction for labeling and creating specific genres for everything is silly, and usually inaccurate, as conventional accepted terminology is co-opted by special interest groups, largely uninformed and ill read.
Take the word "Gay," for example.
People who are just plain happy want it back!

"In the past," an author would publish a specific dictionary to define his nomenclature in context. Perhaps we should do this again.

I have a college education in photography. I have shot landscapes, weddings, portraits, macro and Glamour. I like shooting beautiful women in little or no clothing and I do it quite well.
If you don't want to look at my work, don't feel you have to, but do not tell me that I am less of a photographer because I shoot nudes in colour with eye contact.

Brian Diaz wrote:
I disagree.

Porn is honest.  Porn's objective is to aid people in masturbating.  Porn is awesome.

Glamour pretends it is something else.  It pretends it is mainstream.  Otherwise it would not socially acceptable for FHM and Maxim to be read on the subway or in the dentist's office.

That's the thing.  Glamour ISN'T pretending.  It's wank material for teenage boys.  It's acceptable  knuckle fodder for husbands  to buy so that their wives don't get mad.  It's K-Mart porn.


We glamour shooters know this and we revel in it. We know that the tease, the raw sexuality and sensuality is done for the sole purpose of turning on the viewer.  We don't put a girl ass naked with a purse and say it was to try to sell the purse, we don't shoot a macro shot of a nipple and say it was a study of the human form, we shoot what we shoot with the intent of causing people to drool, be aroused and lust. 

That's honest.  If YOU want it all classified as porn then that's YOUR problem, but quiet frankly i don't see how much more honest we can get with it.

KM von Seidl wrote:
define glamour.  and glammer.  and glimmer.  and then Hurrell Glamour.  and glamourous. 


I think glamour gets a bad rap because it's about the girl.  and since a good number of photographers use the girl as the crutch, the genre one of the most popular amongst photographers.  and many do it poorly.  (glamour, not the girl, though they probably wish they could, but another story entirely).

It goes back to a thread Black Ricco threw everyone into a pissy fit over calling many photographers "recordists."   Forget that thread other than I see many glamour shots which though taken with $3,000 worth of gear are no more interesting or sophisticated than if taken with a point and shoot by a 7 year old...much of what is thrown up there is thrown up by mere recordists.

KM your work is very cool and has a powerful artistic bent happening while
for example Ransom's work has a strong sexual thing going on.  Much of his work
is about sexuality.  Sexy women posed in provocative ways with good lighting.
More photographers need to come clean about their work.  They need to say,
I planned on showing this good looking models huge ass.  I wasn't trying to make
a statement about world hunger.  I wasn't trying to do a abstract image where
its hard to know what we are looking at.  This is all about a sexy women in her
panties or next to nothing on posed in a sexy fashion which is designed to turn
men on.  In that he's successful.

Ransom J wrote:
We glamour shooters know this and we revel in it. We know that the tease, the raw sexuality and sensuality is done for the sole purpose of turning on the viewer.  We don't put a girl ass naked with a purse and say it was to try to sell the purse, we don't shoot a macro shot of a nipple and say it was a study of the human form, we shoot what we shoot with the intent of causing people to drool, be aroused and lust.

Okay, so we've established that glamour is about the girl and, in some way, turning on the viewer where fashion is first and foremost about the clothes? I can live with that. Is that what we're saying here?

Tony Lawrence wrote:

KM your work is very cool and has a powerful artistic bent happening while
for example Ransom's work has a strong sexual thing going on.  Much of his work
is about sexuality.  Sexy women posed in provocative ways with good lighting.
More photographers need to come clean about their work.  They need to say,
I planned on showing this good looking models huge ass.  I wasn't trying to make
a statement about world hunger.  I wasn't trying to do a abstract image where
its hard to know what we are looking at.  This is all about a sexy women in her
panties or next to nothing on posed in a sexy fashion which is designed to turn
men on.  In that he's successful.

And I thank you for that Tony.

This is MY point.

I feel like a lot of people piss and moan about glamour because it doesn't hide behind that overused art shit or telling a story mumbo jumbo.  I've seen SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much horrid fashion or art on this site, yet glamour catches such a bad wrap.

What kind of story is a figure study telling?  Honestly?  It's a shadowy, oft times badly lit close up of a body part and while I've seen some incredible bodyscapes, their intent is no more or less honest or regal than your run of the mill ass shot.  But because it was done in the name of art that makes it okay?

Please.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
All selling is a form of prostitution..  Or at least objectification..

All absolutes are wrong, including this one.

The problem with this cute quip is that it's totally derogatory and loaded with negativity and condescention.

If not for selling, how would you have all the wonderful things you have? ... computers, digital cameras, beer at Stan's house, mixed chicken & beef burritos ...

It's like putting a value judgement on air or water, and wagging your finger at it.

Perhaps the prostitution and objectification lies in the delivery of such a statement.

Selling is the lubrication that delivers wonderful things.

However, it fits the thread

*gurgle

Lost Coast Photo wrote:
Because most of it... with a few notable exceptions...  is lowbrow junk and exploits women?

As opposed to high brow junk that exploits women?

Is that why we are villified?  Because we do what everyone else does  except we HONESTLY cater to the lowest common denominater?



^^ Yeah this fashion is ALL about the shoes.  **rolls eyes**

XtremeArtists wrote:
It's because "Glamour" has become a code word online for G-Strings and tits.

...I have some perfectly good essentially non-revealing glamour-style photos-or is there a difference between "glamour" and "pin-up"...? What about lingerie? I don't do that...