W.G. Rowland wrote:
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..)

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

Possibly it gets the bad rap BECAUSE it's popular (often all it takes to get disdain among some artistic types) and because it gratifies vanity.

Ransom J wrote:

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.

And this is particularly beautiful from a model's standpoint, for those of us that are not built for fashion, for those of us that have no moral objections to being wanking material, for those of us that enjoy getting paid as such, and yet will not cross the line over to what you call "honest" because it might seriously interfere with our careers. 

It might be hypocritical, but so is this business... it's socially acceptable for an actress to be in Maxim, not Hustler.

Paramour Productions wrote:
If glamour shooters actually created better imagery, I think they would get much more respect. I have nothing against T&A but I do hate bad photographs, regardless of genre and I think many other’s feel the same way, no matter what they shoot.  I have spoke to many fashion guys about the images in Playboy (centerfold images, specifically) and while those images may not be their cup of tea, they do respect the skill that goes into creating them.  But honestly, how many glamour images of that quality do you see on the web?  I’ve been working in glamour for a while and it’s hard to pull off, requires constant study and a large investment in equipment.  It takes time (just as shooting fashion does) but you don’t seem to see most of the glamour shooters really trying to develop as photographers.  They seem to be content to shoot crap content.

While I agree with much of what you said, I want to touch on this in particualar.

I might agree with this if there wasn't so much BAD art and BAD fashion floating around as well.  Everyone likes to point the finger at bad glamour as if it's the devil  and that's where all the horrible shooters lie but it's just not true.  There are plenty of good glamour photographers, and plenty of good fashion photographer and art photographers, just as there are plenty of BAD one's in all generes.  We glamour photographers don't corner the market in bad shooter, I think it's pretty equally spread out.

Ransom J wrote:

While I agree with much of what you said, I want to touch on this in particualar.

I might agree with this if there wasn't so much BAD art and BAD fashion floating around as well.  Everyone likes to point the finger at bad glamour as if it's the devil  and that's where all the horrible shooters lie but it's just not true.  There are plenty of good glamour photographers, and plenty of good fashion photographer and art photographers, just as there are plenty of BAD one's in all generes.  We glamour photographers don't corner the market in bad shooter, I think it's pretty equally spread out.

Yes, but the competition has to be with yourself.  You can't justify bad glamour because there is bad fashion or bad art.  You still have to strive for excellence...

Do you believe when I started writing that post, there were no respondents to the thread yet??  I have to learn to type faster....

Paramour Productions wrote:

Yes, but the competition has to be with yourself.  You can't justify bad glamour because there is bad fashion or bad art.  You still have to strive for excellence...

Do you believe when I started writing that post, there were no respondents to the thread yet??  I have to learn to type faster....

Who's justifying bad glamour?  I'm saying don't villify a whole genere because bad photographers exist in it, because by doing that you must villify ALL photography.

Paramour Productions wrote:
What am I the "thread cooler"??  I come to the table and the action dies.....

Your response is good and it's taking people a long time to read...

stephanie sonnemann wrote:
Since my co. name is Glamourshots.ca, I feel like I am entitled to say something in this respect.
I believe the photographers are responsible for the reputation of the word. When male photographers talk about beauty or glamourshots 95% of them are really only referring to naked shots and have absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing to do with either beauty or glamour. Just some nude chick posing like she has a cramp in her neck flashing her.... and this business is dominated by male photographers.

I chose the name for my co. because I started in Germany under the name Glamourshots.de The word did not have this type of reputation/meaning there. I thought in the beginning it would be best just to replace the de with ca. Well I thought... I am considering a name change but I have not found the one I liked so far so I will keep searching.
Approx. half a year a go I did a search on the origins of the word and well, I was somewhat stuned how the word was defined and what "conotations"(?) it had. Now some of you might think I have something against nude pictures, au contraire! But as in everything in life there is the right kind and the simply naked kind. It's the same question, why do some women look absolutely hot hot hot in a mini and others only cheap???

Feel free to comment on the pictures on my profile, I believe I have some very glamourous photos on their without having to be nude etc.
Thanks

Sonne

Good photos ya got but glamourous they aren't.  That isn't to say they aren't
good they are.  My work isn't glamorous either not anywhere near what photographers like Ransom and others have.  Its not just about a nude women
of course as a lot of glamour isn't always nude.  While some of us like looking at
enjoy the nude fashion level work you see in a Elle, Vogue, W or French Photo
there are those who like as I do the more raw and unpolished work you see in
the lower level nude mags.  Men like seeing naked or near naked women.  We
take em skinny or large or with big breasts or small we like women.  If some
want to get creative with their lighting or creative with locations or poses thats
all good too.

Photographic Artistry wrote:
I've always enjoyed classic glamour photography.  When done well, it stands the test of time and should be treated with more appreciation and respect.  Just look at some of the work done by Bunny Yeager, Lucien Clergue, or Bob Carlos Clarke.  Each with very different approaches, yet all seem to center around fantasy, beauty and sexuality. I think it is the sexual nature of this genre that makes some uncomfortable or even offended by it.  Personally, I say to each their own, but I will go on record as a true fan of glamour.  Any other "closet fans" out there?

Ok I am out of the closet, I am sort of a fan too.

RB

Ps

Websters:

Glam·our |'glamər| (also glam·or)
    noun
1. The attractive or exciting quality that makes certain people or things seem appealing or special.
2. Beauty or charm that is sexually attractive.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Simplified? For the same reason that "we" turn up our noses at The Man Show. (And it doesn't hurt that most glam is frankly a bad parody of itself.)

Glam intentions CAN be well-communicated, but they usually aren't. Largely because the market for such stuff is not the most sophisticated in the world, and neither are a lot of the photographers who make it, even some of the more skilled practitioners.

Glam intentions are to give rise to a boner.  Plain and simple.  how is that not well communicated?

And as I said earlier, we are villified to help feed into a false sense of sophistocation and aristocracy for those that are insecure ith their own erections?

BAH that something has to be sofisticated to be good.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
So glam SHOULD be mere fodder? Bah bah (black sheep have you any wool...)

That's what it is.  Bah at trying to make it more than it is.  It caters to the basest instinct we have.  Why shouldn't it be fodder?  Even fodder can be done well but that doesn't make it any less fodder.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
So glam SHOULD be mere fodder? Bah bah (black sheep have you any wool...)

not fodder; CANDY... to extend the food metaphor... it's not coq au vin... its not a florentine omelet... it's not Godiva truffles... but its a Starburst fruit chew... and i like starburst fruit chew every now and again. 

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Simplified? For the same reason that "we" turn up our noses at The Man Show. (And it doesn't hurt that most glam is frankly a bad parody of itself.)

But here’s one of the problems that some of us “regular guys” have with that statement.  There are many of us who were brought up in middle to upperclass homes, are well educated (in many cases, Ivy league with advanced degrees) we are white collar professionals, making very good livings, live in homes costing from $750,000 to $2M, we read the Economist, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, we sit on the boards of companies and charities, we support the arts (jazz music, orchestras, ballet companies, museums, etc.) both through our appreciation and our patronage.  We care about our appearances and spend a good deal of money on it, whether for grooming or for clothes.  We do pay attention to fashion trends as they apply to what we do and dress appropriately.  We tend to date and marry women who are of similar breeding and are especially fashion conscious. 

We consider ourselves “sophisticated” or at the very least we are not knuckle-draggers...  However, we like looking at hot, scantily clad women and we don’t particularly like them to look like tall, twelve year old boys…  Do you see why some might consider a statement such as that as a tad offensive?

Sarah Ellis wrote:
I love glamour.  It pays my gas & electricity.

yup

Sarah Ellis wrote:
I love glamour.

Thank you.

I feel better now.

MadamePsychosis wrote:

not fodder; CANDY... to extend the food metaphor... it's not coq au vin... its not a florentine omelet... it's not Godiva truffles... but its a Starburst fruit chew... and i like starburst fruit chew every now and again. 

Damn.  I like that.

Paramour Productions wrote:
But here’s one of the problems that some of us “regular guys” have with that statement.  There are many of us who were brought up in middle to upperclass homes, are well educated (in many cases, Ivy league with advanced degrees) we are white collar professionals, making very good livings, live in homes costing from $750,000 to $2M, we read the Economist, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, we sit on the boards of companies and charities, we support the arts (jazz music, orchestras, ballet companies, museums, etc.) both through our appreciation and our patronage.  We care about our appearances and spend a good deal of money on it, whether for grooming or for clothes.  We do pay attention to fashion trends as they apply to what we do and dress appropriately.  We tend to date and marry women who are of similar breeding and are especially fashion conscious.

you are so from connecticut.

MadamePsychosis wrote:

not fodder; CANDY... to extend the food metaphor... it's not coq au vin... its not a florentine omelet... it's not Godiva truffles... but its a Starburst fruit chew... and i like starburst fruit chew every now and again. 

Awe...  You read my manifesto!  Yep, that's what it's about....

MadamePsychosis wrote:

you are so from connecticut.

LOL!!!!  Should I mention I enjoy horesback riding and my real passion is sailing?  While those statements are true, I actually came here from Chicago, via NYC.  I have led an eclectic life and while what I wrote does apply to me, it applies much more to friends of mine.  But the point is that men like this exist and just because we have different aesthetics tastes in what we like to look at from someone else does not mean that we are idiots...

MadamePsychosis wrote:
not fodder; CANDY... to extend the food metaphor... it's not coq au vin... its not a florentine omelet... it's not Godiva truffles... but its a Starburst fruit chew... and i like starburst fruit chew every now and again. 

The food metaphor is a good one because that's (along with safety) are our basest instincts. I'm one who likes my food a little more interesting than greasy fries and a Budweiser, and that's not all rooted in snobbery, as much as people are trying to paint me into that corner. I don't expect to be applauded at the grocery store.

You know I love sexuality in pictures as much as anyone, but sexuality to me is a little more than just "big hooters, must ejaculate."

My enemy is the notion that's all it can or should be. In this as in everything I care about, I frickin' hate that, and I fight it. I'm over people thinking me faggy for preferring something like Rankin's Sofasexy or the Pirelli Calendar or Ralph Gibson's Infanta to Playboy or Maxim.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
I'm over people thinking me faggy for preferring something like Rankin's Sofasexy or the Pirelli Calendar or Ralph Gibson's Infanta to Playboy or Maxim.

The Pirelli Calendar is the Pinnacle of glamour....

EDIT: And with the food analogy, I agree.  I love to eat good food.  I've eaten at some of the best restaurants all over the world.  I took cooking classes to learn how to prepare that type of food at home.  To me a good meal is on par with good sex.

But I still like to go to Jackson Hole for a chilli cheeseburger once in a while....  It's fun, it tastes good, and it no more defines me than the Porterhouse I had at Smith & Wollensky....

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

The food metaphor is a good one because that's (along with safety) are our basest instincts. I'm one who likes my food a little more interesting than greasy fries and a Budweiser, and that's not all rooted in snobbery, as much as people are trying to paint me into that corner. I don't expect to be applauded at the grocery store.

You know I love sexuality in pictures as much as anyone, but sexuality to me is a little more "big hooters, must ejaculate."

My enemy is the notion that's all it can or should be. In this as in everything I care about, I frickin' hate that, and I fight it. I'm over people thinking me faggy for preferring something like Rankin's Sofasexy or the Pirelli Calendar or Ralph Gibson's Infanta to Playboy or Maxim.

You're NOT faggy for perferring Rankin's to playboy, but the underlying message of your posts says that those that perfer Playboy to Rankin's are unsofisticated goofs with their dick in their hands.  Shit is offensive.  To the viewers and the purveyors.  like what you like, but what you like isn't BETTER than what apparantly MOST people like.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
And yet it seems like while almost everyone is doing it, almost everyone else is taking a giant snooty dump on it.

First of all I'd just like to say that I love you even more than I did before for saying giant snooty dump. Second...sex is dirty. Sex is bad. Sex gets girls pregnant and gives fathers high blood pressure. SEX is villified in this country. That's why glamour is. Glamour is sexual...therefore, it's evil. I personally don't get it...but I can't do anything about it because I like sex and therefore I'm evil, and God hates me, so my opinion doesn't matter.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

The food metaphor is a good one because that's (along with safety) are our basest instincts. I'm one who likes my food a little more interesting than greasy fries and a Budweiser, and that's not all rooted in snobbery, as much as people are trying to paint me into that corner. I don't expect to be applauded at the grocery store.

You know I love sexuality in pictures as much as anyone, but sexuality to me is a little more than just "big hooters, must ejaculate."

My enemy is the notion that's all it can or should be. In this as in everything I care about, I frickin' hate that, and I fight it. I'm over people thinking me faggy for preferring something like Rankin's Sofasexy or the Pirelli Calendar or Ralph Gibson's Infanta to Playboy or Maxim.

My palate is more complex, too... You can compare all info/art/whatever to food, as something that you take in sensually, and allow into your body/psyche.  For that reason I don't even own a TV... but there are times when I appreciate the hell out of junkfood: some bad telly or an UsWeekly... and I definitely feel it when I  eat too much of it...

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
With very rare exceptions, I'd say you're absolutely right.

BTW, it usually features fashion models shot by fashion photographers, and is generally a little more sophisticated than the fodder I'm referring to. But great glamour doesn't HAVE to be about fashion shooters shooting fashion models sexy. There are a lot of different places that the good stuff could come from, and many have probably been under-explored, or explored pretty badly.

I don't know if it's so much that it's been underexplored as I'm not sure if the market is there.  I mean I know it is, but is it  big enough to significantly monetize it?  That's the real question, and to be sure, I have no idea what the answer is, although I am trying to find out....

Paramour Productions wrote:
But I still like to go to Jackson Hole for a chilli cheeseburger once in a while....  It's fun, it tastes good, and it no more defines me than the Porterhouse I had at Smith & Wollensky....

Sure it doesn't, Harvard. 

MadamePsychosis wrote:

Sure it doesn't, Harvard. 

Harvard is in Boston and that would be in Massachusetts.  Yale is in Connecticut...