Paramour Productions wrote:

The soundbite generation....  This is what happens when you stop providing children with a proper classical education...

True.   Don't get me wrong, your post had some very good ideas in it....but you need a pithy soundbite at the top for those who can't beyond 10 word sentences and 2 line paragraphs.

James Jackson wrote:
I am, but honestly glamour doesn't make me get a boner... it makes me want to hurl

Ransom J wrote:
Well then you take this shit way too serious.

No... I think it's that I don't like what glamtogs are selling/I don't like how they sell it.  It's a lot like photos of super cars to me...  I don't like super cars.  I like trucks.  I hate the lines of the bodies that most of the super car manufacturers make.  I think they're ugly, atrocious pieces of crap.

An oiled up bubble butt doesn't give me a boner... it always makes me want to hurl...  You want to give me a boner you'll have to go a lot further in to my psyche than the breasts/ass-as-a-lure-primate-desire-to-stick-my-cock-in-something.

James Jackson wrote:

No... I think it's that I don't like what glamtogs are selling/I don't like how they sell it.  It's a lot like photos of super cars to me...  I don't like super cars.  I like trucks.  I hate the lines of the bodies that most of the super car manufacturers make.  I think they're ugly, atrocious pieces of crap.

An oiled up bubble butt doesn't give me a boner... it always makes me want to hurl...  You want to give me a boner you'll have to go a lot further in to my psyche than the breasts/ass-as-a-lure-primate-desire-to-stick-my-cock-in-something.

That's the thing.  I don't want to give YOU a boner.  YOU aren't the target market.  I'd wager that YOU  get a boner from something completely different than 80 percent of heterosexual men.  There is a HUGE market for and oiled up ass.

It's like I said earlier.  If you don't like hamburgers don't eat it.  Eat steak tar tar if it make you feel more refined.  But lets not look down on the People who eat Wendy's or the workers that serve the burgers just because  grill grease gives you indigestion.

edit:

YES that's a made up stat, and NO i was in no way  commenting on your sexuality.

(this IS the internet, I just wanted to put out a fire before it started)

Paramour Productions wrote:
It does not meet your definition of a glamour shot, but it certainly is one.  Thoughts?

I'd say it was a glamour shot in the same sense as other glamtography...

It is an over sexualized, over commercialized, and plasticized version of reality.

Now, intent is one thing... and you're saying you meant it to be a piece of art... ok then... my turn to ask questions:

What is artistic about it to you?  What were you trying to say with the image? What message were you trying to convey?

And it does meet my test of making me want to hurl... that model is just... well... she's definitely glam

KM von Seidl wrote:

True.   Don't get me wrong, your post had some very good ideas in it....but you need a pithy soundbite at the top for those who can't beyond 10 word sentences and 2 line paragraphs.

And we wonder why our country has gone to hell in a handbasket....

I'm only half joking.  We now occupy a society that believes every problem/issue must be simple and have a simple solution - black & white.  Politics by soundbite, education by soundbite, fortune cookie philosophy, people incapable of analyzing the future as they are unwilling to take the time to study the past...

Anything worth knowing or discussing cannot be encapsulated into soundbites....

James Jackson wrote:

I'd say it was a glamour shot in the same sense as other glamtography...

It is an over sexualized, over commercialized, and plasticized version of reality.

Now, intent is one thing... and you're saying you meant it to be a piece of art... ok then... my turn to ask questions:

What is artistic about it to you?  What were you trying to say with the image? What message were you trying to convey?

And it does meet my test of making me want to hurl... that model is just... well... she's definitely glam

Actually he said it WASN'T meant to be art.

Ransom J wrote:

That's the thing.  I don't want to give YOU a boner.  YOU aren't the target market.  I'd wager that YOU  get a boner from something completely different than 80 percent of heterosexual men.  There is a HUGE market for and oiled up ass.

It's like I said earlier.  If you don't like hamburgers don't eat it.  Eat steak tar tar if it make you feel more refined.  But lets not look down on the People who eat Wendy's or the workers that serve the burgers just because  grill grease gives you indigestion.

edit:

YES that's a made up stat, and NO i was in no way  commenting on your sexuality.

(this IS the internet, I just wanted to put out a fire before it started)

Oh hey, listen, I try not to take the low road and intentionally misinterpret... I didn't think you were saying I was gay, and I'm willing to bet you're correct that I'm in a low percentile for what turns me on.  I *know* there's a huge market for oiled up ass.

I never said I look down on the *people* who eat Wendy's (actually *I* eat Wendy's while looking down on McDonald's)... rather I look down on the fast food *itself*.

Let's put it another way.  If you drive a Ugo I'm not going to make fun of you for liking the Ugo, but I sure as hell *am* going to make fun of the Ugo.

James Jackson wrote:

Oh hey, listen, I try not to take the low road and intentionally misinterpret... I didn't think you were saying I was gay, and I'm willing to bet you're correct that I'm in a low percentile for what turns me on.  I *know* there's a huge market for oiled up ass.

I never said I look down on the *people* who eat Wendy's (actually *I* eat Wendy's while looking down on McDonald's)... rather I look down on the fast food *itself*.

Let's put it another way.  If you drive a Ugo I'm not going to make fun of you for liking the Ugo, but I sure as hell *am* going to make fun of the Ugo.

Which makes you a snob.

But at least your comfortable in your snobbery.

James Jackson wrote:

I'd say it was a glamour shot in the same sense as other glamtography...

It is an over sexualized, over commercialized, and plasticized version of reality.

Now, intent is one thing... and you're saying you meant it to be a piece of art... ok then... my turn to ask questions:

What is artistic about it to you?  What were you trying to say with the image? What message were you trying to convey?

And it does meet my test of making me want to hurl... that model is just... well... she's definitely glam

I like the idea of revisiting the concept of glamour. 
Redefining.


Personally, I'm not into the oiled ass thing myself, I always think too much and think if my face was up against the ass I'm going to have really oily skin... but I'm not wholly opposed to the idea of overt sexual appeal, if done correctly.

Ransom J wrote:
Actually he said it WASN'T meant to be art.

Ah... I misread.

My bad.

But my questions still stand... because to me, that's what photography is all about.  Why should I allow someone to trivialize my preferred medium of communication by putting out tripe?

It is no different than a novel writer decrying romance novels.

James Jackson wrote:

I'd say it was a glamour shot in the same sense as other glamtography...

It is an over sexualized, over commercialized, and plasticized version of reality.

Now, intent is one thing... and you're saying you meant it to be a piece of art... ok then... my turn to ask questions:

What is artistic about it to you?  What were you trying to say with the image? What message were you trying to convey?

And it does meet my test of making me want to hurl... that model is just... well... she's definitely glam

No, I said it WASN'T art.  If I wanted to shoot art I would pack a view camera into some slot canyons in Arizona.  When I wanted to shoot photos that actually meant something, I packed my gear to sub-Saharan Africa and Venezuela...   

This was for fun.  That's the message, it's that simple.  A fun shot of a hot chick.  And yes, it's glam.  And yes you probably don't like it.  And that's fine.  But I would venture to guess that among straight men, you would be in the minority.  And that's cool too, hey, I don't like the shots you took, they don't do anything for me.  BUT, I respect that you like it, and that you created something that represented your aesthetic sense. 

Me?  I like fast cars, sleek boats and beautiful women.

KM von Seidl wrote:
but I'm not wholly opposed to the idea of overt sexual appeal, if done correctly.

I'm enjoying this conversation by the way... from everyone... it is really an exploration for me, so pardon me if I sound like I'm reaching and changing my mind.

--------------

Ok, the idea of communicating overt sexual appeal... that's good... but it isn't what glam *is*.  Any time I see glamtography, I think "FOR SALE".

James Jackson wrote:
It is no different than a novel writer decrying romance novels.

I love romance novels.  Does that mean if I were a man I'd love oiled ass shots?

Paramour Productions wrote:
My avatar is a glamour shot.  It wasn't intended to give you a boner (or make you hurl for that matter).

It was meant to be hot shot of a model.

Are you asking this of James in particular (having some insight into his tastes and demographic) or do you mean that it was not intended to give anyone a boner?

If so, what is the purpose of a hot shot of a model if not to give someone a boner?

Melissa Lynnette wrote:

I love romance novels.  Does that mean if I were a man I'd love oiled ass shots?

Romance novels are totally porn.

James Jackson wrote:
It is no different than a novel writer decrying romance novels.

I read quite a bit.  Sometimes I read to learn a skill, sometimes I read to expand my thinking.  Sometimes I read to gain a better understanding of a particular philosophy or viewpoint.

And sometimes I read for sheer, check my brain enjoyment...

Paramour Productions wrote:
This was for fun.  That's the message, it's that simple.  A fun shot of a hot chick.  And yes, it's glam.  And yes you probably don't like it.  And that's fine.  But I would venture to guess that among straight men, you would be in the minority.  And that's cool too, hey, I don't like the shots you took, they don't do anything for me.  BUT, I respect that you like it, and that you created something that represented your aesthetic sense.

Oddly, the pics currently in my port, and the pics in your port are communicating much the same message.  The thing is, mine are *NOT* about the aesthetics.

That could be any two models...male or female... and I would have told the story the same way.

It was a revisit of the Little Red Riding Hood story, and an exploration of the corruption of youth... loss of innocence... and sexuality.

Why can't you do that with glam?  You decry the "sound bite society" and yet you contribute to it with easy to digest "fun"images" of a "hot" chick...

James Jackson wrote:

I'm enjoying this conversation by the way... from everyone... it is really an exploration for me, so pardon me if I sound like I'm reaching and changing my mind.

--------------

Ok, the idea of communicating overt sexual appeal... that's good... but it isn't what glam *is*.  Any time I see glamtography, I think "FOR SALE".

James.  Me too.  There's a great deal about current glamour photography as the road it's been taken down, that I don't find arousing in the slightest.  And I find women...well certain women, arousing.  But that doesn't mean I'm going the throw out the whole concept of shots that arouse in a certain manner, for me it's actually a challenge to think about.    What is authentically arousing to me expressed visually.   

I haven't even begun to scratch the surface as they say.

James Jackson wrote:

Oddly, the pics currently in my port, and the pics in your port are communicating much the same message.  The thing is, mine are *NOT* about the aesthetics.

That could be any two models...male or female... and I would have told the story the same way.

It was a revisit of the Little Red Riding Hood story, and an exploration of the corruption of youth... loss of innocence... and sexuality.

Why can't you do that with glam?  You decry the "sound bite society" and yet you contribute to it with easy to digest "fun"images" of a "hot" chick...

Why does EVERY  picture have to have some prevailing message SCREAMING at the user? 

Glamour isn't about a prevailing message.  that's what other forms of photography are about (or what they'd lead you to think).

Just as a hamburger has it's place amongst the top sirloin, so does glamour photography.

It's a consumable for the masses, and as such doesn't HAVE to have this deeper meaning applied to it.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Romance novels are totally porn.

This is the truth you speak.  I won't go into how very true that is.  It's embarrassing.

KM von Seidl wrote:
And I'd say my current avatar is as much glamour as it is whatever else it is....

See, no... not glam...

It's too hard to chew... you have to think about it.  It's not disposable enough.

There's color theory and composition.  Negative space and reflective imagery.

If it was a "glam" shot it would be bright neon colors that don't have anything to do with each other and she'd be centered and looking at the camera with that "come hither" stare.

Melissa Lynnette wrote:

This is the truth you speak.  I won't go into how very true that is.  It's embarrassing.

My girlfriend reads them... I always say "how's your girlporn"

Brian Diaz wrote:

Are you asking this of James in particular (having some insight into his tastes and demographic) or do you mean that it was not intended to give anyone a boner?

If so, what is the purpose of a hot shot of a model if not to give someone a boner?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm WAY past the age of any image giving me a boner...

I suppose I could go on and on about making a social commentary on gender equality and the modern woman by juxtaposing a soft sexy feminine against a stereotypically masculine backdrop in an attempt to illustrate that a modern woman can be a complete person and does not have to make a choice between being "feminine" or "strong"; while at the same time forcing men to re-examine their views of a traditional patriarchal society.  If you see that and get it.  Cool.  But that's the subtext...

On the surface it's eye candy, plain and simple.  It is meant to make the model look good, it's meant to make her enticing and, if I was at all successful, it's meant to be commercially viable.

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

Or Short Girl Fashion. Or Bikini Modeling. Or Buns In The Air Work Or Boobs In The Camera Work Or Asian Up Skirt Work Or... Well, you get the idea. Not that the Term "Art" is treated much better.
Mike

James Jackson wrote:

My girlfriend reads them... I always say "how's your girlporn"

Once a friend of mine grabbed my book out of my hands and started reading passages aloud.  Lol.  But at least the steamy stuff is couched in history.  Those are the ones I read.  They're all heaving bosoms and ripping bodices.  So great.

Ransom J wrote:

Why does EVERY  picture have to have some prevailing message SCREAMING at the user? 

Glamour isn't about a prevailing message.  that's what other forms of photography are about (or what they'd lead you to think).

Just as a hamburger has it's place amongst the top sirloin, so does glamour photography.

It's a consumable for the masses, and as such doesn't HAVE to have this deeper meaning applied to it.

Is my message "screaming" at the viewer?  I hope not...

But more to the point... does every picture *have to have* some message?  Why yes.

Yes, hamburger is a valid food, just as a steak is... but both can be properly seasoned to bring out their best attributes.  That's what the message in art is... the seasoning... and without it, the finished product is just *blahhhh* bland.

And that's pretty much why I dislike glam... it is bland to me... it doesn't play off my psyche and thus doesn't turn me on, even though that is ostensibly what a "hot" woman would do.

James Jackson wrote:
Why can't you do that with glam?  You decry the "sound bite society" and yet you contribute to it with easy to digest "fun"images" of a "hot" chick...

I think you are right.  I think you can and I'm working on it.  Seriously, it's why I haven't shot in a while.  I'm not there yet though, it will take more experimenting, more study, more trial and error.  I've been spending a lot of time sketching.  Maybe I'll achieve it, maybe I'll fail miserably, but I am trying...

KM von Seidl wrote:

James.  Me too.  There's a great deal about current glamour photography as the road it's been taken down, that I don't find arousing in the slightest.  And I find women...well certain women, arousing.  But that doesn't mean I'm going the throw out the whole concept of shots that arouse in a certain manner, for me it's actually a challenge to think about.    What is authentically arousing to me expressed visually.   

I haven't even begun to scratch the surface as they say.

My feelings exactly...

James Jackson wrote:
Is my message "screaming" at the viewer?  I hope not...

But more to the point... does every picture *have to have* some message?  Why yes.

Yes, hamburger is a valid food, just as a steak is... but both can be properly seasoned to bring out their best attributes.  That's what the message in art is... the seasoning... and without it, the finished product is just *blahhhh* bland.

And that's pretty much why I dislike glam... it is bland to me... it doesn't play off my psyche and thus doesn't turn me on, even though that is ostensibly what a "hot" woman would do.

But as such you probably don't go to the strip club.  And you probably catch hard on's playing chess and reading chaucer with your lady love.

Hence YOU are weird by most standards. 


Glamour HAS a messgae.  You just don't like the message.

It says "Hey guy, i bet you want me! **insert other typical sexual diatrabe here**"

That type of stuff is too "low brow" for you.  But again glamour isn't aimed at you.  Never has been.  The shit YOU see as "real" glamour from the 20's and 30's had the same message THEN as it does NOW.  the only real difference is the amount of clothes and styling.  Because THEN it was considered JUST as low brow, and I'm quite sure that if you grew up THEN in that society with those morals and beliefs, you'd be JUST as scandalized about what you accept as "good glamour" now.  You just over "glamourize" it.  LOL **bad pun**

Paramour Productions wrote:
I suppose I could go on and on about making a social commentary on gender equality and the modern woman by juxtaposing a soft sexy feminine against a stereotypically masculine backdrop in an attempt to illustrate that a modern woman can be a complete person and does not have to make a choice between being "feminine" or "strong"; while at the same time forcing men to re-examine their views of a traditional patriarchal society.  If you see that and get it.  Cool.  But that's the subtext...

Subtext?  Her boobies are falling out.

I believe that if you honestly wanted to make a statement about gender equality, you'd have done it in such a way that wouldn't make teenage boys lock their bedroom doors.

Ransom J wrote:
A lot of you seem like the type that can't enjoy a shitty movie like "Attack of the Killer Tomatos"  because cinema is SUPPOSED to be good.  Or you can't watch action films because films are supposed to have a good plot.

Some times you need to accept something for what it is, who it's made for, and all your "rules" be damned.

Totally not about "the rules" (for once).  Just about maintaining and improving something that I feel I have a stake in...

I can enjoy a shitty movie just fine, but that is because even the shittiest of movies has a redeeming point... well... if they're truly cult style shitty movies that is.  The thing about shitty movies is they make fun of themselves, and they make the audiences that "get it" feel like they're in on the joke.

Glamtography takes itself *just* seriously enough to not have that feeling.  Every glamour guy I know has a mission statement something along the lines of wanting to "capture beauty" or "document really hot chicks" or "turn people on"...  When they fail to do that because they don't explore enough avenues of doing so, but they keep taking themselves seriously... well then... they've failed.

Ransom J wrote:

James Jackson wrote:
That type of stuff is too "low brow" for you.  But again glamour isn't aimed at you.  Never has been.  The shit YOU see as "real" glamour from the 20's and 30's had the same message THEN as it does NOW.  the only real difference is the amount of clothes and styling.  Because THEN it was considered JUST as low brow, and I'm quite sure that if you grew up THEN in that society with those morals and beliefs, you'd be JUST as scadalized about what you accept as "good glamour" now.  You just over "glamourize" it.  LOL **bad pun**

You have distilled it to its essence.  What you just wrote is completely accurate from a both a historical and modern perspective.

My only beef is that it seems the RELATIVE quality of glamour has gone down.  By this I mean the skill in lighting, composition, art direction, color pallet selection, and on and on.  Production value, plain and simple.  Agree?

James Jackson wrote:
Totally not about "the rules" (for once).  Just about maintaining and improving something that I feel I have a stake in...

I can enjoy a shitty movie just fine, but that is because even the shittiest of movies has a redeeming point... well... if they're truly cult style shitty movies that is.  The thing about shitty movies is they make fun of themselves, and they make the audiences that "get it" feel like they're in on the joke.

Glamtography takes itself *just* seriously enough to not have that feeling.  Every glamour guy I know has a mission statement something along the lines of wanting to "capture beauty" or "document really hot chicks" or "turn people on"...  When they fail to do that because they don't explore enough avenues of doing so, but they keep taking themselves seriously... well then... they've failed.

But as evidenced by the millions of threads of fashion shooters and artists complaining about how all the T and A photographers get all the comments and views,

By the HUGE insurgence of bubblegum men's magazine that cookie cut and insert greasy hot chick **here** and come hither look **there**

By the fact that in one year I've been able to quit my "real" job and live rather well off providing "spank material" to models that need it for their posters, calendars, mag submissions, etc.

I don't think we fail too often.

They fail with YOU.  But you were never part of the equation.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Subtext?  Her boobies are falling out.

I believe that if you honestly wanted to make a statement about gender equality, you'd have done it in such a way that wouldn't make teenage boys lock their bedroom doors.

Obviously you didn't get the humor...

Of course there is no subtext - it's a glamour shot!  What don't  you get?  What is the subtext of your avatar.  I could write something equally droll about that image.  You don't like the shot, you don't like seeing women portrayed in that fashion.  And you apparently have a problem with young men masturbating (perhaps you didn't do enough of it back in the day?).  You want to take meaningful photos?  Fine.  Put down the bear, and you and I will go to Darfur, THEN you will get something that is meaningful...

Ransom J wrote:
But as such you probably don't go to the strip club.  And you probably catch hard on's playing chess and reading chaucer with your lady love.

Hence YOU are weird by most standards.

Heh... cute.. but no... I get my hard ons from much more direct assaults on my sexuality.  Glamour doesn't even come close to triggering me.

Ransom J wrote:
Glamour HAS a messgae.  You just don't like the message.

It says "Hey guy, i bet you want me! **insert other typical sexual diatrabe here**"

That type of stuff is too "low brow" for you.  But again glamour isn't aimed at you.  Never has been.  The shit YOU see as "real" glamour from the 20's and 30's had the same message THEN as it does NOW.  the only real difference is the amount of clothes and styling.  Because THEN it was considered JUST as low brow, and I'm quite sure that if you grew up THEN in that society with those morals and beliefs, you'd be JUST as scandalized about what you accept as "good glamour" now.  You just over "glamourize" it.  LOL **bad pun**

I disagree... and mind you I'm just talking it out here these aren't set in stone ideas... just what I'm thinking right now.

I think the problem with Glamour is it *TRIES* to have the message: "Hey guy, i bet you want me!" but it doesn't try hard enough.  It's sophomoric porn.

The glamour from the 20's and 30's *did* have the message: "Hey guy, i bet you want me!" but almost seemingly without trying.

I'm not scandalized by glam... It just does nothing for me.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Her boobies are falling out.

any idea how hard it was to find a lingerie top that resembled shoulder pads!!??!!   LMAO!