Nude

[Nathan Potter]

JMB, your comments are well said and elucidate one aspect of photography - the documentation of unpleasantness. Photographic history is replete with examples of such unpleasantness and I don't need to repeat them, but for example Gene Smith's Minimata series comes to mind. Many other workers focus on banality, hardly an exposition of beauty. Photography has become a sort of loose canon and therein, for me, is where the excitement lies.

I'm not trained in the fine arts and sometimes I think that is a good thing. I don't carry art history baggage with me but I do care greatly about it. A poor knowledge about it seems to help me see things out of that context and when not consciously thinking about what has been done before I am much more imaginitive and free to probe.

Ash's image I find particularly imaginitive just because of the bold connection between the patch and the beautiful female body; a connection that is at once controversial depending on the proclivities of the viewer.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Jim Jones]

Art can be many things to many people. Critics may tout creations that only a few thousands ever see, and pan Norman Rockwell who enriched the lives of millions. Art can be beautiful, inspiring, and fun. A few artists like Ash can do all in a single work. Thank you, Ash.

[Jay DeFehr]

Leigh,

I think your question cuts both ways. We can call anything we like "art", but it doesn't make it so, beyond our own subjective appraisal. If Ash presents his work as art, he should be prepared to defend it to those who disagree with his presentation. In other words, "It's art because I say so" is no more valid than, "It's not art unless I say so". To be clear, I'm not suggesting Ash or John were claiming either position.

[Tony Evans]

Don't start! Art is personal. All JMB is saying is "I don't like it" Neither do I.

[Leigh]

If Ash presents his work as art, he should be prepared to defend it to those who disagree with his presentation. In other words, "It's art because I say so" is no more valid than, "It's not art unless I say so".

Why should Ash (or any artist) "defend" his work in any manner.

It's entirely up to the artist to determine what is or is not art. The opinions of the masses are absolutely irrelevant.

I'm reminded of a recent controversy about a crucifix inverted in a container of urine.

Many folks didn't like it. So what?

- Leigh

[Brian C. Miller]

Hell, I thought it was Band-aid. Shows you how contemporary I am. In either case, a nice touch of whimsy.

I thought it was a generic bandage. I agree with JMB that it really doesn't add anything to the image, but I wouldn't call it crude. If an image contains "commentary" and yet it still needs explanation, then I regard it as failing.

Why should Ash (or any artist) "defend" his work in any manner.

Ash doesn't need to "defend" his work. He needs to make more!

Ash: try this concept: put the babe behind two goldfish bowls at chest height, with a fish or two each, acting as magnifying glasses. The babe will be nonchalantly looking at the fish, unaware of anything. Put a guy or two in the foreground, eyes bugging out, jaws dropped, and toungues lolling out.

[windpointphoto]

Talk talk talk. Let see some naked women!

[Jay DeFehr]

It's entirely up to the artist to determine what is or is not art. he opinions of the masses are absolutely irrelevant.

-Leigh

That may be true, but then it's also true for everyone else, including the masses. By your reasoning you should be no more offended by someone saying what is not art than by someone saying what is. If the opinions of the masses are irrelevant, than surely the opinions of the artists are likewise. You seem to be saying that any purported work of "art" is beyond challenge, while I claim that none is.

[bvaughn4]

Talk talk talk. Let see some naked women!

+1

[Allen in Montreal]

5x7 tintype. Thanks for looking. Ed

Man that is nice!
She really has the attitude to carry it off so perfectly!
I hope you will be shooting with her more often!