New Figure magazine

Duane,

Are you on crack?

While I don't submit or look at vanity publications such as this one - which is no where near Dunas's acclaimed Collector's Photography magazine which was actually a magazine and not a platform for him to promote himself... in fact he only showcased his work ONE TIME in the several monthly magazines he put out for the few years. It hurts to hear it compared to this magazine.

What a shame that a post like this is allowed to stay on such a great forum for learning! I don't normally post in the forums - but this rhetoric and pure hatred for anything different from what this person does or is or stands for is just plain idiocracy! So - You've sprung me from my hiding spot in order to shake my finger at you. Shame on you.

Zoe Wiseman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duane Polcou

I've seen all four issues. They feature fine art nude photography. In this day and age, "fine art nude photography" seems to mean black and white or toned imagery versus color, and content intended to be metaphorical, or at least to emphasize form and shape rather than sexuality. As in, "this sepia toned picture of a woman lying in the lotus position on a giant paper mache scrotum represents North Korea's inhumanity to plankton" . Stuff like that.

I just think "fine art nude photography" is a smokescreen for photographers to get attractive women (and men) naked and pretend as though they have a loftier agenda other than taking nudie shots.

"Ohhhh noooo. I don't do cheesecake. How dare you, sir. I do art. I'm an artist. Because my models don't wear makeup and I posed them in front of a fern and I used a wooden camera and they're printed in sepia. Are you blind?"

At least Helmut Newton had the cajuengas to admit he was a perv.

Are pictures still art if someone whacks off to them? If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, will Michael Fatali be blamed?

Take Jock Sturges. 13 year old girls with pouty lips posing naked. Ahem. Ohh noo, that's art. Because he used a view camera and it's in Black and White and EVERYONE was naked because that's how they live and no one EVER thinks of sex even when they're all naked with pouty lips and even their dogs are naked with pouty lips so get your mind out of the gutter!!

And you wonder why Christie Brinkley's ex husband has a porn addiction. He should have gotten a view camera, and viewed the porn on his computer screen through the ground glass. Then, you know, he's an artist.

---

Welcome back Zoe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z_photo

i suspect you fully supported the covering of statues of nudes in order to save our delicate eyes from the horror that is the human body?
afterall, they are from the government, and they are (hopefully soon 'were') here to protect us!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...29/statues.htm

---

Perhaps Ashcroft doesn't like being compared to other boobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZoeWiseman

Duane,



While I don't submit or look at vanity publications such as this one - which is no where near Dunas's acclaimed Collector's Photography magazine which was actually a magazine and not a platform for him to promote himself... in fact he only showcased his work ONE TIME in the several monthly magazines he put out for the few years. It hurts to hear it compared to this magazine.


Zoe Wiseman

---

Before we get too ugly. As the Original post person, I was comparing Duna's magazine to this new one that it was about fine art figure photography. It's not about his work or hers. It's about that I saw Carrie's on the bookshelf and remembered Jeff's having the same theme. It was an innocent thought. If I offended you, Zoe or Mr. Dunas. I'm sorry.
But as you also stated that this forum is for knowledge. I was asking if anyone had any knowledge of this magazine? I wanted knowledge before I buy it. So, don't get angry at me or bitter that I asked for knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Brummitt

Before we get too ugly. As the Original post person, I was comparing Duna's magazine to this new one that it was about fine art figure photography. It's not about his work or hers. It's about that I saw Carrie's on the bookshelf and remembered Jeff's having the same theme. It was an innocent thought. If I offended you, Zoe or Mr. Dunas. I'm sorry.
But as you also stated that this forum is for knowledge. I was asking if anyone had any knowledge of this magazine? I wanted knowledge before I buy it. So, don't get angry at me or bitter that I asked for knowledge.

---

Robert - I wasn't really angry at you - I just read that diatribe Duane spewed and my eyes crossed.

Dunas's magazine was truly a work of art. He treated it exactly the way a magazine should be treated. It was printed beautifully and well... that magazine led me to what I do today and I've had the privilege of working with Dunas on a few projects. The Palm Springs Photo Festival and I also modeled for him. He's a selfless individual who is constantly DOING for others, yet isn't out there with his ego swinging. He's cool about it. Even though he deserves to swing his ego a bit, he doesn't.

This Carrie Leigh, just looking at the magazine a couple times, is nothing like that. The majority of the magazine is about her. So, if you want to read all about Carrie, go for it and get the magazine. She is good about showcasing new coming photographers, but her taste is like bad Malibu design... you know, the gold purses and shaggy hair walking the little pooch or carrying it in the purse... apply that to her taste in photography and well, you can get a gist about the magazine. Lucky for her there isn't another nude magazine out there so these photographers have no outlet for their work. So, she gets these famous people to put their work in the mag (as there's no other mag to compete with her) and she gets to use them to promote herself. This isn't about the art - it's about Carrie. I've never met her, but that was my impression of the magazine. It is printed well - but still - well printed pinup is still pinup, not fine art. And she LOVES to show you her work - in EVERY ISSUE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duane Polcou

I've seen all four issues. They feature fine art nude photography. In this day and age, "fine art nude photography" seems to mean black and white or toned imagery versus color, and content intended to be metaphorical, or at least to emphasize form and shape rather than sexuality. As in, "this sepia toned picture of a woman lying in the lotus position on a giant paper mache scrotum represents North Korea's inhumanity to plankton" . Stuff like that.

I just think "fine art nude photography" is a smokescreen for photographers to get attractive women (and men) naked and pretend as though they have a loftier agenda other than taking nudie shots.

"Ohhhh noooo. I don't do cheesecake. How dare you, sir. I do art. I'm an artist. Because my models don't wear makeup and I posed them in front of a fern and I used a wooden camera and they're printed in sepia. Are you blind?"

At least Helmut Newton had the cajuengas to admit he was a perv.

Are pictures still art if someone whacks off to them? If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, will Michael Fatali be blamed?

Take Jock Sturges. 13 year old girls with pouty lips posing naked. Ahem. Ohh noo, that's art. Because he used a view camera and it's in Black and White and EVERYONE was naked because that's how they live and no one EVER thinks of sex even when they're all naked with pouty lips and even their dogs are naked with pouty lips so get your mind out of the gutter!!

And you wonder why Christie Brinkley's ex husband has a porn addiction. He should have gotten a view camera, and viewed the porn on his computer screen through the ground glass. Then, you know, he's an artist.

---

Well, what can I say....
You seem to have defined the true intentions in artists in general for working with the human body, from painters to sculptors to photographers etc.
Finally someone spoke the truth, and in the process you have also accused Jock Sturges of criminal beahviour, good for you, Duane!

And I can also understand how you, being a person who obviously has spent so much time studying the distorted behaviour of these people, is suffering from getting stuck in that same frame of mind. It almost seems as everything is "dirty" to you, just like a talented actor gets stuck in the part....

Zoe:

Pure hatred? How I posted that was tongue-in-cheek, I thought it was hilarious. Must be a Jersey thing.

People in LA have no sense of humor. Tattoos and earthquakes. It's like being shipwrecked on Krakatoa but the natives all have agents.

This is not only a great forum for learning. It is a great forum for sarcasm, humor, baiting, condecension, pettiness, egotism, glad-handing of and to those who should not quit their day job, gear-headedness, comeraderie, opinionism, and the ad nauseum use of the phrase "Are you on crack?"

My point is that homo sapiens have an instantaneous, sub-concious, and involuntary mental reaction to seeing nudity which has as it's root sexual reproduction. This reaction may not always lead to arousal, it may not take the form of action or aggression, but it is one of assessment.

Is this person male or female? Are they old or young? Are they attractive to me or unattractive to me? People who claim that they only see "beauty" in nudity, as though their reaction is on the same level as viewing a sunset, and deny any sexual thought process, are basically saying they've found a way to override millions of years of patterned behavior ingrained as part of our reproductive agenda. Simply put, I just do not believe them.

But certain people seem to think that the only correct response to "fine art nude photography" is one of the appreciation of beauty and the respect of artistic message, and should sex enter the equation, you are somehow a clueless pervert.

The artistic dialogue is just that, a dialogue between creator and viewer. Jock Sturges is most likely a very intelligent man. I find it difficult to believe that he would not assume or even consider that a percentage of his collector base consists of those whose' eventual response to images of nude children is one of arousal. In effect, despite his purely artistic intentions, he is contributing material to be consumed by these individuals. If he denies this, then he is telling the world how they should respond to his work rather than accepting he has no control over it.

You have a zillion ways of getting your message across. You can photograph anything and everything present in this world. But if you choose nudity as part of your visual process and pretend to negate a sexual component then you must have God or Marvel Comics on speed dial because you have super powers. And it's those people who shake their finger at me about mentioning sex that I find hypocritical. I don't hate them. I just think they're full of their own crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duane Polcou

Zoe:

Pure hatred? How I posted that was tongue-in-cheek, I thought it was hilarious. Must be a Jersey thing.

People in LA have no sense of humor. Tattoos and earthquakes. It's like being shipwrecked on Krakatoa but the natives all have agents.

This is not only a great forum for learning. It is a great forum for sarcasm, humor, baiting, condecension, pettiness, egotism, glad-handing of and to those who should not quit their day job, gear-headedness, comeraderie, opinionism, and the ad nauseum use of the phrase "Are you on crack?"

My point is that homo sapiens have an instantaneous, sub-concious, and involuntary mental reaction to seeing nudity which has as it's root sexual reproduction. This reaction may not always lead to arousal, it may not take the form of action or aggression, but it is one of assessment.

Is this person male or female? Are they old or young? Are they attractive to me or unattractive to me? People who claim that they only see "beauty" in nudity, as though their reaction is on the same level as viewing a sunset, and deny any sexual thought process, are basically saying they've found a way to override millions of years of patterned behavior ingrained as part of our reproductive agenda. Simply put, I just do not believe them.

But certain people seem to think that the only correct response to "fine art nude photography" is one of the appreciation of beauty and the respect of artistic message, and should sex enter the equation, you are somehow a clueless pervert.

The artistic dialogue is just that, a dialogue between creator and viewer. Jock Sturges is most likely a very intelligent man. I find it difficult to believe that he would not assume or even consider that a percentage of his collector base consists of those whose' eventual response to images of nude children is one of arousal. In effect, despite his purely artistic intentions, he is contributing material to be consumed by these individuals. If he denies this, then he is telling the world how they should respond to his work rather than accepting he has no control over it.

You have a zillion ways of getting your message across. You can photograph anything and everything present in this world. But if you choose nudity as part of your visual process and pretend to negate a sexual component then you must have God or Marvel Comics on speed dial because you have super powers. And it's those people who shake their finger at me about mentioning sex that I find hypocritical. I don't hate them. I just think they're full of their own crap.

---

Yeah - it must be a Jersey thing because you just said the exact same thing over again but just reworded your diatribe.

I must be Wonder Woman then - I don't make fine art nudes because of sexual attraction - I photograph women, I'm a woman - and a very heterosexual woman to boot. So... you've not grasped the concept. Instead of mocking it and shunning it like a bible thumper for Pat Roberts, why don't you ask questions and learn about it? Treat it like that piece of equipment you don't know anything about, because you obviously know nothing about fine art nudes. You know the guy who gets online and goes on and on about large format photography and how he knows everything about it but he doesn't own one large format camera... that's you right now. And after seeing your glamour photos (which are technically good) on Model Mayhem after googling you... I am extremely confused since you obviously photograph sex based work. Lots of people are full of their own crap, but this is a topper!

I don't know why you've brought up Jock Sturges. He isn't the end all be all of fine art nude photography. If you're basing your assumptions upon only his work then you have a lot of catching up to do.

:eek: Ouch!!! Did someone just step on their tongue? :eek:

Zoe

So you are very confused. Is it like,

"Who does this bible thumper Pat Roberts wannabee think he is, passing judgement on fine art nude photography?" .

And then you Google me and see borderline soft core glamour nudes?

So I'm not a bible thumper but a nationally published glamour photographer with 22 years experience and about 1000 tear sheets?

I see the confusion. I googled you, too. Nice. Nice. Nice. And your photos were good, too :o)