Weston Nude Photograph Auction

This Weston nude photograph titled Nude (Charis, Santa Monica) will be up for auction March 30 at Sotheby's and is expected to fetch $6,000 - 9,000.



The details of the work are as follows:

9 3/8 by 7 1/2 in. (23.8 by 19.1 cm.)

DESCRIPTION

mounted, signed, annotated, and stamped by Cole Weston on the reverse, 1930, printed later by Cole Weston from his father's negative

LITERATURE AND REFERENCES

Conger 968; Edward Weston Nudes, p. 83; Photography and Modernism, pl. 75; Through Another Lens, pl. 29; Edward Weston's Book of Nudes, pl. 39

CATALOGUE NOTE

The full catalogue information for this lot is as follows:

mounted, signed, titled, dated, and numbered '227N' by Cole Weston in pencil and with the 'Negative by Edward Weston/Print by Cole Weston' stamp, on the reverse, matted, 1930, printed later by COLE WESTON from EDWARD WESTON'S negative

If you wonder what impact year of creation, edition, signature etc. have on art auction prices, check out the history of pricing (collected by ArtNet)

Title Nude (Charis, Santa Monica)
Medium gelatin silver print, mntd
Size 9.5 x 7.5 in. / 24.1 x 19.1 cm.
Year 1936 -
Printing/
Casting 1951
Edition ed.100
Cat. Rais. Conger, 968
Found./Pub. Brett Weston, prntr
Misc. Signed, Stamped
Sale Of Sotheby's New York: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 [Lot 194]
Photographs
Estimate 25,000 - 35,000 US$
Sold For 91,000 US$ PREMIUM Currency Converter


Title Nude - Charis, Santa Monica (from Fiftieth Anniversary Portfolio)
Medium gelatin silver print, mntd
Size 9.4 x 7.5 in. / 24 x 19 cm.
Year 1936 -
Printing/
Casting 1951
Edition ed.100
Found./Pub. Brett Weston, prntr
Misc. Signed, Stamped
Sale Of Sotheby's New York: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 [Lot 139]
Photographs
Estimate 20,000 - 30,000 US$
Sold For 52,800 US$ PREMIUM Currency Converter


Title Nude
Medium gelatin silver print, mntd
Size 9.4 x 7.5 in. / 24 x 19 cm.
Year 1936 -
Printing/
Casting Later Imp
Description EDWARD WESTON Nude, 1936 gelatin silver print, printed later by Cole more ...
Edition no. 227N
Found./Pub. Cole Weston, pub.
Misc. Signed, Inscribed, Stamped
Sale Of Christie's New York: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 [Lot 335]
Photographs
Estimate 8,000 - 12,000 US$
Sold For 20,000 US$ PREMIUM Currency Converter


Title Nude
Medium gelatin silver print, mntd
Size 9.5 x 7.5 in. / 24.2 x 19.1 cm.
Year 1936 -
Printing/
Casting Later Imp
Misc. Signed, Inscribed, Stamped
Sale Of Christie's New York: Thursday, February 15, 2007 [Lot 95]
Photographs
Estimate 4,000 - 6,000 US$
Sold For 18,000 US$ PREMIUM Currency Converter


Title Nude
Medium gelatin silver print, mntd
Size 9.3 x 7.5 in. / 23.7 x 19 cm.
Year 1936 -
Printing/
Casting Later Imp
Description EDWARD WESTON (1886-1958) Nude, 1936 gelatin silver print, printed more ...
Misc. Signed, Stamped
Sale Of Christie's New York: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 [Lot 190]
Photographs
Estimate 7,000 - 9,000 US$
Sold For 13,750 US$ PREMIUM Currency Converter


Title Nude
Medium gelatin silver print, mntd
Size 9.5 x 7.5 in. / 24.2 x 19.1 cm.
Year 1936 -
Printing/
Casting Later Imp
Found./Pub. Cole Weston, prntr
Misc. Stamped
Sale Of Christie's New York: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 [Lot 313]
Photographs
Estimate 5,000 - 7,000 US$
Sold For 12,000 US$ PREMIUM Currency Converter


Title Nude
Medium gelatin silver print, mntd
Size 9.1 x 7.5 in. / 23.2 x 19.1 cm.
Year 1936 -
Printing/
Casting Later Imp
Misc. Signed, Inscribed, Stamped
Sale Of Christie's New York: Thursday, October 18, 2007 [Lot 285]
Photographs
Estimate 5,000 - 7,000 US$
Sold For 10,625 US$ PREMIUM Currency Converter


Title Nude (Charis, Santa Monica)
Medium gelatin silver print, mntd
Size 9.4 x 7.4 in. / 23.8 x 18.7 cm.
Year 1936 -
Printing/
Casting Later Imp
Description Edward Weston (American, 1886-1958) Nude (Charis, more ...
Misc. Signed, Inscribed, Stamped
Sale Of Bonhams & Butterfields: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 [Lot 185]
Photographs
Estimate 5,000 - 7,000 US$
Sold For 8,400 US$ PREMIUM Currency Converter


Title Nude in the doorway, Charis, Santa Monica
Medium gelatin silver print
Size 9.4 x 7.4 in. / 23.8 x 18.7 cm.
Year 1936 -
Printing/
Casting Later Imp
Description EDWARD WESTON Nude in the Doorway (Charis, more ...
Misc. Signed, Inscribed, Stamped
Sale Of Phillips de Pury & Company London: Saturday, May 17, 2008 [Lot 205]
Photographs
Estimate 3,000 - 5,000 BP (5,915 - 9,859 US$)
Sold For 4,000 BP (7,887 US$) PREMIUM Currency Converter


Title Nude
Medium gelatin silver print, mntd
Size 9.4 x 7.5 in. / 23.8 x 19.1 cm.
Year 1936 -
Printing/
Casting Later Imp
Found./Pub. Cole Weston, prntr
Misc. Stamped
Sale Of Phillips, de Pury & Company New York: Thursday, June 7, 2007 [Lot 121]
Photographs
Estimate 5,000 - 7,000 US$
Sold For 7,350 US$ PREMIUM Currency Converter

Photography Assignment In Studio 61

Slip of a Girl has been sharing photos from the Fall 1951 issue of Photography Workshop (#3). The photos are from, and most of the issue devoted to, "Assignment in Studio 61", an artistic experiment in which 12 photographers photograph the same items. Here's a more precise description from the publication itself:

Each photographer was shown into a studio room that contained an assortment of interesting props. Each was also given a dozen sheets of test pictures for selecting one to three models. Working within the confines of this one studio room and with these particular props and subjects, the photographer was then to let his imagination loose and make any sort of photographs that came into his mind -- portraits, still lifes, figure studies, abstractions or fashion pictures.

The most recent photo she's shared comes from photo-journalist W. Eugene Smith, who was at the time a staff photographer for Life magazine. There are 20 more photos, little 2 & 1/2 inch squares, which I'm showing here -- not just because of their nudity, but because of the text published along with the photos.






We begin with the first paragraph (of four), written as an introduction by the publication:

W. Eugene Smith, an intense, congenial, 33-year-old photographer whose work we have admired for the past decade, approached the Studio 61 project with some reluctance. To Gene, a photograph is no simple matter of tripping a shutter. It is a profound personal experience. He insists on becoming, through his camera, intimately involved in his subject. He approaches the scene of picture making with a "desperate terror" that he will fail to record the perfect picture. The perfect picture, he explains with passionate vagueness, is a "three-dimensional, or mental essay" on the subject, and anything less than this is a humiliation just short of death.

The text continues to say that the photographer spent from dusk to dawn at the studio and still, "as usual, he was not satisfied with the results."






He only allowed the prints to be seen and published "after getting our promise to run his testimony that the pictures were to be considered only as 'finger exercises' for limbering up a subject."





And then Gene's own words were printed -- I find them fascinating:

I had just returned from Spain and a story that had involved my emotions to the exhaustion point, when it was suggested that I do this trick for the Workshop. All right, I thought, for once I would do pictures in which there was no need to be emotionally involved.

In that night of work, the nearer I got to shooting, the more upset I got. I soon realized that I couldn't compromise my integrity. I had no definite statement to make with a subject brought illogically into an assortment of props. I was trying to compose nothing into nothing. What I am interested in, as a photo-journalist, is truth. You would not ask Arthur Miller to write an Olsen and Johnsen musical. Nor would you ask William Faulkner to write an advertisement for Maidenform brassieres.

I objected to the layout treatment given my pictures. There were arbitrarily cut into twenty small squares by the editors. I never compose in squares, and when I do compose with the camera that I used that night -- a Contax -- I compose to the edge. Most of the time that night, I was searching and operating the camera for the sole purpose of relaxing my subject. I started taking pictures to build to something in the same way that a play is rehearsed; you allow the the thing to grow. (How many times have I taken a three rolls of of pictures as fast as I could! Just to get the subject to bored and unaware of of the camera.) Sometimes I wouldn't even have bothered to focus.

I feel that these odd scraps of pictures should not be published. No one would think of playing all the disconnected musical fragments Beethoven wrote in the construction of a symphony.

I aim to devote my camera to sincere presentation of character. I want to express this character accurately. Recently, I withdrew a print from an exhibition of mine -- a print that several critics had called one of my best photographs. I withdrew it because, since taking the the picture, I had come to know the subject better. My understanding of that person had changed; I had lost respect for this person and did not believe that he deserved the dignity that the portrait conveyed. To me, then, the picture was a fraud.

I would like to take my Studio 61 subject, study her for weeks, and then photograph her again. Perhaps, then, I could show in pictures what she truly is, who she is, why she is.

At the risk of sounding like your Art 101 instructor, here's what fascinates me about Smith's words and work...






I can't help but wonder what the photos looked like before the editor cropped them to those small squares... For example, #15 is the cropped version of the latest one at Slip's blog; there's certainly a huge difference in the appeal to me.

And after reading Smith's words, I cringe at the obviously non-linear order the photos are presented in (yes, they are shown in the order presented on the page); it seems more insult to injury to have destroyed any attempt to show the growing story.

I also cringed every single time Smith used the word "pictures" rather than photographs (and then again when I typed it). This due to former my art instructors who insisted we use the word "photograph"; like "painting", it separated art from doodles, graphics & other visual things, and also distinguished one form of art from another. Perhaps this is not necessary to the conversation today; but, hey, it's my blog.

Speaking of art...

I would have enjoyed the photographs more (or at least most of them -- certainly some are 'better' than others to me) had I not read Smith's words. But knowing what I know now, I must say it begs the question that I once threw at my art instructor when she showed us images of a Venus statue buried deep in a garbage pit, found by archaeologists, then proffered as "art": Is it really art if the artist himself is dissatisfied? If art is expression & communication, and the artist is unhappy with his result, then can it really be called art?





If not, then Smith's displeasure at the photographs renders them what... pornography? Maybe not, because while I like many of the photos, I don't find them arousing. (Hmm, well, maybe #6; but that's because I have breasts and I can feel the coldness emanating off of the metal headboard finger my bare -- not touching the headboard, but merely near it -- breast.) Then again, I don't get aroused by much of what is called "pornography." But as the photos were cropped, adjusted by an editor, would that make the editor the pornographer? Similarly, if I like them in any way, does that make the editor the artist?

And if the photos had both pleased Smith and aroused me, could they really be porn at all -- because Smith himself defines his work as pictures that show "what she truly is, who she is, why she is" and, since no one is "all arousing all the time" (no matter what your lover says!), doesn't that remove all possibility of his nude photographs being porn at all?

Maybe then the photos are indeed just 'pictures' or snaps like anyone with a camera would take. But they were not taken by just anyone; they are photos by W. Eugene Smith.

Does Smith's standing as a photojournalist affect your viewing of the images?

Does his credibility change, do his words change in meaning -- or your interpretation thereof -- when you learn that Smith was institutionalized at Bellevue a year or so prior to his taking the photos?

Eve Arnold: Master Photographer & Living Legend

Eve Arnold is most famous for her intimate photos of Marilyn Monroe...



But there's so much more to the master photographer's portfolio & talent.

Deanna on Eve Arnold's photographs:

If the mark of a really good novel is that you think of the characters long after the book ends, then photographs of people ought to do the same. Eve Arnold’s photos do that. Even if you think you know the people in the portraits.

And when you don’t know the people in the photographs? You long to…

I agree that the photos of "unknows" are even more amazing -- or is it that I am, like Deanna, intrigued by what I do not know...

In fact, if I have one complaint about Arnold’s works, it’s that I can’t find out enough. I know that photographers believe that a photo is worth a thousand words, but often they do not seem to document the details which I long to know… A perpetual problem for me, I know; but still, why can’t I find out more about Charlotte Stribling aka ‘Fabulous’? Or Girl Holding Head, Insane Asylum, Haiti 1954?

I'd love to find out more about Lesbian Wedding celebration, England 1965.


Then again, Angelica Huston is showing off her panties to her dad seems worthy of an explanation...



Arnold currently has an exhibit at the David Gallery.

Photos By Philippe Halsman

Ever wonder how Philippe Halsman created this iconic image of Marilyn Monroe?

In the spring of 1952, Halsman put his signature technique to work when Life sent him to Hollywood to photograph Marilyn Monroe. Halsman asked Monroe to stand in a corner, and placed his camera directly in front of her. Later, he recalled that she looked "as if she had been pushed into the corner cornered with no way to escape." Then Halsman, his assistant, and Life's reporter staged a "fiery" competition for Monroe's attention. "Surrounded by three admiring men she smiled, flirted, giggled and wriggled with delight. During the hour I kept her cornered she enjoyed herself royally, and I . . . took between 40 and 50 pictures."

In this widely familiar portrait, Monroe wears a white evening gown and stands with her back against two walls, one dark, the other light, her eyes half closed and her dark, lipsticked mouth partly open. Yet Halsman deftly avoided any explicit representation of the true subject of the picture. Using the euphemistic language of the time, Halsman's assistant admired the photographer's ability to make "suggestive" pictures of beautiful women which still showed "good taste," emphasizing "expression" rather than "physical assets." And then the assistant added, "Halsman is very adept at provoking the expression he wants."

Also in that article on Halsman is a section on "Jumpology". While this photo of Halsman jumping with Monroe is not specifically addressed, Halsman claimed the act of jumping allows the photographer to capture a more real side of celebrities. He is quoted as saying, "When you ask a person to jump, his attention is mostly directed toward the act of jumping and the mask falls so that the real person appears."



As for the work it took for Halsman to get those famous Salvador Dali photos, you'll need to see Salvador Dali Bloopers at Infomercantile.

All That Flickrs

I'm not much of a fan of Flickr -- far too many folks uploading stuff without information, credits, or even keywords/tags/labels which make much sense (whatever sense folksonomy can make). And I see far too many 'sexy self-portraits' which are anything but. I keep searching for every now and then I find something interesting, such as a collection of risque magazines, pulp book covers, photos of burlesque dancers, or something vintage & smutty with enough information to be either useful or intriguing.

Then a light shines.

I found Joey Harrison's set titled Mom's World. It's absolutely stunning.

Currently 232 photos are in this set. They are excellent photographs, mostly black and white, capturing a time and its sentimentality. While the old axiom that a picture is worth a thousand words is likely true, I find one of the most charming aspects of Harrison's Flickr set is the text commentary by Harrison's mom.

Clearly his mother is an intelligent, articulate women, with a warm sense of humor; this is easy to see in the photos she has taken as well as the photographs taken of her. But along with the commentary I find a thoughtful emotional component which endears. It's not the usual "remember when" that you'll find with many who page through their photo albums; it's not a mere analytical comparison of 'then and now' either. There is something more fierce yet elusive to define in her narrative... These are not simply quaint photos with typical anecdotes.

I first stumbled upon the photo set seeing this photo of 'mom' in her darkroom in 1949.

Something about the polished white jacket spoke of a determination & a professionalism that added complexity to an old photo of a pretty woman developing photos. (Her attire is explained as being her uniform for work at a doctor's office, of which you can see/read about circumcision, and other tales of medicine of the day.)

Clicking to see a larger view, I was naturally curious about the photo in the photo -- of what seemed to be a scantily clad beauty. So I read the comments:

I painted the room a dark rosy red and made traverse draperies of black to cover the one window. It was a warm womb for long Saturday afternoons with the Met playing softly on the radio. I totally lost track of time with the birthing of amazing black-and-white photos. Each was a miracle, over and over again. I'm as fascinated with them today as I was 56 years ago.

There was a small downside. As relatives and friends learned of my hobby they would press exposed rolls upon me to develop. I did a few. Oh, it was agony! Drudgery! Dreary, repetitive, unartful, bland photos. (Long before automatic cameras made even dumb photos at least in focus and properly exposed!)

Not all of the requests were refused. Jerry, smirking a little, produced a roll given him by his young brother Tony, who worked in a neighborhood beer store. Tony asked that I pul-eeze develop a roll for him. He'd been my booster since I met him as the 14-year-old son of my landlady, and he carefully kept track of telephone calls for me. His roll had been shot in the back room of the beer store of ladies of questionable reputation and groping young men, who were not exactly Ivy League! There wasn't any nudity, but a lot of hormones flowed! The props and background were strictly cases of beer. It would be pretty tame stuff by today's standards. But the photos were quite funny actually. If I can locate a negative later, I will share.

On another occasion Jerry produced a roll given him in strictest confidence by a handsome and successful young businessman in Grand Rapids, his customer. He implored Jerry to be absolutely discreet with the photos and negatives. I took it seriously and developed and printed the roll, all full of admiration for the beautiful photos and didn't keep a single one. Jerry then yielded the tasteful prints to his customer.

They were of a gorgeous young woman totally in the buff, posed 16 different ways. For many years, when seeing the handsome man on billboards touting his business, I would get a secret tickle. He married the girl and they raised a large Catholic family.

The 4x5 I am pulling out of the fixer in the photo above showing a gal in her black bra, was Rose Bottegal, the wife of Jerry's Army buddy Aldo. He and Rose visited us in 1949, and while on the water in a rowboat on a steaming day, Rose shed her blouse. Wearing just her bra, she said "Just make believe this is a swimming suit top."

If the photo drew me, the commentary mesmerized me.

I continued to visit all 232 posts, finding each as interesting as the next for one reason or another. Here we see in photographs & ephemera covering life in the late 40's and early 50's -- in that post WWII world where America was headed for suburbia and the nuclear family, where women were to return to a domesticity which has moved generations of women such as myself to moaning and retching.

Yet what emerges is far less threatening -- if far more emotional.




Seeing proof of women chasing men in this time and place:


The marriage and transformation to wife, including the wedding night:

This could just as well have been captioned "Our Wedding Night or How a Bad Photo Resulted in a Lifetime Hobby!"

Jerry's German camera turned out maddeningly random good or bad photos. Of course it was because we didn't know about setting it for distance, let alone shutter speed and f-stop. We posed this morning after our wedding in front of the hotel where we spent the first night of our married life. The picture turned out so badly I was motivated later to take the camera to a store to learn how to operate it and was sold a light meter. The rest is history: the beginning of better photos and a lifetime hobby.

In the hotel room on our wedding night Jerry suggested I bathe first. Avoiding his eyes, I took a few things from a small suitcase into the bathroom: nightgown, toothbrush, and little round plastic box from Dotty's doctor.

What a long day; it felt like it had been two or three. The shower was refreshing and good. I donned the nightgown Dotty gave me at a wedding shower. The delicate tea-rose rayon fell to the floor, skimming the body lightly, bias cut following all of the curves and hollows, wide lace panels defining upper areas. It was chaste but alluring I decided, viewing a mirrored image. Then panic struck.

How would I get from bathroom to bed?

I fidgeted there in the bathroom, trying to figure this out. I wasn't used to parading around in front of men in a nightgown. Suddenly in great relief I noticed my blue satin raincoat hung on the inside of the bathroom door, and put it on over my nightgown. I crept out to the bed shyly and quickly slipped under the sheets, raincoat and all. Jerry smiled slightly and went into the bathroom himself.

The first big hurdle in married life had been met and resolved. I shed the raincoat while Jerry showered; soon he joined me under the sheets. Appropriate events ensued.

Falling in and out of favor with his relatives:

In this 1950 photo we were at a bar owned by Jerry's cousin Al Cimarelli and his wife, Jenny. See the "modern" shape of the bar and the chrome barstools. The seats were surely upholstered in dark red vinyl!

Attending a PSA (Photographic Society of America) convention in Detroit the following year with photographer friends from Grand Rapids, we heard a lecture by Olga Irish, a Brooklyn portrait photographer. She chose me from the audience to come on stage and be used to demonstrate her lighting techniques – fully dressed of course. The next day the Detroit Free Press carried an article about the convention with a large photo of me posing, and all hell broke loose. One of the cousins was appointed to phone Jerry to enquire about my being in Detroit without him, staying in a hotel, not phoning them, etc., etc., all a bad thing in the eyes of these very decent, family-oriented relatives. Jerry wasn't exercising control. I lost favor fast.

The worry and wonder (now) of what happened to Anne:

That’s Jerry’s Uncle Jim holding his son, another Jerry, on his lap. His wife, Anne, sits in the middle. They spent that evening at our apartment, but we didn't see a lot of them. Anne was a little special, and she had spunk. She was quite pretty, dressed nicely, was animated, imaginative, and intelligent. She had talked Uncle Jim into changing the vowel at the end of their name to make it seem less Italian.

Their life changed drastically when Uncle Jim discovered she was having a romance. Jerry told me, "Uncle Jim got rid of her right away. That day." Indeed, she disappeared from sight and conversation. There's so much left wanting here that I want to scream. A child raised without his mother. A woman probably impoverished overnight. Was she so guilt-ridden she didn't seek legal help? Was she so fear-filled and accustomed to that kind of "justice" she simply accepted it? Hers is the saddest story I know. I should say "theirs."

From brunette to blonde...



A baby, our 'Flickr guy,' Joey.

All made more bittersweet with the knowledge that this pretty amateur photographer wife and her handsome younger husband would divorce... No matter how much fun it looked like they had together.


And that one day, the cute baby boy in these photos would upload the story and the images here, to this fantasy digital world unimagined then, to be shared by us all.

Allan Grynnerup

Via Libida's gallery:

Allan Grynnerup lives in Denmark where he has been an actor since 1981. It wasn’t until 1990 that he seriously began his interest in photography, largely to learn something about himself and his own sexuality.

“I am still fascinated about how many ways you can define motive in a photo,” he says. “When doing a sexy photo shoot, I always try to find the borderline between the erotic and the pornographic. It might be something as subtle as a slight difference in light, camera angle or choice of lens.

“Erotic expression is of course always difficult to capture. It depends not only on the person perceiving the photo but also on the model who is sending the message to the viewer. It’s interesting to me, the varied feedback I get on the same photos -- a range from joy to indignation. It really does come down to what each person brings to a photo in terms of attitude, experience and history. Naturally, the biggest challenge is to communicate and share the experience with as many people as possible.”

More of Grynnerup's erotic works here.

Joanne Arnold, Extra Nipples & A Request

Playboy's Playmate for May, 1954 was Joanne Arnold. Her pictorial is deemed noteworthy (by me, anyway) as Arnold had a superfluous third nipple on her left breast which can be seen in several of the photos.



I do not mock Arnold and the photographs are exquisite. I am just impressed that Playboy opted to use the photos and not equate supernumerary with imperfection.

Of course, it could also have had something to do with the fact that prior to the June 1955 issue, Playboy purchased photos rather than took their own (at least for centerfolds).

I believe the centerfold photo of Arnold for the May 1954 issue was taken by John Baumgarth Company (the calendar company who had taken Monroe's famous nude), but I'm not certain who took the gorgeous pictorial. As I don't own any Playboy magazines with Joanne Arnold, I'm not even certain which, or if any, issues these photos are from. Any info is appreciated as I'm completely smitten with the underwater shots!

Not that I could afford the actual photos; eleven black and white photographs of Joanne Arnold, circa 1955, some by Lee Friedlander, sold for $3231.25 at auction in 2002. But I'd like the info anyway. (Makes one re-think the high prices of vintage Playboys, doesn't it? *wink*)

Anyway, for more on supernumerary nipples -- in the 'magic number' of three -- see The Superfluous Nipple. Otherwise, just enjoy more photos.






Related:

Joanne Arnold was also on the covers of the March 1954 and August 1955 issues of Playboy, and appeared in many other men's mags (here too).

Sometimes credited as Joann Arnold, which is better than all the uncredited films.

Though it seems IMDB missed 1954's Girl Gang -- a hoot of a review of the flick can be found at 50-Foot Reviews (top, right side).

Stripping Girls

In 1998, photographer Anton Corbijn & artist Marlene Dumas joined forces for an exhibit in 2000 called Strippinggirls, and this is what the photographer had to say about it:

I was determined NOT to make a journalistic, documentary kind of photography. Nor was I out to create glamorous images - there are already so many around. Instead I wanted to try out some new things that I have been playing with recently and I figured that some would go quite well with this project. First the idea that striptease could have some of the attraction for people that the old freak shows used to have. I ended up using computer manipulation - making tiny changes so that you really gave to look for them, close-up like in a peepshow. Then the 4-letter words; in England these usually gave sexual connotations, so I used 4-letter words for feelings that the strippers might gave rather than the viewers, albeit a little ambiguously. Next were the very normal portrait photos of 5 girls, shot outdoors in Amsterdam; displaying the information regarding their profession might make you look at them differently. No discussion was intended about comparisons between painting and photography - I personally was merely interested to see how someone else tackles the same subject, under the same circumstances, albeit with different tools. The main difference in working seems to be that I struggle more at the start of the project (the shoot) and Marlene more in the latter phase of it (the actual painting). That is a pretty mundane observation which would seem obvious from the start anyway. Shooting next to Marlene brought out some anxieties - when looking at her polaroid's I was sure her way of shooting was far superior to mine, which was an interesting aspect I discovered in myself - I am worried about comparisons in the same discipline but not at all in a different medium. This kind of unease never lasted long, it was my uncertainty as it concerned shooting a subject unknown to me, a contrast with my day work. I adore Marlene's work and would swap my photographs for her paintings any time, but not because I necessarily think they would be better or compare them that way with my work, it is just because I love painting, and I believe that deep down I am a frustrated painter. The only envy there is one which is based on the freedom in time, the delay of a decisive moment, and the independence from reality that Marlene has to create. But if anything I think that this project brought me (as a person) closer to my own work.

These are a few of Corbijn's photos from that project.

The peep-shows:




The four-letter words:




The portraits:




A catalogue of the museum show can be found on the photographer's website, where he writes:

It is not a documentary or a comparison between the two artforms but just two people tackling the same subject in different ways. The way we operated was to always go together to meet and photograph the girls and then work it out in our own ways afterwards. All the work was done in Amsterdam between late 1998 and spring 2000. I have used three different methods of approach with 5 works for each direction and Marlene has 15 paintings in total as well. I enjoyed the collaboration enormously.

Found via Sexuality In Art; more photos at the LipanjePuntin Contemporary Art Gallery.

Bamforth & Co: Postcards & Films

While Bamforth & Co is remembered for their "saucy seaside postcards" (postcards with bawdy & risque captions sold on promenades and piers to Victorian English folk on vacation 'seaside'), the story doesn't begin there - that's the end, so to speak.


James Bamforth was a photographer in the 1840's and he founded the company in founded the company in 1870 (in Holmfirth, Yorkshire), specializing in Life Model lantern slides.



According to Magic Lantern:

James Bamforth specialised in the mass production of photographic "Life Model" slides, often based on religious themes or moral instruction. He was no doubt influenced by the nonconformist, chapel based religion of that area, so it is somewhat ironic that the company should become more generally famous in the 20th Century for saucy postcards.

Bamforth built a studio in Holmfirth, and designed and painted the backcloth's and sets. Members of his family and other local people posed for the photographer for little or no pay. In many ways the Life model slides were made like early movies which they predated by 20 years or more. It is not surprising that Bamforth's became involved with movie making. ".....he chose homely themes, due to his use of neighbours as models and sitters...Thus it came about, to his lasting credit, that the simple characters of his stories combined with the perfect naturalness of the leading figures in them, has endeared his life model sets to millions of children and adults." Photogram February 1899

Many of the slides illustrated hymns and other popular songs. With each slide depicting a verse, they were designed for audiences to sing along. They were such a great success that Bamforth build a factory in 1898 and began mass production.

Since the magic lantern slides told simple tales, and Bamforth had everything required -- a skilled photographer, studio & production space, a pool of performers, costumes, and experienced in plot construction -- it seemed only natural that Bamforth would begin making films.

Screenonline says:

Possibly in response to this expertise, Riley Brothers of Bradford, who had been involved with moving picture technology since 1896 and had already begun to make films of their own, commissioned Bamforth in 1898 to produce further films to be sold exclusively to purchasers of their equipment. Although the exact business relationship between the two firms and the production dates of the films remains unknown, the subsequent advertisement of these productions in a 1903 Hepworth catalogue as 'RAB' films acknowledges their partnership.

(For more on Riley, see here.)

While Bamforth only made films for a few years (during two brief periods, 1898-1900 and 1913-1915), he made quite a few of them. Enough for film historians to call his films as the earliest examples of British comic film. His biggest star was Reginald Twisk, who played a Chaplin-like character known as Winky.

Some of his films were inspired by the magic lantern slides, including the themes and stories themselves. While I haven't been able to see many of Bamforth's films (Screenonline only allows Brits in schools to do so), it seems the morality lessons have taken on a more cheeky air.

Two must-see movies are:

Women's Rights (1899): Gossiping housewives find themselves in an awkward predicament.

Lover Kisses Husband (1900): Comedy short in which an adulterous tryst is foiled by a cunning husband.

In 1914, the war itself affected both film making and the focus of Bamforth & Co. The popularity of lantern slides had dimmed with the popularity of films, but movie production slowed due to World War I, and Bamforth & his sons focused on the growing market for picture postcards.



Not surprisingly, the sentimental was popular, and some of Bamforth's song & hymn lantern slides were converted into postcard series. Often called Bamforth Song Sets these cards are highly collected themselves, and these collectors consider the postcards the best characterizations of the soul of Bamforth & Co.

But with war also comes the need for comic relief, and while the English "seaside holiday" may have been an invention of the Victorians, the seaside postcards became extremely popular during and after the First World War.



So much so, that by the end of the war Bamforth & Co had moved away not only from the sentimental but from photographic images and the company began to really focus on the artist drawn risque comic postcards.



Derek Bamforth once explained the success of the cards:

'The more vulgar, the better'

He said: "We never publish anything obscene, we know where to draw the line. But the more vulgar the card, the better it sells."

And so it went, for decades.


Until the 1980's when James Bamforth's grandson retired and the company was sold to Scarborough printing firm ETW Dennis. In September 2000 ETW Dennis went into receivership and the Bamforth name and the copyrights to thousands of designs were bought by Ian Wallace, owner of The Beatles Shop, for an undisclosed sum. Now Bamforth designs can be found in new limited edition sets and licensed as Wallace plans to entice a younger audience who has never seen these gems:

"It's the humour of Carry On films and Benny Hill - they're just plain daft."

However, not everyone sees the images as a "bit of fun". Critics in the past have branded them sexist relics, best left in the past.

"OK some people think they're a bit sexist, but I think they're just fun," said Mr Wallace.

"Anyone who takes the images too seriously and doesn't laugh at them is a bit sad."

He is adamant that he can find a new audience willing to appreciate the cards' humour.

"I think there's a lot of young people who haven't seen this kind of stuff," he said.

"The images have been out of the public eye and hopefully they will come across as being fresh and fun."

Mr Wallace, I couldn't agree more.


For more (do you need more?!) on Bamforth, see Remembering Bamforth & Co. Ltd..

Antique and vintage Bamforth postcards can sell for cheap on eBay.

The Shadow Knows...

Photographer Alex Waterhouse-Hayward discusses the history of shadows in photography -- but don't worry, it's a quick and easy read. And a great one. I highly recommend it, not only for the brief history of art & photography, but because he makes a valid point about style.

After reading his post I began to think about those shadows, or rather the lack of them: Is that the "what's missing" which makes modern pornography and art nudes less arousing, interesting to me?

I used to think it was that I preferred black & white photos (which still may be the case), or that older color film was somehow superior, or that it's aging pulled at a sense of nostalgia that I somehow shared with those far older than myself. Or maybe, I thought, it was all the damn close-ups which fragmented & dissected (especially since those were points of view I wouldn't naturally have) -- but older erotic photographs are not without its close-ups or intimate and unusual angles.

Reading Alex's piece, the time lines match-up. He notes the 60's as a pivotal point, and that's the ending point for my preference in smut too.

Alex notes:

"The overall result is that faces lose that idea of three dimensionality that the shadow adds by hinting at curvature. Faces look flat."

Substitute 'face' with any other part of the body, and the same result ensues. Erotica without curves, well, it just falls flat for me.

(Alex's blog found via Tad Too Tan For Taupe.)

Neo-Classic Realism Means "Strip For Me"

At the bottom of this photo the text reads: Intrinsic and intuitive feelings of the model for the historic artistic vision result in a neo-classic realism which is still a documentary statement.

When posted at Flickr, one member, Art Nahpro, said, "Haha..I don't know what he meant but I took my clothes off anyway" -- which certainly works for most of us *wink*

The photo is from New Ways in Photography by Joe Bellanca (published by Whitestone, #56, 1964).

F. Holland Day

Eighty years before Bruce Weber rocketed to fame with a shot of pole vaulter Tom Hintnaus in a pair of Calvin Klein briefs leaning against a wall with his head back and his eyes closed, F. Holland Day made a similar photograph of a teen athlete as St. Sebastian.

Via Band of Thebes.

Anatomy of a Pin-Up Photo

What's perhaps most interesting about this work by Annie Sprinkle is that last line (bottom right), which reads:

(In spite of it all, I'm sexually excited and feeling great!)

This piece is in Xxxooo: Love And Kisses From Annie Sprinkle (30 Post-Porn Postcards), by Annie Sprinkle, and is in The Body: Photographs of the Human Form, edited by William Ewing.

The Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll, And Little Girls

It is generally said that Alice Pleasance Liddell (1852-1934), daughter of Henry George Liddell (Dean of Christ Church, Oxford), was the inspiration for don Charles Lutwidge Dodgson ('Lewis Carroll') Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and that the in manuscript was given to her as a Christmas present in 1864.




However, there have been questions as to the relationship between Alice and Carroll. In fact, some question Carroll's desire for and relationship with other children. This based largely upon Carroll's photography.




In PHOTOGRAPHY REVIEW; Girls Loved Him, Pedophile or Not Sarah Boxer writes:

''His were sad, scrawny little nymphets, bedraggled and half-undressed, or rather semi-undraped, as if participating in some dusty and dreadful charade,'' said Vladimir Nabokov, the Russian translator of Lewis Carroll's ''Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.'' Nabokov noticed ''a pathetic affinity'' between Carroll, who photographed little girls clothed and naked, and Humbert Humbert, the pedophilic narrator of his own ''Lolita.''

But was Carroll a pedophile? As you walk through ''Reflections in a Looking Glass: A Lewis Carroll Centenary Exhibition,'' organized by the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin to mark his death in 1898 and now at the Equitable Gallery in Manhattan, the question seems oddly irrelevant. What is most startling, and attractive, in his portraits of girls is not what he saw in them but what they saw in him.

''Lewis Carroll . . . came to our country home to photograph the children,'' wrote Dymphna Ellis, one of the children Carroll photographed. She added: ''I feel sure I was a 'favorite.' He made every child that. He developed the photographs in our cellar . . . I remember the mess and the mystery . . . We cried when he went away . . . We were absolutely fearless with him. We felt he was one of us, and on our side against all the grown-ups.''

These don't sound like the words of a victim of childhood seduction. But something in them is still alarming: cellar, mess, mystery, fearless. The words make you think that whatever Carroll and his little subjects were up to, it was exciting and seductive for all concerned. They were co-conspirators.

In The Man Who Loved Little Girls, Ada Calhoun sums up our creepy feelings:

This aspect of Carroll's life raised a few eyebrows in his day, but speculation about it has intensified with the passing of time. Certainly Carroll idolized girls, wrote his stories down because they told him to, photographed them frequently. A brilliant and talented man, Carroll nevertheless had difficulty interacting with anyone who had hit puberty. He had a bad stutter around most adults and surrounded himself with armies of little girls. He is famously quoted as saying, "I am fond of children (except boys)," and photographed many pretty little girls -- some languidly stretched out on a bed, some nude. As a result, Lewis Carroll has a vaguely icky aura about him in some people's minds, leading to pop-culture references of a nasty nature.

Calhoun continues:

The nude form Carroll found especially inspiring, and while the HRHRC exhibit contains none of the nude photos themselves -- most of the few that survive reside at Princeton -- there are in the exhibit seven letters which Carroll wrote to Mrs. Annie Wood Gray Henderson between the years 1879 and 1881 about using her daughters Annie and Francis as nude models. In one, Carroll writes: "Their innocent unconsciousness is very beautiful, and gives one a feeling of reverence, as at the presence of something sacred." There was at the same time a reluctance to use boys in the same context. The girls' younger brother posed early on but in another of the letters Carroll said that the boy was not invited back to sit the next year because "a boy's head soon imbibes precocious ideas ... It is hard to say how soon the danger might not arise."

Calhoun, then continues to share the thoughts of Morton Cohen, a preeminent Carroll scholar, who belives that Carroll "remained beyond reproach in his behavior."

In interviews that Cohen conducted in the 1960s with some six or eight of the little old ladies who were once Carroll's child-friends, none of them ever said anything (even when pressed for the gory details) but that he was the nicest, the most gentle, charming, delightful, etc., etc., man they had ever known. Though Cohen believes that Carroll may indeed have wanted to marry one or more of the girls at various times, they came of age and it never happened. By all accounts, Carroll died celibate.

Edward Wakeling, Lewis Carroll Collector, Consultant, Researcher, and Writer, also champions Carroll.

In The Real Lewis Carroll, A Talk given to the Lewis Carroll Society (April 2003), says:

Let me list, in my view, the ten most frequently used myths about Dodgson – in no particular order of merit or level of controversy:

1. He was shy and ill at ease in the company of adults

2. He only liked little girls; he did not like little boys

3. There was a major split with the Liddell family in 1863

4. His relationship with his illustrator, John Tenniel, was strained and terminated after the publication of Through the Looking-Glass

5. He visited Alice Liddell at Llandudno and this inspired him to write Alice

6. He was a mediocre mathematician

7. He was a bad stammerer, but lost his stammer in the company of children

8. He wanted to marry Alice Liddell

9. His relationship with children was unhealthy

10. He gave up photography as a result of scandalous gossip.

There are other more spurious and far-fetched accusations such as the following which I will ignore and treat with the contempt they deserve:

11. He was Jack the Ripper

12. He had an affair with Alice’s mother

13. He didn’t write Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland at all - Queen Victoria did!

If I am going to convince you that these statements about Dodgson are mythical and untrue, I will need to provide you with strong and compelling evidence. This I am able to do. I shall use the primary source of his diaries to support my arguments, and the research material I have uncovered in order to edit them thoroughly. It will be a major task because most of you will have read various biographies, so these ideas will already be accepted and adopted as true. But I don’t mind the challenge. And, of course, it doesn’t really matter if you disbelieve what I say. If I just unsettle a few of your views and opinions concerning the real character of Dodgson, I shall be content.

Was Carroll inappropriate? Did he have inappropriate thoughts? We likely will never know... But it's worthy of questioning. Some turn to the cultural differences between 'now' and Victorian times for the answers. But that, my friends, will have to be another post.





Images via here and here. None of the nude images are to be found online -- I imagine that is by design.

For more information, see LookingForLewisCarroll.com, 'Everything is Queer To-day': Lewis Carroll's Alice Through the Jungian Looking-Glass and Dreamchild.

Vintage Black and White Nude Photos

Usually I try to bring you information regarding the images I show you. I feel the important context of most of these objects, artists and icons is the historical information. But sometimes in all of this history we lose site of the desire. None of our sexual history would matter, would exist, if we didn't desire sex and want to arouse ourselves.

So today I'm going to focus more on images for the sake of themselves; after all, it is National Masturbation Month!

Plus, these images are scans of pages found in that old Paramount Pictures 'folder,' so I don't know more than shown. (But if you don't know about these babes... Well, you must be under a rock some place.)



The lovely Bettie Page photographed by (the also yummy) Bunny Yeager. Bettie isn't credited (again) in this photo, but it's clearly her.

Also not credited, those infamous early nude photos of Marilyn Monroe taken by Robert M. Miles.



Again, Marilyn the model is not credited, but she's clearly recognizable.



Be sure to click to see larger images!

Vintage Male Wrestling Photo Exhibit

From the Wessel + O'Connor exhibit of 1950's Physique photo studio Western Photography Guild founded by Don Whitman:

As one of the top proponents of the golden age of Physique photography, he captured in his work the All-American macho virility that represented every mans fantasy of the Wild West. Even during an atmosphere of extreme sexual repression in 1950's America, his studio flourished, due in large part due to the unique skill and taste he employed in creating his work's "look".

See more photos from the exhibit.

Art Nudes (Photography)

Art nudes by Fabrice Robin.

(Link via Zen Fetish.)

Earl Moran Photos

Earl Moran creates an original pastel; his wife Gloria models. 1950



Double Vision, by Earl Moran.



Ellisa Winston, 1939 Miss Empire State, also by Earl Moran.



Zoe Mozert photographed herself, using triple mirrors to get the right angle.

The UK's Hugh Hefner

Meet UK photographer George Harrison-Marks, who can be compared to America's Hugh Hefner in terms of magazine publishing and humor. George published Kamera Magazine from 1957 to 1968.

While George may not have become the icon or the rich business man that Hugh did, there's a similar treasure to be found in old Kamera issues.

Thanks to Fleshbot for the lead.

Speaking of Photographers & Bettie Page...

As found on eBay...

"Bettie Page poses in this white see-through shortie negligee designed and sewn by photographer Bunny Yeager. Bunny chose this material to make the negligee because she could not buy a negligee this sheer in stores. Because Bunny wanted to show the flame of the candle, she had to shoot this photo at one tenth of a second at f 8 using black and white film and 2 floodlights with No. 2 bulbs. A spotlite was put on the black background so that Bettie's hair would not blend in with the background. Bettie is kneeling on a white shag rug which was a popular kind of rug in homes in the 1950s. Bunny Yeager has signed this print and is offering it for sale."

Find more Bunny Yeager photographs in her eBay store.

Rumor Has It...

That Rick Whitten-Klaw, the grandson of Irving Klaw, has written and his agent is shopping his book Irving Klaw, Pin-Up King: or, How My Grandfather Incited the Sexual Revolution. This will be the first ever book length biography of Irving Klaw.

Rick is the author of Geek Confidential: Echoes From the 21st Century from MonkeyBrain, Inc., and has written for The Austin Chronicle: The Notorious Irving Klaw and Little Underground Worlds: Mary Harron on 'Bettie Page'.

Rick says, "The book will be part memoir about my discoveries about my grandfather and part biography. I've gotten the blessings of his surviving son (my uncle) and Ira Kramer, who currently owns the family business."

Dolls In Lingerie

A quick collection of links:

For visual stimulation, try Vivas very own online gallery of vintage style pinup photography.

At Sex-Kitten.net, a history of burlesque and a review of Shimmy Magazine (published in small runs -- first issues are going to be collectible!).

Read and view at The Swinging, Swapping Sixties by Earl Kemp.

And, lastly, a look at dolls in lingerie -- this time, it's collectible fashion dolls in vintage style lingerie.

Blumenfeld's Beauty, Is She Rodin's?

In an article at SFGate, about a recent Erwin Blumenfeld show, the following was noted:

One of the most potent pictures in the show is Blumenfeld's 1937 portrait of Carmen, the model who posed for Rodin's timeless sculpture "The Kiss." She was 80 when the photograph was made, a weary-looking woman with sagging breasts and a down-turned mouth. Perhaps only Blumenfeld, who was fascinated by the transience of beauty and the passage of time, would think to track down the model a half century after she posed for Rodin.

"She's the model for one of the most celebrated sculptures in history, which is, by anybody's account, the definition of beauty,'' Muller says. "And here she is old, tired of life, like somebody ready to depart this world. ... I think the questions raised by these works are still very pertinent. We're in a time when it's not OK to look old, when everyone wants to look 20 forever."

Known for his nudes, this was a story I had not heard before. While I am interested in Blumenfeld & his works, I find this particularly fascinating due to my obsession with Camile Claudel.

I'd heard Claudel herself was the woman who posed for 'The Kiss' -- and in fact, the love affair between Claudel and Rodin is even more legendary that the sculpture itself for me.

Ever since I have seen the movie, Camille Claudel, I have been wondering about their love, her madness and the big historical question: Is it she who is the real genius behind works credited to Rodin?

The film itself is wonderful. As another reviewer puts it:

no matter how many times you see it, it rips you wide open each time...

Isabelle Adjani plays the lead, Camille, who is gifted with real talent, that surpasses that of master sculptor Auguste Rodin (played by Gérard Depardieu). Even more painful than the curse of being female in a time when women's options were limited, is her misfortune in love. This movie explores more than an artist, more than a slice of time, but a real look at souls. Adjani looks 'more luminous than any form of art' says Gracie 'and yet even her beauty cannot stop the ugliness of this film.'

So now, is the story of the photo of Carmen correct? Is she the woman behind Rodin's 'The Kiss' -- or is Camille? Is Rodin even its creator? Or is Camille both model and artist?

When Sex Was Dirty

A review of When Sex Was Dirty -- a collection of stories about the dirty world of New York City in the late 70's and early 80's.

Legendary Pinup Photographer

You may not recognize his name, or his title as "the discoverer of Marilyn Monroe" -- but chances are you recognize the work of Bruno (Bernie) Bernard. Famous portraits include Lili St Cyr, Marlene Dietrich, John Wayne, Gregory Peck, Anita Ekberg, Jayne Mansfield, Brigitte Bardo, Elvis & Marilyn Monroe's infamous white dress photos from 'The Seven year Itch'.

Bruno Bernard escaped Nazi Germany, came to the USA, and with little funds, began his studio in his apartment basement. From such humble beginnings, Bernard eventually become one of the top photographers of Hollywood.

His daughter, Susan Bernard, now runs the family business, which in part is protecting & preserving the legacy of Bernard Studios. She has written a collector's book on her father's pinup photography called Bernard of Hollywood: The Ultimate Pin-Up Book.

The Bernard of Hollywood Pinup Collection is amazing, not only for the beauty of the women, legendary or not, but because of his style. In some senses traditional 'pinup' photography, his work transcends time much like his models: True beauty is timeless.