This Week's Sidebar Art
First, I should say I'm in love with the photo in the sidebar this week. The model's expression is calm and enigmatic. She's not a conventional beauty, but the photo admirably brings out her style of beauty, which is almost classical. For some reason, the work reminds me of the time I've spent at clothing optional hot springs: calm, peaceful, meditative, and natural.
Yet for all I love about the photo, I think it would be improved if Al Calkin had lost the damn flower. That flower growing out of her head distracts from the model, rather than enhancing her. Besides, it's entirely cliche to associate womanhood with flowers. So, I wish that flower wasn't there. Does anyone else feel the same? What do you think of that flower?
Stumble It!
6 comments:
The true flower is the woman. The biological flower is unnecessary and distracting. The woman and her expression is captivating and should've been the only thing in the excellent photograph!
I used to work with antique photos a lot, made when slow emulsions meant long exposure times and neutral facial expressions. In years of working with them, I learned to appreciate the human face as it is without emotional artifice, so that a genuinely emotional candid means all the more to me and fake posed emotions in pictures seem way off.
Yes! the flower is a distraction. A little photoshopping shows why
Well said, Mahendra!
DOF, your photoshop work does indeed show the flower is entirely unnecessary and a distraction to boot. Thanks!
I also agree the flower is a distraction. I think the model is very beautiful enough on her own.
I'm not convinced the artist was trying to equate the flower with womanhood necessarily. Perhaps it is equated with natural beauty? After all, the model is nude and without makeup. She is much like the flower: natural and beautiful.
That's an interesting thought, Jamie. You may well be right!
"What do you think of that flower?"
Off with its head.
Post a Comment