I'm taking a page out of Art History 101.

We've got two similar threads going on here - Penny and Gene's images of the erotic landscape here http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=6023

and John [almo]'s image of his body as landscape here http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=5979

Would anyone like to take a stab at comparing and contrasting these images to stimulate thoughtful discussion? :)

Possible points to discuss:
- Differences between what effect of B&W & color have on you
- The human body vs. forms found in nature
- Composition and the different traditions behind each person's style

Anything else you can think of!

Megan

I'll take art history 101 for $50 alex...:)

I'm going to comment on this tomorrow. I've had both pages open and looking at them for a bit now...

adina

Well, okay, not tomorrow, but eventually.

It's funny that in Penny's thread, Irakly mentions that taking the female body and try to make it look like dunes is fairly common. I forget the exact words...anyway. Almo's shot is probably on the opposite end of that spectrum.

As far as b&w vs color, I think Penny's work very well in color, because of the intensity of the colors in the image. It doesn't look washed out or muted. It's a very vivid scene. And I think color would take away from Almo's, making more obvious what it actually is. I think both might work well in a very stark black and white, though.

Also, as someone who couldn't get a good landscape if it bit me in the butt, I really like Penny's shots. But I do think that Almo's, to me, has more feeling behind it. Once you know what you are looking at, I think it gives the impression that he is really exposing himself (no pun intended). I think it takes just a little bit more to take that shot, and then share it with people.

Okay re-reading, let me clarify that by exposing I don't mean in terms of the flesh :)

my 2 cents...

adina

I'm taking a page out of Art History 101.

We've got two similar threads going on here - Penny and Gene's images of the erotic landscape here http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=6023

and John [almo]'s image of his body as landscape here http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=5979

Would anyone like to take a stab at comparing and contrasting these images to stimulate thoughtful discussion? :)

Possible points to discuss:
- Differences between what effect of B&W & color have on you
- The human body vs. forms found in nature
- Composition and the different traditions behind each person's style

Anything else you can think of!

Megan To me the bodyscape is a very personal statement. As Adina pointed out I am "exposing myself". Not only in the flesh, which for a self conscience and overweight person is not an easy thing to do, but also that I am laying it all out. I have shown myself to be vulnerable, and in so doing I have been left open to ridicule and judgment.

With "The erotic landscape" what we see is the very interesting handy work of mother nature. There is not a feeling here that anyone is putting themselves at risk, or baring a secret. On the other hand these images are well crafted. The colors are vivid, and they are well composed, but the feeling they leave you with is just different. They make you think of how cool mother nature is. How amazing a thing for such close copies of our own anatomical parts to be mirrored in nature.

almo

To me the bodyscape is a very personal statement. As Adina pointed out I am "exposing myself". Not only in the flesh, which for a self conscience and overweight person is not an easy thing to do, but also that I am laying it all out. I have shown myself to be vulnerable, and in so doing I have been left open to ridicule and judgment.

With "The erotic landscape" what we see is the very interesting handy work of mother nature. There is not a feeling here that anyone is putting themselves at risk, or baring a secret. On the other hand these images are well crafted. The colors are vivid, and they are well composed, but the feeling they leave you with is just different. They make you think of how cool mother nature is. How amazing a thing for such close copies of our own anatomical parts to be mirrored in nature.
almoNow which one is the erotic one? ::wink:: Almo's comment is right on. I don't think these two shots can be compared. It's like comparing a portrait to a landscape. Penny was showing both the beauty and the humor in nature. Almo was showing the beauty in the human heart by showing us his vulnerabilities... right out there, do what you like with it. Another thing is that our judgement is going to be tainted a bit by the fact that we know both parties, not so much with Penny's landscape but we can't help but feel the personal statement that Almo is making because we know him. If we walked into a gallery and saw those two on the wall, the feeling would be different. The Irony is that one is a landscape that looks like a body part and the other is body parts that look like a landscape! I like them both exactly as is, and they both embarrass me. lol

Now which one is the erotic one? ::wink:: Almo's comment is right on. I don't think these two shots can be compared. It's like comparing a portrait to a landscape.

Possibly. But I said compare and contrast. ;) I think what people brought up so far has been interesting though! Yes, the two shots are very different - but I thought I would use the two to start a dialogue. I think it's interesting to get beyond the surface talk about a photograph and into a deeper discussion. I'm glad people took a chance and answered!

::sits back and employs best freud imitation:: So both uv ze photos embarrass you, eh? Vy do zey embarrass you? Let's talk about thees feelings... :D (Just teasing!)

Megan