Re: Oh lala, Mechtild!mechtildSeptember 24 2005, 17:08:00 UTC
Yes, I like the chest one best, too, by far (that is, the one with the full torso). Not just because of the skinny leg, either, LOL.
The full torso one is just so ... painterly. And I love the atmosphere of it. As you say, the cloaked version is more inviting. It is also more evocative. I said it lamely in my rambling entry, but the face I used is so inward and so contemplative and the "painting," look is so subdued, it allows for "applicability" on the viewer's part. The viewer is free to let the picture be for her whatever she imagines.
The more explicit a picture is, the less varied its "applicability." In the explicit version I linked, because of his hand, the image becomes clearly sexualized. The image without the hand lets the viewer imagine Frodo sexually, but in a variety of other inner moods and thought worlds.
Tell me, though, Whiteling, would you remove the link if it were you? I still feel very ambivalent about it. I know there is a lot more randy stuff out there, but it is not "my" randy stuff. I still worry that the picture demeans him.
Re: Oh lala, Mechtild!mechtildSeptember 24 2005, 19:21:01 UTC
Tell me, though, Whiteling, would you remove the link if it were you? I still feel very ambivalent about it. I know there is a lot more randy stuff out there, but it is not "my" randy stuff. I still worry that the picture demeans him.
Oh dear, Mechtild, that's one difficult question. I can fully understand your ambivalent feelings - where shall one draw the line between erotica and porn? Plus, there is the fact that looking at pictures is always sort of dialogue - a picture is nothing without a beholder. Your rendition is one thing, but you cannot know what the eye of the beholder will make of it. But you said it already, people who click on your link, are probably both old enough and self-responsible. They decide to see it (like I did, obviously ;) ) Remove the link? Well, that depends on your own feeling. If you are too uncomfortable with it, than take it down. Anyone interested in it will get it, all the same. (Just my humble opinion, of course!)
The full torso one is just so ... painterly. And I love the atmosphere of it. As you say, the cloaked version is more inviting. It is also more evocative. I said it lamely in my rambling entry, but the face I used is so inward and so contemplative and the "painting," look is so subdued, it allows for "applicability" on the viewer's part. The viewer is free to let the picture be for her whatever she imagines.
The more explicit a picture is, the less varied its "applicability." In the explicit version I linked, because of his hand, the image becomes clearly sexualized. The image without the hand lets the viewer imagine Frodo sexually, but in a variety of other inner moods and thought worlds.
Tell me, though, Whiteling, would you remove the link if it were you? I still feel very ambivalent about it. I know there is a lot more randy stuff out there, but it is not "my" randy stuff. I still worry that the picture demeans him.
~ Mechtild
Reply
Oh dear, Mechtild, that's one difficult question. I can fully understand your ambivalent feelings - where shall one draw the line between erotica and porn? Plus, there is the fact that looking at pictures is always sort of dialogue - a picture is nothing without a beholder. Your rendition is one thing, but you cannot know what the eye of the beholder will make of it. But you said it already, people who click on your link, are probably both old enough and self-responsible. They decide to see it (like I did, obviously ;) )
Remove the link? Well, that depends on your own feeling. If you are too uncomfortable with it, than take it down. Anyone interested in it will get it, all the same. (Just my humble opinion, of course!)
~ Whiteling
Reply
Leave a comment