Discussions in other posts about the vulva in pictures reminded me of this quote from Bob Carlos Clarke's "Shooting Sex":
"In 1989, as part of a new exhibition, I decided to take the definitive portrait of a vagina, neither pornographic nor clinical, just a pure, well-lit likeness. In the quest for the most photogenic, I shot six. Some were neat and tidy 'fortune cookies', whilst others were dangerous-looking orchids, wild and dark. Eventually I settled for one that seemed ideal. It's owner, the courageous and beautiful 'Miss X', agreed to co-operate on the strict understanding that her identity would never be revealed.
On the afternoon of the exhibition, I was hanging a giant enlargement of her perfect pussy when a friend dropped by to wish me well. 'My God!' he exclaimed loudly from the far end of the gallery 'It's 'X'. I haven't seen her for ages'. My protestations to the contrary fell on deaf ears. Evidently he knew her inside out.
On the night of the show, 350 people and a scrum of paparazzi crammed into the gallery with barely enough room to raise an objection. In fact, no one raised as much as an eyebrow but, interestingly enough and despite the crush, a large semicircular space directly in front of the splendid cunt remained unpopulated. It seemed that no one wanted to be photographed standing next to it."
ISBN 0 9543462 0 3 published and copyright 2002 (estate of) Bob Carlos Clarke
RS comment - Seems like little has changed...
RogStrix wrote:
Discussions in other posts about the vulva in pictures reminded me of this quote from Bob Carlos Clarke's "Shooting Sex":
"In 1989, as part of a new exhibition, I decided to take the definitive portrait of a vagina, neither pornographic nor clinical, just a pure, well-lit likeness. In the quest for the most photogenic, I shot six. Some were neat and tidy 'fortune cookies', whilst others were dangerous-looking orchids, wild and dark. Eventually I settled for one that seemed ideal. It's owner, the courageous and beautiful 'Miss X', agreed to co-operate on the strict understanding that her identity would never be revealed.
On the afternoon of the exhibition, I was hanging a giant enlargement of her perfect pussy when a friend dropped by to wish me well. 'My God!' he exclaimed loudly from the far end of the gallery 'It's 'X'. I haven't seen her for ages'. My protestations to the contrary fell on deaf ears. Evidently he knew her inside out.
On the night of the show, 350 people and a scrum of paparazzi crammed into the gallery with barely enough room to raise an objection. In fact, no one raised as much as an eyebrow but, interestingly enough and despite the crush, a large semicircular space directly in front of the splendid cunt remained unpopulated. It seemed that no one wanted to be photographed standing next to it."
ISBN 0 9543462 0 3 published and copyright 2002 (estate of) Bob Carlos Clarke
RS comment - Seems like little has changed...
Discussions in other posts about the vulva in pict... (
show quote)
It goes in cycles and is dependent on location and activity of certain minded people.
Are we going to see your great photo?
jaymatt wrote:
Are we going to see your great photo?
Not my photo, and to be honest I'm not sure it's ever been published? Only have my own versions and they're not for publication...
jaymatt wrote:
Are we going to see your great photo?
Perhaps you should bravely start a vagina portrait thread. It would be interesting to see how it is received and more importantly, contributed to
Did I say I would contribute ?? Yours takes a bit of effort to recognize.
InfiniteISO wrote:
Did I say I would contribute ?? Yours takes a bit of effort to recognize.
I would like to think you wouldn't recognise it, but she has been stateside a couple of times...
As a new member I'm still feeling my way round here trying to sort out the boundaries...
RogStrix wrote:
As a new member I'm still feeling my way round here trying to sort out the boundaries...
A serious aside. It is very difficult, even downright impossible, to generate photographic images of the vagina without very expensive camera equipment.
It also explains why indecency laws in the USA focus on the labia, and not at the vagina.
As for the "boundaries", it is the perception of others that one has to deal with. There will always at least one who will claim their perception to align with some boundary.
I know. Technical-Shmechnical.
Stephan G wrote:
A serious aside. It is very difficult, even downright impossible, to generate photographic images of the vagina without very expensive camera equipment.
It also explains why indecency laws in the USA focus on the labia, and not at the vagina.
As for the "boundaries", it is the perception of others that one has to deal with. There will always at least one who will claim their perception to align with some boundary.
I know. Technical-Shmechnical.
A serious aside. It is very difficult, even downr... (
show quote)
A ring light really comes in handy. I have a cheap one but the CR of the light is terrible.
Could name it Pussy Parade.
Look for them on eBay, can usually find cheap if you're patient...
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.