Damn you matteo (well, not really)! I thought I was going to have my first pointer to a double post. posted by Dick Paris at 8:56 AM on October 3, 2001
thank you malmec. i didn't see it the first time. it was indeed interesting to see the evolution of fashion photography but i do think that they chose photos and then commented on them rather than having a theory and then proving it with a photo.
but they did have some kick-ass photos back in the day, didn't they? posted by m2bcubed at 12:43 PM on October 3, 2001
Thank you, malmec, I've never seen this before either. My personal wish is they're have more comments on why some of the pictures were bad, and which ones in specific. I think I liked some he did not, and I don't know what was wrong with them. posted by stoneegg21 at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2001
Thank you, malmec, it's new to me too.
I've been puzzling over the end of glamour photography, too. My theory is that the world changed; the upper-crust ideal became old-fashioned, and the young market wanted casual clothes.
And those beautiful images were unwanted. posted by emf at 8:28 PM on October 3, 2001
« Older
Help say NO to terrorism...
| The Politics of Central Asia...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by matteo at 8:53 AM on October 3, 2001