Skip

A tony ward?
September 20, 2007 10:04 AM   Subscribe


 
This is porn, yes?
posted by dersins at 10:07 AM on September 20, 2007


I see he's working on the logo for the next version of Apple's "OS X".
posted by spock at 10:10 AM on September 20, 2007


"This is porn, yes?"

Not all of it, no. Unless you get off on Dick Armey.
posted by klangklangston at 10:14 AM on September 20, 2007


"some images NSFW "

some?
posted by Dagobert at 10:22 AM on September 20, 2007


Unless you get off on Dick Armey

Leave Larry Craig alone!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:25 AM on September 20, 2007


High contrast, a little overt... still, I like some of the bold poses...
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:41 AM on September 20, 2007


This is porn, yes?

No, it's in black and white, that means it's art. Porn is always in colour. Although you can photograph naked bodies in colour and call it art, but you have to use a polaroid camera. Or get your angles all wrong.
posted by soundofsuburbia at 10:41 AM on September 20, 2007 [9 favorites]


I clicked on this before noticing ther small 'nsfw' at the bottom.

Could you make that kind of thing bigger next time for careless people like me, please? Thanks.
posted by Pecinpah at 10:53 AM on September 20, 2007


Grainy. Sort of looks like he takes sandpaper to all new lenses before using them...
posted by rusty at 10:58 AM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


ummmmm.....
posted by salvia at 11:08 AM on September 20, 2007


A quick overview of the linked photos and galleries leads me to believe that the majority of the photos are NSFW, rather than just some...
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 11:12 AM on September 20, 2007


I like it. The 'alternative' photographs look timeless. There is definitely something evocative about his photographs that appeals to me, but I can't quite seem to place it...
posted by slimepuppy at 11:19 AM on September 20, 2007


Oh, ha ha: who knew bakasana could be so sexy? (That woman has strong wrists!)
posted by salvia at 11:27 AM on September 20, 2007


Y'know klang, I would have appreciated you swinging by my house, sticking a bullhorn in my face, and yelling that there may be content unsuitable for some audiences and environments since, y'know, I can't be arsed to read frick all, and links labelled Erotic, Candid, Intimate, and Louche aren't really helpful in conveying themes and tones.

Personally I find the grainy aesthetic sort of tedious after a while, but there's some striking shots in there, thanks!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:30 AM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Unless you get off on Dick Armey.

Never mind Dick Armey. I get off on Dick Emery.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:31 AM on September 20, 2007


"Personally I find the grainy aesthetic sort of tedious after a while, but there's some striking shots in there, thanks!"

On the whole, I prefer his color work, but those didn't lend themselves as well to posting. I got a set from him a couple days ago and it had some amazing provacative but not pornographic images, so I decided to look him up. I do find it interesting that he's got a fair proportion of male nudes in his portfolio (including a lot of shots for Playgirl that are pretty decadent), as most of the people we work with shoot women only, or at most, b/g sets.
posted by klangklangston at 11:50 AM on September 20, 2007


For awhile there, Tony Ward had some great pieces in Penthouse; I was picking up the magazine just to see his work as a matter of fact. I looked into getting a whole book by him a few years ago, but those art-book prices, I-yi-yi...

Anyone else doing erotic stuff with the same look?
posted by stinkycheese at 1:05 PM on September 20, 2007


This is probably as good a time as any to say hey guys, take a look at Momus's cock.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 1:12 PM on September 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


Metafilter: I can't be arsed to read frick all...

Heh.
posted by Pecinpah at 1:15 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Goodnewsfortheinsane, um, yikes. That picture looks like his cock is sucking the air out of his body.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 1:25 PM on September 20, 2007


I'm resistant to investment in such allegiant two-dimensionality in photography. Viewing these in an online setting isn't helping. Fashion photography has to be pretty damn provocative and colorful to hook me... time invested doing it as art makes no sense whatever, and calling it portraiture just disappoints me. Why destroy the substance in portraiture? Mostly in the case of these shots, I'm hung up on "style" and it's exodus from the rut of 1969 in Manhattan.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:31 PM on September 20, 2007


Discuss.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:38 PM on September 20, 2007


This is probably as good a time as any to say hey guys, take a look at Momus's cock.

This isn't craigslist, 'Momus'.
posted by found missing at 1:55 PM on September 20, 2007


I totally expected it to be this Tony Ward, also a photographer as well as a model. Most famous for being a Madonna boy toy and appeared as a friend of Santino's on a Project Runway episode.
posted by padraigin at 2:29 PM on September 20, 2007


Having no clue who Tony Ward was, I assumed throughout this whole day that these "erotic" and "nsfw" photos were actually pictures of Tony Ward. And I thought to myself "I don't want to look at erotic, nsfw photos of a dude." Then I finally took a chance and clicked the first link and was pleasantly surprised.
posted by JibberJabber at 4:05 PM on September 20, 2007


Well, using the word "louche" as a link in a FPP is probably a first.

Thanks for that. My opinion about his photography is irrelevant.
posted by kozad at 4:46 PM on September 20, 2007


I clicked the 'Louche' link at work, thinking it was going to be a piccie of Absinthe being prepared.

Luckily my monitor isn't visible from the hallway.
posted by oats at 5:22 PM on September 20, 2007


Good stuff Klangklangston. Thanks for the link.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 5:46 PM on September 20, 2007


Aside from Momus' cock, nothing here really stands out for me.

And that's not so much a comment about Tony Ward as it is about photography and media in general. There is just so much out there being produced by so many people that it's really difficult for an artist to really rise above the pack. So, as in Tony's case, some resort to shock value (big pee pee). But I have to ask, what exactly is being expressed? Is it art or a want for attention, fame and fortune?
posted by snsranch at 5:49 PM on September 20, 2007


Personally I find the grainy aesthetic sort of tedious after a while

Yeah. Not to say that some of the "Goth" and "Alternative" pictures aren't hilarious/kinda hot, but the shtick gets old fast. Ward isn't an untalented photographer; I'm a little curious why he's so fond of such an amateurish gimmick.

hey guys, take a look at Momus's cock.

Ha ha! I've seen that before!
posted by octobersurprise at 5:59 PM on September 20, 2007


This is probably as good a time as any to say hey guys, take a look at Momus's cock.

Wow. More like Cock's Momus, amirite?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:11 PM on September 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


Momus' cock gets co-producer billing on all his records. True story!
posted by octobersurprise at 6:23 PM on September 20, 2007


"Fashion photography has to be pretty damn provocative and colorful to hook me... time invested doing it as art makes no sense whatever, and calling it portraiture just disappoints me. Why destroy the substance in portraiture? Mostly in the case of these shots, I'm hung up on "style" and it's exodus from the rut of 1969 in Manhattan."

Destroy the substance of portraiture? You've been stuck in theory for too long. His shot of Bork is effective portraiture qua, and dismissing it as art is facile. Complaints about style are de gustibus, and I think his grain serves two aesthetic masters, first being that he's likely doing 35mm in "shady" situations, second being your '67 (though coming from Verité cinematic conventions) quip. It also provides a contrast to his hyper-glossy work for the glossies. The '60s is more evident in the tableaux vivants, and even that's pretty clearly winking.

"Is it art or a want for attention, fame and fortune?"

Dude, I've seen you contribute decent stuff to music discussions, but a broad pronouncement of this sort just has me rolling my eyes so hard.
posted by klangklangston at 9:22 PM on September 20, 2007


And that's not so much a comment about Tony Ward as it is about photography and media in general.

Susan Sontag? Is that you?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:44 AM on September 21, 2007


klang, you are so right. There are times when I should not be posting ANYTHING. (Stoli filter)

I apologize.
posted by snsranch at 2:14 PM on September 21, 2007


dismissing it as art is facile

I didn't dismiss his work, but fashion photography as art. Far as I can tell, it's dancing about architecture.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 4:15 PM on September 21, 2007


"I didn't dismiss his work, but fashion photography as art. Far as I can tell, it's dancing about architecture."

Ah, so you were also making over-broad statements that had nothing to do with the linked photos. (Further, folks like David LaChappelle should show you that things can be both fashion and art).

"klang, you are so right. There are times when I should not be posting ANYTHING. (Stoli filter)

I apologize."

If I ever meet you, I'll only buy you gin. (Oh, actually, upon looking at your profile, you're not too far away... I haven't been to San Diego in years…)
posted by klangklangston at 5:01 PM on September 21, 2007


klang, you are welcome here anytime, but please, no gin!
posted by snsranch at 5:24 PM on September 21, 2007


How 'bout this: I meet the two of you somewhere between LA and San Diego. Klang buys me a Heineken and a Pabst Blue Ribbon, I'll bring along some shochu for sns and some sake for klang, and the three of us will drink and talk about anything besides photography and punk rock!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:55 PM on September 21, 2007


Sure, but Jesus, Flapjax, isn't that a hell of a commute from Tokyo?
posted by klangklangston at 6:36 PM on September 21, 2007


He sure is good at making fashion models look like porn stars. Or is he making porn stars look like fashion models? Heck, I don't know? Wow, did you see Momus' Cock (TM)?!?
posted by Pollomacho at 6:45 PM on September 21, 2007


Sure, but Jesus, Flapjax, isn't that a hell of a commute from Tokyo?

ain't no mountain high enough
ain't no valley low enough
ain't no river wide enough
to keep me from getting to you
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:42 PM on September 21, 2007


And I'm gonna beat your ass when I get there, Tina!
posted by klangklangston at 11:27 PM on September 21, 2007


So, my opinions of these photos and the genre histories they represent are wrong because they're both overly theoretical and overly broad? Got any other slam-dunk misreadings or of my comments to defend this portfolio with?

folks like David LaChappelle should show you that things can be both fashion and art

Fashion photography has to be pretty damn provocative and colorful to hook me...

Hmm. Who might I be a great big fan of? Your condescension in lieu of consideration is dismissive. You're undercutting discussion with anti-intellectual disinformation in your own thread like a right prig.

I approached his stuff as art; I found it lacking inspiration as such. I see a simple series of representations with no trace of denotation, with subject matter staid and inscrutable (making it swell, effective, but not revolutionary fashion photography), a textural style that seems like nothing so much as a televisual staticky wash, a patina made of a pastiche of the punk and debauched film scenes of the 70s and 80s; smoke and garbage mashed and diluted with cbgb's stale beer. But it's not about derivation or postmodernism, or the city space or anything at all, I don't think. If it were, I'd love it.

Erotica as a study is also not likely to invite my fascination, as that's not exactly uncharted terrain. It's apparently okay to convey seeing without doing any showing in both erotica and fashion, but that's just confounding to an analytical mind. What got my goat, finally, was the stylistic sameness between his fashion portfolio and his "portraiture," which I see as an insult to the potential of the latter.

TGIF
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:23 AM on September 22, 2007


Like syllables much Ambrosia?
posted by oxford blue at 6:10 AM on September 22, 2007


And I'm gonna beat your ass when I get there, Tina!

Heh heh. But note: I was quoting the Marvin Gaye/Tammi Terrell song. Tina did this song, which is a bit different.

(I'll try to bring Tina along, anyway, as Marvin and Tammi are both dead...)
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:36 AM on September 22, 2007


« Older The New New Environmentalism   |   Landis Guilty Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post