containing multitudes since 2004
God Almighty, what a beautiful, perfect photograph. Thank you.
Isn't it, though?I'm glad I was able to find this photo for several reasons (one being obvious). I didn't want to create the appearance that I only think actresses from yesteryear are hot. That isn't the case. The reason I've posted so many old photos is because, for whatever reason (and I have a politically incorrect theory about that which is probably just plain pig-ignorant) photographers simply knew how to photograph women better in prior decades than they do now. Nowadays, when an actress is photographed nude or in an alluring pose, the image is usually so un-erotic (to me, at any rate) it has zero effect. I mean, I might as well be looking at a guy for all the good it does me.This image, which I found only minutes before posting it, is a clear and stunningly beautiful exception to the general trend; in fact, I'd rank it with the 4 or 5 sexiest photos I've ever seen (and I stopped having the hots for Gwyneth Paltrow about 5 years ago). Believe me, if photographers these days photographed more women with this kind of artistry you'd be seeing a lot more of their presence on this blog.
It has a kind of Avedon feel...more like a '60s shot than anything recent. At least there's some artistry behind it, something that's been lost in the noise of the lad mags.
Stephen wrote:It has a kind of Avedon feel...more like a '60s shot than anything recent.*****That's a good point. Bardot, for one, would not have been unthinkable in that photo, in that pose.I'm assuming this isn't a recent photo of Paltrow. Forgive the sexism of the following, but when she hit the wall a few years back, I counted it as a minor tragedy because she was aggressively hot when she came on the scene.
Post a Comment