Tuesday, April 6, 2010

George Pitts. New York. Period.


  1. All hail the Earth cult. Beautiful.

  2. I like the image. Period.

    I noticed in looking at some of your work on different sites that to me your images seem to be getting a little more of an edge to them.

    -I made a mark..
    -...left its mark on my back side.
    -I can't accept the proximity...
    -Beneath the winds.

    Is this a new part of your work that you are putting in. Or is something these photographers bring out. Or it's not new and I just missed it in earlier pictures.

    I'm a big fan of your work. Thanks for sharing it with us here.

  3. My work got edgy for a few months..it was an experience...I'm over it now. I started to feel dirty and I didn't like that.

  4. My 2 cents -

    No need to feel dirty. I don't think they were done in that context. I do feel sometimes when images are titled that it pushes the viewer in a direction or context that maybe the model had not intended.

    Take "Dare" as an example. To me in that pose with that title it has a some what sexual context. If it was called - Hay Bale - or had no title it would not.

    It is sad that often when a woman's vulva is shown it is interpreted to be a "dirty or porn" picture. Especially if her legs are the least part open. It is a natural part of her being naked. As much as exposing any other part of her body is.

    I feel if the pose would naturally show a woman's vulva it should be shown. Not hidden or blocked. A lot of the time this obvious blocking the viewer ruins the flow of the pose. To me there is a difference between that part of a woman being exploited or just being seen as a result of the pose.

    Two examples from your poses. In "The Travel Trailer" series when you sit on the bench with the hat and the hands blocking the viewer. Or with your heel tucked up tight and pointed up to block the viewer, to me this looks unnatural. To me in that pose your foot naturally would be on it's side and maybe expose a little if any of your vulva. A little thing, but to me it would be a better image. It a series LeBeck did with you on a bed and on a guys lap, to me, all look more natural. When we see you, looking at us, naked on the bed and totally exposed. It is not sexual - it's just you being naked and beautiful. I think the last two close-ups of you in that series are tastefully done and just wonderful. I would love to have a copy of them on my wall in my office.

    You don't have to be blatant about it or feel dirty when that part of your "womanly charms" are shown. But if shown as a result of the pose. I would hope you just feel you are being the "totally" beautiful woman you are.

    D.L. Wood

  5. Exposing my crotch area doen't nessessarily make me feel dirty...this image of me opening my leg slightly does not feel in the least dirty..
    It was when I was doing quite a bit explicit images with the intention of being explicit that I began to feel 'overexposed' unnessiarily. I do not judge it and I've never, never done anything I'm not proud of...never.

    And I do think it is a bit nateral to hide your foot over your goods...at least instinctual. ;)