Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucdavis.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb!ccs025
From: ccs025@ucdavis.UUCP (Johan)
Newsgroups: net.rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nude Models
Message-ID: <126@ucdavis.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-Jan-86 20:43:39 EST
Article-I.D.: ucdavis.126
Posted: Fri Jan 31 20:43:39 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Feb-86 06:21:57 EST
References: <69@ubc-vision.UUCP> <389@tekigm2.UUCP> <609@amiga.amiga.UUCP> <467@mordred.purdue.UUCP>
Organization: University of California, Davis
Lines: 23

> Phew! I can't believe all this noise about nude models. Especially from
> naturists! Why do you, of all people, immediately jump to the conclusion
> that photography of nude models is going to have sexual connotations?
> 
> Nudes (of either sex) can be very tastefully rendered in several media, 
> photographs being one of them. Go check out Rubens and Michaelangelo for
> a few examples of painting and sculpture, and then check out the
> internal assumptions you have about this subject!
> 
> chris

 I am not against this guy for advertising at all. I think he has the 
right, but I think you missed the point.  His advertisement listed
several magazines he would be sending pictures to. One of them
was SWANK.  Go buy a copy and then try to make a comparison to
Michaelangelo or Rubens. :-)
 If a picture in swank doesn't have sexual conotations, it isn't in
  swank.

-- 
                   Martin Van Ryswyk
	 {dual,lll-crg,ucbvax}!ucdavis!deneb!ccs025     uucp
           ucdavis!deneb!ccs025@ucbvax.berkley.edu      arpa