A Narrow Definition of Beauty

"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura) 04/26/2016 at 19:50 • Filed to: None

1

48

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The photos in this selection are technically excellent photos, but in my view, the photos seem to seek out looks that guys like, rather than beauty for it’s own rough-cut sake. Cookie cutter women with different-colored sprinkles.

But not these:

Berang > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/26/2016 at 20:25

0

What is beauty for it’s own rough-cut sake though?

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Berang 04/26/2016 at 20:35

0

A woman who is beautiful because she is beautiful, not because she is slender and has big anime eyes. Except for the four images I chose, in my eyes, every other one of those women look basically the same. Formula. The woman who took the photos has none of those looks. And heres a flash: women don’t look like that very often. If the photographer had been a man, I’d have taken a very strong exception. But I’m still left wondering, What the heck?

Berang > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/26/2016 at 20:40

0

My only question really, is did she ask the locals who they think is the most beautiful, or did she just look for people she thought were beautiful. Because if it is the latter, it sort of defeats the point of the project.

The rest I don’t care about. What most people look like is beside the point, because beauty isn’t common. People who look interesting are people who look beautiful, which is why beautiful people, whatever the standards are, are uncommon.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Berang 04/26/2016 at 20:46

0

To your first point, I have the impression that the case is your former. And I think she really missed the boat.

To your second point, I think you have hit the nail right on the head. I found exactly four of those photographs interesting, and those were the four that I highlighted. So thank you for that.

Berang > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/26/2016 at 20:54

0

Although, credit where it is due, she appears to be selecting people on the street rather than looking for models.

Xyl0c41n3 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/26/2016 at 21:12

0

You said earlier you’d have taken a stronger “exception” to her work had she been a man, but don’t you think that’s more than a little disingenuous of you?

You’re criticizing the work of a female artist depicting female subject matter and her definition (or interpretation of) beautiful. What gives your opinion any more validity than that of the artist creating the work?

I looked at all the photos in the linked article and then searched a little bit more about her (albeit briefly). In the original article, I found far more than four photos engaging — and that’s speaking as an artist (a trained photographer) and as a woman.

Is there some homogeneity to the women she chooses to photograph? Yes. Does that invalidate her work? Not at fucking all.

Furthermore, what does her own physical appearance have to do with the people she chooses to photograph? Why do you think you’re entitled to dictate that particular kind of limitation on her work? (By the way, nice backhanded way to imply she’s not “beautiful” by her own definition. That’s not ok, dude).

Garry Winogrand was an awkward, disheveled man with spectacles and a Cheshire Cat smile. Henri Cartier-Bresson was lanky and bald. Sally Mann was modelesque with striking eyes. Apparently that gives only Mann a right to photograph beautiful people. Yet all three were (are, since Mann is still alive) masters of the craft and the art that is photography.

I’ve noticed a pattern forming in some of your posts. You’ll post blind items about women — artists, athletes, professionals, etc. — and heap praise in a “look at what women can achieve!” sort of way, or highlight something like this along with a criticism that it’s not good enough, it’s not women-centric or women-positive enough.

I mean, thanks for thinking we’re awesome (except for when you don’t, of course)? But we don’t really need cheerleading (or constructive criticism) from men, especially when that cheerleading (or criticism) more often than not feels like it’s coming in the form of looking at us and our achievements, projects, or mere existence as spectacles to behold.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Berang 04/26/2016 at 23:47

0

Indeed. I had a strong reaction to the work and I shared it here in hopes of having some worthwhile conversation and help figure out how I felt about what I’d seen. I appreciate your feedback; it was the sort of thing I’d hoped for.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/26/2016 at 23:57

2

I looked at some art and I’m trying to process how I feel about it.

You have a lot to offer, but you bury it in snark and judgment and seeking offense. It’s a shame, really, because you alienate the people who could benefit from your perspective.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 00:11

0

I don’t think you understand my point, FlowerGirl. Let me break it down for you:

I find the photographs to be technically sound, but they look like the same woman from different ethnicities. Except for the four that I highlighted. Those four subjects are interesting . The rest are not.

The rest are the faces we see in beer ads and the women whom all of the clothes are tailored to fit.

I would have been extremely critical — would have taken vigorous exception — had the subjects been chosen and photographed by a man, rather than a woman. I think you got me crooked on that point.

Xyl0c41n3 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 00:15

1

Do... do you even hear yourself?

Nothing in my above comment was “snark and judgment and seeking offense,” but thank you so much for the tone policing.

Again, as I stated in my original comment: your input on how women express themselves (among other things) is not necessary. There are some things you just don't have a right to dictate, ya dig? (Though clearly, you don't).

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 00:20

0

I hear myself but you do not hear me. Goodnite, FlowerGirl. It’s always interesting talking to you.

Berang > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 00:29

1

I wish you could stand back and see what your posts look like from some perspective other than your own.

Xyl0c41n3 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 00:34

0

Speaking of not hearing: I’ve told you before that FlowerGirl is not my name (it never was, actually). I’ve asked you before to not to refer to me by that moniker. It’s disrespectful and patronizing to continue to do so. For the second time, do not call me FlowerGirl.

Xyl0c41n3 > Berang 04/27/2016 at 00:35

1

Likewise!

Xyl0c41n3 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 00:37

0

Nope. I haven’t gotten you “crooked” on any of your points. I understood them perfectly. You’ve yet to even hear my points, much less understand anything I've said.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 00:41

0

The first time you upbraided me, that’s who you were, weren't you? I mean, I may be old, and my brain may be kind of dried out, but I remember that.

Berang > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 00:42

0

I don’t think most people here think much about art or subjects of repsentation, so there’d not be much to say. Photography and art are things I deal with daily in life, and such ideas are things I deal with frequently.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 00:50

0

Well, I feel confident that you'll keep trying. Lacking, as I do, ovaries — a distinction I'd have never considered making had I not read it in your comment to Alissa Walker — I may be beyond hope...

Berang > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 00:52

1

I have at least some modicum of self awareness and respect for others.

Xyl0c41n3 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 00:54

0

It’s never been *my* username, even though it was part of my username for a brief period. Regardless, it’s been the better part of a YEAR since those two words have been part of my username. And, like I said, I’ve asked you before to NOT refer to me as such. Your insistence on trotting it out in some sort of misguided attempt to engender faux familiarity, antagonization, or whatever the fuck your motivations are for using that moniker only at the tail end of conversations where you and I disagree is bullshit. I don’t call you Oliphant. I don’t demean you or disregard an explicit request on how to address you. Show me the same courtesy.

Or, not. I mean, you seem to enjoy the patronizing route.

Another thing I've said before: you once asked me to engage you on matters of feminism and seeing things from a perspective other than your own. At some point, you either gotta put up or shut up, because so far, every time I have, you've stooped to insults, tone policing, and being patronizing.

Xyl0c41n3 > Berang 04/27/2016 at 00:58

0

You'd like to think so, anyway. Have a good night. Cheers!

Xyl0c41n3 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 00:58

0

What are you on about?

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Berang 04/27/2016 at 01:02

0

My brother is an Oppo old-timer and he refers to some here as perspicacious. I had to look it up and having done so, I must agree.

I would aspire to photograph humans in a manner similar to what we see in that collection. I look at those four and I am arrested. These are easily some of my favorite images, particularly the Tibetan woman that I've ever seen. I think that perhaps on some level I resent being told that these women are beautiful because I'd prefer to be left to conclude that for myself. And who took the pictures or why muddies that water.

Berang > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 01:05

1

Well, I know so. Comparatively at least. <3

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 01:10

0

Must you be so vulgar? Thank you for clarifying and as Oliphant is the screen name I’ve given myself, why would I object to your using it to address me here?

But I take some satisfaction knowing that it annoyed you but having said that, I will also promise not to use it again.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 01:13

0

I can’t quite follow you. Some of your replies are to Berang and some are to me. What am I “on” about? Will you please be more specific?

Berang > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 01:19

0

You may still draw your own conclusions, the artist is just trying to give some context to the photos, rather than dictate to viewers that they need to appreciate the beauty of these people (I think).

Xyl0c41n3 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 01:21

1

Oh, that’s right: we women aren’t supposed to curse like motherfucking sailors. It’s not very damned ladylike, is it? Well, shit, sorry about that.

Must you always tone police?

Also, thank you for confirming what I already knew about why you kept referring to me by that name. I do take some satisfaction in getting you to admit your pettiness publicly.

Xyl0c41n3 > Berang 04/27/2016 at 01:23

0

Bless your ever loving heart! You really do believe that, don't you?

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 01:30

0

Bigger deal for you than it is for me. I try to be honest here.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 01:31

0

And you are welcome.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Berang 04/27/2016 at 01:44

0

I like your view. You have a perspective that is liberating when it comes to appreciating art. To say, “I find that interesting, but not that,” allows you to avoid carrying baggage and enjoy the ride.

Berang > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 02:01

0

What I see is if an artist really wanted people to only get one particular thing out of a work, they’d write it out in a book, not create a painting, or a sculpture, or a poem, etc. It’s why a lot of artists refuse to be very specific when questioned about the meaning of their work. If they told everybody the exact meaning, there wouldn’t be much point in looking at the art.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 05:49

1

The thing about beauty is that it’s actually fairly formulaic. Biologically you’re predisposed to find certain traits attractive. Big eyes is one of them. Facial symmetry is another. As is hip-to-waist ratio (and shoulder-to-hip ratio in men).

Some things are culturally determined, such as overall weight, but the majority of factors are fairly universal.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 04/27/2016 at 08:02

1

That's a very good point.

yamahog > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 08:40

1

“I take some satisfaction knowing that it annoyed you”

Of course. There seems to be an interesting juxtaposition between how you opine on women in general (as art to be consumed and critiqued) and how you talk about/interact with actual women who don’t necessarily agree with or don’t meet your idealized concept.

Xyl0c41n3 > yamahog 04/27/2016 at 09:37

1

Interesting coincidence, isn't it?

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > yamahog 04/27/2016 at 09:58

0

What I find interesting is the disconnect between what I am trying to say and what is reflected back. When I viewed those images that I initially shared, my impression was, “Hey: this is an idealized concept that excludes the vast majority of women.” I took exception to that, and I was surprised that this idealized concept was organized by a woman. I went on to highlight four of the pictures which were, in my opinion, diverse and interesting as subjects. The four stood out to me from the rest.

As far as “art to be consumed and critiqued” goes, well, I didn’t create the art, did I? Someone else did and I viewed it through my lenses and attempted to concisely state how I felt about it and hoped that thoughtful people would provide comments that would help me interpret my own feelings.

I am happy that others take the time — and thank you — to read some of this discussion.

yamahog > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 10:09

1

It’s like mansplaining and white knighting at the same time. Really something.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 10:28

0

Good morning. I see that you are still lurking about this thread.

I can’t understand what you are saying because your style is so abrasive that I have difficulty giving place for your words. What you refer to as “tone policing” I refer to as “being civil.” You certainly seem to place your civility requirements upon others in this space...

What is the genus of your screen name?

Xyl0c41n3 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 10:54

0

My style , eh?

A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by concern trolls and sometimes as a derailment tactic, where it is suggested that feminists would be more successful if only they expressed themselves in a more pleasant tone. This is also sometimes described as catching more flies with honey than with vinegar, a particular variant of the tone argument.

The tone argument also manifests itself where arguments produced in an angry tone are dismissed irrespective of the legitimacy of the argument; this is also known as tone policing. The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issues raised. Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in that statement, thus undermining the original party’s attempt to communicate and effectively shutting them down.

Such a shame my tone alienates you. Imagine how much more powerful and persuasive my arguments would be if I just calmed down, amirite?

Golly gee whiz, I really should stop letting my emotions get the better of me, shouldn’t I ?

Tone policing is a way of not taking responsibility for fucking up, and it dismisses the other person’s position by framing it as being emotional and therefore irrational. The conflation of emotionality with irrationality is often used to silence women and people who are read as women, when they are trying to speak about anything at all. It’s also used against all marginalized people when they attempt to speak about their very personal experiences with oppression. But being emotional does not make one’s points any less valid. It’s also important to note that, by tone policing, you not only refuse to examine your own oppressive behavior, but you also can blame that on the other person, because they were not “nice enough” to be listened to or taken seriously.

Except, there wasn’t any emotion involved in my responses to you. But focusing on my tone — sorry, my style — means you didn’t have to focus on anything I had to say.

Also, it’s not lurking when I’m responding to notifications.

TOP DEFINITION

lurk

On a message board or anything similar, to browse the board very often, but without ever posting anything .

wkiernan > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 11:17

0

All I need!

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 12:04

0

I like this. Did you write it? Whether or not I happen to agree with something you’ve said is no measure by me of the thing’s validity. I would simply disagree. Or I would leave, which I haven’t done yet.

And as for “not taking the responsibility for fucking up,” I do and I have. But my sins of genetic inheritance are not something that I will take responsibility for.

I think that predicting predictable bahavior is a battle-winning strategy, but it probably won’t win the war.

It’s a sort of bargaining, really, between two people who want to have a conversation. They both keep coming back, but they’re still talking over each other.

The content above, while revealing, I do not find entirely convincing. One side is licensed with cart blanche to be as rude as they like. Conservatives (mis?)use this argument all the time, except they tend not to lecture the other side about it. They just keep blazing away. Take a couple of current Republican presidential hopefuls, for examples.

Cheers!

Xyl0c41n3 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 12:29

0

“...but they’re still talking over each other.”

Nope. The only one doing any talking over anyone else in this conversation has been you.

I mean, at this point, I’ve got to wonder about your reading comprehension skills.

The world you live in must be a conveniently rosy one when you decide to absolve yourself even of the responsibility of the very words you have written.

Happy Wednesday.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 12:56

0

Your cartoon above omits your Number 4: Issue an affront when all else fails.

Xyl0c41n3 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 04/27/2016 at 13:23

1

It’s not an affront when all I’ve done is add commentary to your own words, but by all means, keep feeling affronted in order to continue ignoring the arguments I originally made. You’re quite a master derailer.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 04/27/2016 at 18:50

0

I accept your criticism and your argument regarding tone policing.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Xyl0c41n3 06/13/2016 at 14:38

0

Good afternoon Xyl0;

I just spent half an hour digging out this post because I couldn’t remember your term, tone policing . I’m going to use that term in another context. It’ll be too cumbersome to credit you for it in the moment, but I’ll credit you with it here.