Come on guys. This is nice for what it is, but it is no where near the level of a Weston nude. I know that post-modern sensibilities tell us that everything has its own interpretation and that any interpretaion is valid, and that history has done Mortensen wrong (though I suspect his writings did a lot for his pocketbook while he was alive,) but come on now, this is not the same by any means.

The primary force at work in this is sex and, especially, voyeurism. The texture of the bromoil, the strangely twisted pose, the wierd crop of the head, the little dainty fabric so strategically placed... This is all about sex. Sex and the idealized representation of the female form. Now I love sex and all, but I can't think of a singe Weston nude that is primarily about sex or voyeurism or that seeks to show the female form for anything other than what it really is. They are two completely different kinds of photographs. One honest, the other not. Apples and Cheetos. Now Cheetos are damn good and I eat way more of them than I should, but are Cheetos even really food, much less good food?

Oh well, rant over...