after years of looking through magazines, as well as the steady feed of the best editorials which are posted on the internet, i’ve developed a high standard of what defines a good editorial. it isn’t good enough only to have a good styling or a pretty model or location. for that matter, that an ed is shot by one of my favorite photographers doesn’t seem that much any more. it is more like some aspects or ideas outside the team seem to define the outcome of a series – if the team is able to cooperate in the right way. i know that using the term right way makes it hard to express what i really look for, but maybe that’s the reason why a photography that actually works, is so right, by no doubt. you can’t directly express, at least not through words and language, what you want to achieve. visual references are tricky as well – it is easy to look at a photo that you like in order to recreate something, but a new styling or new model doesn’t make it a new picture. it will probably turn out to be a good looking result, but there isn’t anything more about it. it is this word, more, that is so hard to define and therefore so hard to reach as well. almost platonic, yet a reality.
i don’t have a solution to this, but when i find i photo that i really like, i immediately try to understand what i like about it. rather, what makes it stick out – not in the matter of originality (i don’t really believe that originality is the solution to a lack of creativity – almost the opposite), just that it manages to express something more. what this word ‘more’ consists of is hard to say, i don’t know.
it is my first morning after my last exam ever (i am officially done with school! however, i thought yesterday, from the minute i walked out from my exam, would be the best day of my life. instead i had a strong feeling of loneliness that i just couldn’t let go. i went to bed early and feel asleep immediately), and i lay in my bed, i’ve been doing that all morning so far, except for making tea and eating watermelon by the kitchen counter. i’ve been looking through sites of art and editorials – all the stuff i haven’t allowed myself to do since my exams began. i am surprised, and happy, to see that there are so many nice eds around at the moment. yet, the pictures that caught my interest the most, was a series of a tan girl in a studio. especially the ones from behind where you see her thighs and almost her butt. she is touching her butt with her hands, and i realized i like this photo so much i had to write about it (here). as i’ve never found myself attracted by a woman, never felt any fascination of the naked women in the gym wardrobe, and i feel that i observe my friends’ bodies from a more objective perspective: they are beautiful, but so what. yet i have to admit that the beauty of a woman’s body indeed is present. a man’s appearance is attractive, fascinating, hot, while women have a beautiful basis. of course, there is so much more to a woman than that, don’t get me wrong, but first impressions of men and woman are based on different focuses and expectations. a woman is easier to dress down to make a “pleasing” photo – but is that all there is? am i tricked to like this photo, only because i can see her but and it looks nice? or is that the idea about the photo: we know we caught your attention easily, so now it is easier to convince you about the rest.