Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 377554359; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:20:21 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.61 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003013019212785947 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:21:27 GMT
Received: (qmail 29145 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2003 00:20:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Carl?Cook.olywa.net) (64.42.74.116)
  by e4500a.atgi.net with SMTP; 31 Jan 2003 00:20:16 -0000
Message-Id: 
X-Sender: clcook{at}mail.olywa.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:22:54 -0800
To: 
From: Carl Cook 
Subject: Re:Re:Re:RE: An inspiration!
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 07:16 PM 1/30/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>  >If only ONE viewer of my work says that ... Check that ... If *I* can say
>that about my own work, I'll be more than happy.  >Bringing out "the
>model's personality and sense of humor" ... what else even comes close?
>
>I think it was Berenice (sp) Abbot who was firm in her belief that nude
>studies should not in any circumstance show any of the personality of the
>model. It was her view to show the model as a real person was to make the
>image sexual in nature and  wrong. Boy, she's like Cleopatra, Queen of
>de-Nile! The nude human body is by it's very nature a sexual thing.
>Something to do with basic reproductive processes, culture,  or something
>like that.
>
>All well and good, Carl, but I am not Bernice Abbott.


You're not? Larry said you were. I'm crushed. I was going to ask for an 
autograph! :)



e-mail: clcook{at}olywa.net
http://www.clcookphoto.com

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5