Coop's work in Taschen's The New Erotic Photography


19 Responses to “Coop's work in Taschen's The New Erotic Photography

  1. hymenopterid says:

    Sexy week at Boingboing continues…

  2. Slartibartfatsdomino says:

    IANAAH (I am not an art historian), but that one page looks a lot like the old erotic photography to me. 

  3. omar elaasar says:

    Tanschen’s books are rather beautiful, but they also tend to be rather pricey, and have pages full of walls of text. I’m sure there are a few that are rather fascinating, but for the most part I find the texts rather dry and nowhere near as interesting as the images.

    Might be bizarre, but I buy art books mostly for the art.

    • Stickarm says:

      Oh, but this particular book has to have that text — if there isn’t any writing, people can’t pretend that they’re reading it for the articles.

  4. oasisob1 says:

    Completely off-topic, but clicking through the sample pics and the “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought” links brought me only to white girls, white girls and more white girls, until around the 10th click, when I found “Upskirt Voyeur: The Sexy World of Japanese Girls”. Um, what’s the deal? Why is it so hard to make Amazon realize that there are other colors of girls?

  5. Brooks Ayola says:

     My work is in this book too. As far as text, there are two pages of biographic text for each photographer, which is a short bio in three languages (English, German and French). The rest is wall to wall images. The content of the bios was derived from the answers we gave via a questionnaire. How interesting the text is, is purely a function of the answers we gave. Some will be interesting, some, not so much.

  6. Michael Rosefield says:

    I have never been able to take erotic art seriously, or indeed anything depicting naked women. It’s like Christian rock; perhaps there’s valid music in there somewhere, but it’s far too subsumed and corrupted by the intent to be anything more than an unknowing parody of art….

    • blueelm says:

      An awful lot of art is erotic without being “erotic art” which doesn’t make it easier, particularly when there are so many ham-fisted erotic artists who can neither manage to be artists or work in an industry like fashion. Good erotic art is just art. But then when making a book, like this one, do they decide what art is erotic? Because then it is somewhat unfair to blow it off.

      Personally since pictures of naked ladies don’t excite me sexually, I tend to be very critical of everything including asking why this is worth my time to look at. historic erotic art is often very funny (just imagine some lord fapping to that fat pink lady rolling around on cherubs… hilarity).

    • nowimnothing says:

      What about artistic nudes?

      • Michael Rosefield says:

        There might be technique to admire, though I usually don’t care about difficulty when it comes to art, but I think the artwork has to stand by itself as art. I’m not saying that can’t be done, and perhaps I am too cynical about art in general, but if the general impression is of sensuality more than conceptual intrigue, I’m going to be in wary-mode.

    • Eric says:

      It gets into what you consider to be art in the first place, and how you define it.

      For what it’s worth, personally I look at it much the same way I look at photos of flowers or a nice landscape. It’s pretty to look at, it’s probably good photography on a technical level, but it doesn’t really have an emotional impact or layers of meaning or say anything about the human condition or any of that kind of stuff.

      But (again, personally) I’m okay with that. In most cases I get more enjoyment out of a collection of good photography than I do out of “art”.

  7. Marta Weist says:

    ….and only skinny girls can be erotic? Ugh.

  8. Thad_E_Ginathom says:

    Art: exercise for the right arm

Leave a Reply