Surrealist Erotic Photography - is it sexy?

[Rambling Rose]

Joel Peter Witkin

 

[Rambling Rose]

2

 

[Rambling Rose]

3

 

[Rambling Rose]

4

 

[Rambling Rose]

5

 

[plasticman33]

I don't know about erotic.......

different would be a better choice. I guess eroticism is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Rambling Rose]

6

 

[Rambling Rose]

7

 

[Rambling Rose]

8

 

[Rambling Rose]

9

 

[Rambling Rose]

10

 

[Rambling Rose]

John Santerineross

1

 

[Rambling Rose]

2

 

[Rambling Rose]

3

 

[plasticman33]

YEP! Different, strange, not sexy!

 

[Rambling Rose]

4

 

[kotori]

No

Although there is something about the rouged lips in the Santerineross 1

 

[Rambling Rose]

5

 

[Rambling Rose]

6

 

[Rambling Rose]

7

 

[Rambling Rose]

8

 

[kotori]

Santerineross

yeah, there's something oddly erotic in these (to me).

 

[Rambling Rose]

Witkin is very contraversial and the first book of photographs I opened, I prompty shut! Over time I found myself compelled to open that book and explore its pages again and again. I was repelled but fascinated by his vision.

Santerineross is more erotic, but also less groundbreaking. I always feel a little manipulated when I see his photographs.

Having said that, I will tell you that these are not images that I find arousing. I just wanted to share and start a little discussion on why it is considered erotic. Is it only the visible show of genitalia? Is there someone here that gets turned on by this?

Come out, come out ~ wherever you are!

 

[lilminx]

I find some of these downright scary-looking. Some aren't but I don't think that they're erotic either.

 

[mig]

No not sexy

Very interesting though.

I had a similar phase once,'Black and White studies'.You wouldn't believe the amount of work involved.

Which makes me appreciate these even more.