Posted by alexwh: 
What then would be the reason for the overall glossy, sharp, well-exposed but otherwise uniform look of the pictures in MM?  I would long to see a 21st century interpretation of Betti Page. Sort of like Betti Page on the beach but with a back pack.

I think I understand exactly what you are trying to say:

A lot of today's images are taken with myriads of fancy lighting equipment and then heavily post-processed. A lot of those works end up looking the same. A musical analogy would be Hip-Hop music that is largely "engineered" from pieces of other work. It all sounds the same, and dare I say, unpleasant to many.

I think what you long for is photography that is "organic" or "unplugged": Available light and a minimum of fancy post processing. A musical analogy would be acoustic guitar or earlier, pre-synthesizer rock and roll.

Out of necessity, I am exploring such methods, using a 25 year-old Minolta XG-7 SLR and lenses along with a modern film scanner. I am limited to available light as well.

Some of my images have achieved this more simple, "organic" feel.

Posted by alexwh: 
What then would be the reason for the overall glossy, sharp, well-exposed but otherwise uniform look of the pictures in MM?

Dude! I'm still tryin' to get that look!!

GWC

Posted by ryan widger: 
"What then would be the reason for the overall glossy, sharp, well-exposed but otherwise uniform look of the pictures in MM? I would long to see a 21st century interpretation of Betti Page. Sort of like Betti Page on the beach but with a back pack."

i believe that were are now in an age where we no longer create anything new but merely replicate what already exists.

Am I the only person here who finds it kind of brain-wrenching that Mr Widger, of all people, would say that? Your work has a look all of its own; it's as different from mine as it is from, say, GWC's.

I do not see a "overall glossy, sharp, well-exposed but otherwise uniform look" here. I see a range of levels of Craft and different views of Art. In short, I see a microcosm of humanity - which is what happens whenever a group of people congregate about Art.

mjr.

Posted by ryan widger: 
i don't believe what i am doing is new i am just rasing the question or when at my best making "rorschack tests." these are ambiguous yet exciting times no?

(no disrespect found, at all...)

In the sense of human culture overall, nothing is new since our ancestors climbed down from the trees. I suppose I could say that your images are "reminiscent of Munsch," or something like that - which they are - because they are both about and by humans.

There's one line of thought that "all stories are ripped off from Shakespeare" and another that "all stories were ripped off by Shakespeare" - both are equally right. I feel that the artist acts as a sort of filter, collecting, refining, and conglomerating the flow of humanity that goes within reach of their intake. Some artists thus have a very broad (fumbling for words) dynamic range (/fumbling) in their content, while others might be distilling more thoroughly something that has already been highly refined.

Indeed, I can envision an artist who decided to perfect the "glossy perfectly sharp no-skin-texture fake boobs pouty expression, photoshop perfected, balanced, and constructed pin-up" - to achieve the ubersurreal representational image that distilled the very "sameness" that some of us complain about. Perhaps that would be a great work of Art if it happened. To me what is so fascinating is that I feel all Art is about culture - which inherently means that it's evanescent in the extreme. I fantasize that someday someone will discover lost notebooks from Leonardo that indicate that Mona Lisa was  intended to be a advertising billboard for a public drinking-house or something.

But - no matter what else - keep following your Muse, Ryan. I like what you're doing. Let me know if you ever start selling prints.

mjr.