Femmes: Masterpieces of Erotic Photography

Bring four dozen photographers together, and you have to expect that many visions. Ask four dozen people to describe femininity, and you might get twice as many answers. That's this book: when offered the title "Femmes", what image would you contribute?

Like anyone, I confess to my favorites. I find prettiness optional and beauty almost unavoidable. The woman/women fascinate/s me - not the lingerie or other kink. I warm to affection, even the more physical kinds. I enjoyed Gosbee's work, and Grace's, and Nelson's dotted lady (among others). Hyams's models exhibit a simple but almost superhuman beauty; Karsten's come across with strength, honesty, and a little goofiness. Mahaux's one photo across the fold approaches the models' nudity closely, showing individual uniqueness in narrow detail. It's just me, maybe, but that matters. Even identical twins differ, and I thrive on those differences. Some photographers I find vulgar - many of Roy Stuart's entries dropped below that line. I learn from some, including Sunderland's. Personality matters to me too; that's why Davis's pictures attracted me.

Some of this work appeals to me, some doesn't. There's a lot to enjoy here, and nothing (just barely) that I found offensive. If women's beauty matters to you, go ahead. You're sure to find something you like.

-- wiredweird

This collection is just different. Who want to see usual -
let's see another

I scanned through this book the other day at Virgin Records and I have to say, I really did like it! I do agree with some other people, about how some of the women weren't exactly attractive, but... isn't that rather shallow minded???? Not everyone in the entire world is beautiful and there are many people out there with wonderful personalities but not the hottest looks. Now, if you were going to buy an issue of Playboy and not find beautiful women and a pair of syllacone implants, THEN I would complain, that is purely for masturbation, I would assume.
But this is kind of different, don't you think? It goes deeper than masturbation and Playboy bullcrap.
I will say it had a lot of fetish type pictures in it, but, if you're into that kind of thing, this will be great for you!

I have to say I enjoyed it, DESPITE the "unattractive" women in it. But really... doesn't perfection get boring after a while?

I have to agree with the more negative reviews. The cover is indeed beautiful, but the content, with exceptions such as Brian Peterson's work, tends towards high heeled black boots and the burlesque. It seems as though fetish is now the order of the day, with erotic photographers following this very standardized path like sheep. Trouble is, the photographs tend to depersonalize and objectify, which robs them of their erotic quality. If making a statement about the objectification of women is the purpose of much of this work, well OK, but how many artists should it take to make the point?

A missed opportunity. Take a look at Judy Francesconi's "Visual Sonnets" or, from the 1970's, J. Frederick Smith's "Sappho: The Art of Loving Women" as alternatives. To me, these speak more of a belief in the beauty and emotional closeness of the relationships depicted in their authors' images.

This is a great starting point for anyone new to erotic photography. The photos display a large variety of styles from top photographers and include such personal favorites as Steve Diet Goedde and Doralba Picerno. Don't be fooled by an earlier review, the vast majority of models used are quite attractive and exude a healthy amount of sex appeal. Just a note of warning: this collection will definitely whet your appetite for more...and more.