Anonymous said: Would you say your photographs of women contribute to the narrow definition of beauty often defined by the industry/the media? I see mostly thin/busty/perfect booties in your photos. I'd say some of your photos are a bit objectifying. It's the same type of photos I see on magazine covers, with pristine, hairless, fat-less bodies with full lips and perfectly arched eyebrows. How would you respond to this critique? Would you be willing to shoot more everyday, average, beautiful women?
First I’d like to thank you for taking the time to view my work on the scale you have. To answer your question, I’m sure there are many that will feel what I convey in my craft is contributing to the definition of beauty you’re addressing. On the grand scale of things, this comes back to the never ending discussion about defining beauty. I will say that I never pick up a camera with the intent to objectify women. I make art with models to show beauty to the world. Half the time I shoot with girls who’ve never been in front of a camera before. It’s all about highlighting each persons personal and unique attributes. So I do actually shoot what you refer to as everyday, average, beautiful women very often. I just show them a different way of seeing themselves, and they’re always excited when I send the photos to them. People want to feel beautiful and confident, and my pictures show how I see them in that sense. It’s up to the viewers of my pictures to decide how they feel about what they’re looking at.