Comments on: Feeling The Moment, by Hudson Manilla

By: Rob Freeman

Rob Freeman — Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:12:41 +0000

Is the photo “Fruit Salad Sudae” available as a poster? I think it is the prettiest nude portrait that I can remember seeing!
Well done Mr. Manilla!!

Thank you, Rob

[email protected]

By: reinhold

reinhold — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 13:11:24 +0000

photography is never art
it´s too easy
it´s just pictures
all other talk is pretentious

By: Andrew S Gibson Freelance Writer & Fine Art Photographer » Blog Archive » An Interview with Photographer & Author Sean McCormack

Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:45:28 +0000

[…] Penn, Richard Avedon, Cecil Beaton, Edward Weston or Herb Ritts? Or even modern photographers like Hudson Manilla, Russell James, Annie Leibovitz, Platon or Rankin?Actually I can’t choose. I firmly believe in […]

By: Belisario Righi

Belisario Righi — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:29:00 +0000

I posted your photo “Only Darkness Shares Our Joys – Part One” from from Feeling The Moment on my blog VERDEBLU.
I hope you do not mind.
This is the link.
Bravo for your work.
Belisario

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:29:17 +0000

Is Hudson Manilla alive? On his website it says RIP?

By: chado bokusta

chado bokusta — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:26:20 +0000

i learned in art, its cool to have rythm and movement. women and the way you photograph them, seem to have a natural way here. i like when women have large breasts. Why do they appear so soft? It seems best this way.

By: La legittimità delle pratiche fotografiche e “One” di Hudson Manilla

La legittimità delle pratiche fotografiche e “One” di Hudson Manilla — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:54:35 +0000

[…] Un paio di settimane fa Hudson Manilla mi ha gentilmente spedito una copia del suo nuovo libro elettronico. Oltre a scriverne una breve recensione, colgo l’occasione per discutere un po’ della controversia che nacque sulle pagine di Camera Obscura quando Hudson Manilla inviò il suo saggio Feeling The Moment. […]

By: Pascal G

Pascal G — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 18:37:40 +0000

@fotogirl – Interesting points you make – I agree, any publication is dependent on the strength of its content. Playboy was huge in the past, but it’s been on a downward spiral for quite some time. In my opinion sadly, they haven’t moved on and their shoots still look as though they’ve been shot in the 1980’s – let’s be honest, how many more fake blondes can people look at! I’ve read that Hefner always prided himself that Playboy was aimed more at the more intellectual reader…well, as an intellectual living in 2010, Manilla’s imagery is the type of erotica I want to be viewing. For me, the powerful difference with Manilla’s imagery, is that it’s incredibly stylish; it’s closer to the likes of a Jean Paul Gaultier or Chanel advert than Playboy or Penthouse. Having checked out his website I know that some of his imagery contains a frank eroticism, but It’s shot so gracefully and with such integrity that it doesn’t offend. I don’t think ‘Hustler’ when I view it, I think ‘Gustav Klimt’. So is it Art? For me, definitely. For you? that’s your call. 😉

By: AA Fullagar

AA Fullagar — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:13:29 +0000

I have to agree with S Brown and J Graham and dwell on the positive; I enjoyed reading about Manilla’s uncontrived, simple love of photography – isn’t that what it’s all about? I have to say though, I enjoyed looking at the images even more. This is beautiful work, with such an incredible connection between subject and photographer. His work seems familiar but at the same time it also has its own interesting signature. I can understand the comparisons to the icons; I see the power of Helmut Newton, but minus the (somewhat contrived) libertine fantasies. There is the intimacy and sensuality of Jean Loup Sieff at his best. There is the raw sexiness of Carlos Clarke but shot in a more contemporary context. There is also a sense of the wry humour and strong fashion sensibility of Bourdin. For me all the greatest photography is simple – it should connect on an emotional level. Manilla’s work hits a home run here, but does so in such an understated manner, that to the untrained eye it could be easily overlooked. I’ll be amazed if Manilla’s work isn’t being published by the likes of Taschen or teNeues in the next 6 months.

By: Jackie Graham

Jackie Graham — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:46:06 +0000

For what it’s worth from a womans perspective, I think Mr Manilla’s work is beautiful. In my opinion there is a great balance between eroticism, intimacy, and exceptionally crafted photography. I’m tired of playboy type glamour photography that’s sooo last century in style. I’m also weary of GQ magazine style banal celebrity “boudoir” shoots…they are so fake! Times have moved on, this is 2010 and as an intellectual woman, I want to see genuinely creative, erotic imagery that’s shot beautifully. Mr Manilla’s photography ticks the box for me – there is genuine emotion captured in his gorgeous imagery – As a woman, I know when it’s real.

Keep it coming. (No pun intended) 😉

By: theAngusT

theAngusT — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:57:38 +0000

“Chapeau!” I certainly raise my hat to You Hudson. What a great selection of images you have shown here on CO. I am drawn by the intimacy of the moment between you; at instant the image is captured, and your subject – the eyes in all the shots almost defy you to look away from them, almost dare you to drink in he rest of the image.
A truly excellent set of pictures of real women. I for one am now a fan, your link to the Hudson Manilla site takes you to a trove of beautiful images. Thanks.
Its a pity Mr Pollock doesn’t see it that way – but ho-hum. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is it not? Perhaps his blinkers had slipped that day or his glasses were very dark! There is certainly beauty to be seen in these images where indeed the eyes are the windows to the soul.
I hope you continue to be blessed with wonderful “subjects” that you can “share” such wonderful intimacy with.
Thanks again.

By: SBrown

SBrown — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:01:40 +0000

I’m pretty much in agreement here with Hudson Manilla et al – I’m hopefully not going to add long academic and philosphical words here to fuel any argument either way …and I am well aware of the passage and the chapter you refer to in Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’ : “..men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at..” yada yada yada …and no doubt you will have read Monsieur Barthes too wonderingingsecretly if his own mother (God rest her soul) was quietly and wryly smiling in the ether as her son ‘gazed’ woefully at her portrait when he found it….I do get rather bored hearing all the deep philosophical wordage spouted out regarding photography – some makes sense……some bores me….and some just becomes yet more banal text about art…… but you know David….at least for many of us Mr Manilla creates images and honestly offers his own views, philosophy and personal thoughts without malice…..sometimes I just feel that if we all had a chill pill once and a while, we’d be living in a better and happier place…..arguing and deeply philosphising about art, photography and imagery will never change…..it’s going to happen….but I can at least find some sense of relaxation when I gaze at Sig. Busdraghi’s icebergs as much as I do when I gaze at Mr. Manilla’s photography of the female. I wish we could all just chill out a bit more and enjoy looking at breasts, t*ts and b*ms without being made to feel *guilty* about it. I think what Berger was saying too was, that he like generations before, him enjoyed the t*ts and a**es too, so don’t feel ashamed about it. Maybe for those that wear Granny’s knickers and at the same rub themselves all over with peanut butter there’s cause for concern. Let’s enjoy the photography 🙂

By: Hudson Manilla

Hudson Manilla — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:11:54 +0000

Thanks for your comments, it’s good to evoke a response from people one way or the other. Dignified and healthy debate is a good thing.

@Mr Pollock – Everybody’s entitled to their own opinion of course. As we all know, taste is subjective, and one person’s opinion of what consitutes as art is not that of another, and one person’s thoughts are not that of another. The crux is, I simply enjoy making photographs. If people like them then great…if they don’t, then fine. With perspective, at the end of the day, they’re only photographs. 😉

@Fabiano – For the record, I am not greatly offended by Mr Pollocks attack. He has every right to express his opinion. I believe that individuals have inherent, inviolable rights to express their opinion in a dignified manner. Dignity is a precondition of freedom.

Being objective though, I can understand why his comment has been interpreted as undignified or condescending and angered other readers. With respect, It is somewhat lacking in what I would consider to be the requisite level of gravitas for the excellent platform that CO provides. To give him the benefit of the doubt – perhaps he had a bad day at the office and I ended up being the lightning rod?

Let me sum up by saying; life’s hard enough in the current world climate, so let’s get back to being creative and drop the negativity. 😉

Peace

Hudson

By: Fabiano Busdraghi

Fabiano Busdraghi — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:39:30 +0000

I like when CO readers post comments, but please avoid to transform the debate in a personal attach. It’s an interesting discussion, I hope it will not became a flame.

Please remember that CO is a site dedicated not only to art, but to photography, in all its forms.

By: Richard Dale Fleming

Richard Dale Fleming — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:26:03 +0000

Hmmm. That’s an interesting form of English grammar you use up there in Vancouver Island Davey Boy. With due respect, I’m in agreement with Miss McLymont that it could do with a bit of polishing up. 😉

When I read your vitriol on Manilla’s (in my opinion, exemplary) work, I wasn’t quite sure whether to be embarrassed for you or pity you. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Manilla’s not trying to convince anyone of anything old boy. Like Marc Riboud, he just enjoys taking photographs. I always think that when someone goes out of their way to be quite so disparaging to another artist, that it says much, much more about their own frailties. If you don’t like Manilla’s work, then feel free to move on. Having viewed your own (cough) art via your website, well… I could go on for hours, and hours and hours about it… but unlike you, I feel no sense of pleasure in publicly denegrating someone elses work. Having seen it, I would suggest to you though, that people in glass houses really shouldn’t throw stones. I also doubt that there is a shred of sincerity in your condescending remark that Manilla should read ‘Ways of Seeing’. Much as I expect the grammar in Berger’s book to be consumately better than your own, Manilla is probably too busy enjoying taking photographs to have time to read it anyway.

Tell you what old boy – I’d advise that you not take other peoples art too seriously in future and that you’d best keep your negativity to yourself. It may just save you from publicly embarrassing yourself any further.