Beautiful, as in photogaphy of women, is a visual thing. There is no point in trying to add to that by bringing to the party diversions such as character, voice, sense of humour, kindnes, advanced maternal instincts or anything else other than the visual. Those other attributes, or lack of them, are to be found in both beautiful and not beautiful women. They do not constitute part of the definition of beautiful.
Of course, you are free to dispute the definition, but as I indicated somewhere here earlier, semantics plays no part in changing fundamental truth.
I am still unable to see how you are able to understand or grasp the quality of a personīs personality from a photograph; there must be a great job awaiting you at CSI! Or even a chair at some cutting edge university somewhere; what a rare no, unique talent that is!
Being a bit literal here aren't we. You can take a picture of anyone, but a good photographer shows something about the sitter's personality. That doesn't mean you can tell what their favourite food is or whether they were bullied at school. A pretty woman with no personality doesn't photograph as well as a less attractive woman who loves to perform for the camera, so no beauty is not simply a visual thing, as otherwise Kate Moss would not be as rich as she is. And hence why the term photogenic is used, to differentiate from pretty/beautiful. Lots of beautiful women don't photograph well. But then as you seem to believe nearly all women photographed since Shrimpton are ugly then, you simply come across as a grumpy old codger who only likes girls [really the fashions] of his long past, younger days.
Do you also believe no good tunes have been written since the Beatles split up too?
My wife would laugh in your face if you were to try and snow her with notifications of beauty; she is a realist, has survived seven different, major operations in three-and-a-half years and has the strongest spirit I have met in anyone, man or woman. To bullshit her with psuedo charm and the chatlines of the idiot would not win you nor anyone else a grateful smile; more likely a derisive hoot of laughter. Perhaps, when life deals you a few rude shocks, the facile belief systems melt away and you see things as they really always are: harsh and totally unforgiving, with survival the best you can hope for (if I may end with a preposition and drive you nuts).
I'm not the language purist, so why should I care, [it's a stupid rule, introduced by stupid people anyway] and I'm certainly not trying to flattter your wife, I was just querying, when you think a woman passes her sell by date and stops being attractive.
But letīs lighten up: if your bulbs are turned on by those, to me, sad switches on that site, enjoy!
Actually Rob, if the images also included men, I'd still appreciate the photos, so would that then make me gay? They are great pictures, that appeal to some people's tastes, but not others. The fact that the women are not clothed does not then make them porn.
Yes, Dick Avedon tried the same thing earlier as he toured the States doing his latter day Diane Arbus. A roll of Colorama does not a masterpiece make! Even for him. Trust me, I have toiled too many years on that sterile white paper, the reason I gave up my first studio, only to be forced to build another alongside my house as the bloody market demanded more of the same.
Just because you don't like white backgrounds or don't like using them, doesn't mean great shots cannot be done with them. With most people, the shots may be dull, but in the right hands, a white background can make for great images.
You seem to be confusing your own very personal taste with what is right/attractive/good. Not the same thing, not even close. You quite rightly wouldn't take a daft comment like, "there were no decent images of women in print until the late 80s" seriously, would you?