Two answers for the price of one!
Micek: the only expansion Iīd have thought one can make is to repeat that the pictures are nothing other than boring, ordinary photographs of VERY ordinary looking females and, as such, hardly worth the trouble of shooting. Of course, the photographer might have personal reasons for photographing these people, but that has zilch to do with the images and their relevance to the public display of naked flesh as being discussed in this thread.
The beauty industry. The industry does not do so well because women think of themselves as "object"; if you really really believe that women are so insecure then you should meet a few more of them. The greatest insult that women perceive is when somebody suggests that they dress to please men; the contention is that they buy what they damn well like for themselves. This very thing has cropped up repeatedly in rape/harassment cases when males have attempted to claim that women have īled them onī by dressing provocatively with the resulting reply that they (the women) reserve the right to dress as they please without that granting any imaginary rights to the male species, which, I think, confirms what I have written about the objectification of the fair sex.
I believe, by dint of experience, that the whole busines of women as object is a fabrication, a plot devised by the ugly sisters and the politically correct school of charmless idiocy. Women are far more self-possessed in public situation, in interpersonal exchanges and fare far better in almost any media event you care to think about. Why? Because from early childhood they are brighter intellectually, are far more self-aware and self-assured and have a much deeper understanding of how to open doors. Doormats? Objects? You have got to be joking! They know how to do what it takes.
Dale: If I may refer to your bulldog analogy, then it explains why you donīt get my point: a bulldog is ugly under any circumstances. It might well be lovable, as indeed might all the ladies in the photographs, but there is no semantic trick which can convert either them or the bulldog into beauty!
Revelation of character. For me, this is nothing more than one of the hoariest claims known to photography. Character is never revealed in a single photograph or even a session. The claim that so many protraitists make about that very achievement makes me want to scream out loud in frustration. Bollocks! At best, you get a shot that either looks roughly like the person at some particular moment or, better, you transcend the person and create an imaginary being, one who is the product of the two skills - yours and the modelīs. But character?
I take issue with the point you make about b/w de-eroticising bodies. With respect, good b/w makes for far stronger erotic imagery than colour! Check out Waclaw Wantuchīs eponymous site and compare both media. I do agree about the swimsuits in that nothing would have been lost, but then, neither do I think anything would have been gained in this particular context.
Thus, my "why bother" remark. All personal opinion, of course, so hardly important.