I thought they were a nice set of well taken and processed images.
Then I saw the reference to the 70's and them being dated. I'm not sure. I was around in the 70's and I sort of know what you mean but I think these are a little different in purpose and style. But I could well be wrong.
Not sure about the comment 'being about life...' I have just had a quick scoot round the house, no naked ladies damn it. I'm not sure they are about life, not mine anyway.
And then you arrive at the almost inevitable question - why have they got no clothes on? And this is the question I always ask of fine art nudes in warehouses, forests etc. Why the blazes has the poor girl got no clothes on? When you look at Michael Ezra's nudes then I get it, it's using the body as a form, exposing musculature and totally beyond life or reality.
Still I thought this set was interesting.
Mike