When a MetArt erotic photo series fails to win me over it can be for any number of reasons. I’ve evaluated galleries where the set design or location was unappealing or unflattering to the model, as well as pictorials in which the artist’s technical or design approach was in some way flawed, and there are those times when a model is stiff, or overly dramatic, or perhaps a bit too modest.
In the case of “Putnam” I can’t really fault the models, these are both girls with their own unique personalities and undeniable physical beauty. And the art direction, while somewhat unusual (I’ll explain this in further detail) isn’t the problem. And that leaves me with only the artist, Ingret, to blame.
As I’ve mentioned in the past, girl/girl galleries are uniquely challenging. If the models can’t generate some erotic spark, and the photographer can’t make their pairing visually engaging, the chances of success are narrowed. Ingret puts these two models together, positions them in a variety of poses, and even tries out three different pieces of furniture, but there isn’t the tiniest flicker of sexual attraction or eroticism to be found.
In #025 blonde Cristina A appears to be smelling Guerlain A‘s long hair. Why? In #062, a carefully posed composition, Guerlain looks to be sniffing Cristina’s ankle. Again, why? And how is “Putnam” improved when the bathtub in the first section of the series is replaced by a sofa, and later by dark geometric objects? It’s baffling. If you are a fan of either of these models I can understand how it would be at least somewhat interesting, but the lack of connection between the two girls, and the photographer’s conception and execution of the pictorial are a mystery. Perhaps someone who derived more enjoyment from “Putnam” than I did will offer some insight? Please feel free to enlighten me in the comments, below.