[quote="policerule"]eh hem... i like that one too.
her photos are posed and unnatural. they lack spontaneity. stiff. and i might be wrong here, but aren't photos supposed to be in focus for the most part?[/quote]
Well, Andy could be taken to task for the blurryness at times, but I don't know. It works for me in his images because it gives them an abstract or surreal feeling at times--sometimes so abstract that they are no longer about the subject photographed but just the interplay of light, dark, and shadow. Many of his other photos tell such a story, they go beyond what you see on the surface and leave you thinking about what was going on in the moment he captured. That, to me, is what makes them art instead of mere snapshots.
Posing and unnaturalness is not necessarily a detraction...let me give an example (and shamelessly pimp a friend of mine!) Kyle Cassidy is a phenomenal Philly photographer who creates amazing "staged" images as well as capturing spontaneous moments as well. He's another one whose photos I can recognize instantly. He's done a lot of work for the Dresden Dolls as well as other bands, you can see some of his stuff here:
http://www.kylecassidy.com/pix/portfolio/index.html
and he has a new book out that's really cool - staged shots for the most part but again they all tell a story:
http://www.armedamerica.org/
Anyway...didn't mean to hyjack this thread into art criticism/comparison discussion. But basically while I'd have no problem seeing Andy's work in a gallery exhibit, I'm not sure I'd say the same for a lot of Lynn's pictures. There is perhaps that hint of a groupie "taint" to them, maybe that's part of the reason like you said. I dunno.
But I ain't complaining about all the near nudie shots!