Saturday, November 26, 2011
Dearest, yes those opaque stockings didn't do much for her, and were only part of her sartorial issues - her flouncy frock, illfitting, bursting at the seams on her explosive frame, was much too short. Or perhaps you lit on that image because you found her - on the contrary - attractively louche, in an abundantly fecund way? Which she very much was. It's just that her outfit didn't do anything for her - I didn't think. But I can see the appeal, to your eyes. And I suppose that my own frame isn't wildly different from hers (oh - suddenly - a trace of jealousy - why had I ever posted that image?!). Though I must say, I believe with the new outfit that I'll break out at the soirée, I'm aiming for, and believe may pull off (so to speak), a far more soigné effect. Oh but that might simply cause you to yawn...
And who was that landing on my blog, on that image, via "opaque pantyhose," anyway? I can't figure that out. Was that you, Vladimir, at that late hour, after all that? Because you know - which may be simply a reflection of my own tawdry mind - at certain angles that abstracted handheld piece looks awfully suggestive to me.
Many kisses, all over -
Jules Pascin (1885-1930), Nude with Black Stockings, [date?], 65.41 cm (25.75 in.) x 52.07 cm (20.5 in.), oil on canvas, private collection
Seated Nude with Black Stockings, c. 1906, 90 cm (35.43 in.), x 80 cm (31.5 in.), oil on canvas, private collection