» Pretty ugly
Here’s my rant on beauty. I hope that some parts of this will appear in my press release for my exhibition at Camara Oscura, Madrid, April 17th - May 31st, along with some other issues my work seems to have raised…
There is one remark that lots of people make about my work, even when they are praising it; that my pictures owe themselves to the model’s [my] physical beauty. Unfortunately, though that remark is usually harmlessly made, and/or meant to flatter me as an aside, (‘you are talented but of course being beautiful helps!’) Most of the time I take it as a compliment. But lately, it seems it’s the only comment people make – the first thing they write in a message/email. At these times I feel at best undermined, at worst, insulted.
Of course not every email I receive is from someone who has stumbled across my work, originally looking for porn, who thinks they can talk to me as a ‘hot’ pretty girl, even as a prostitute. Luckily I don’t get many emails like that. What’s sad is that 75% of the messages I receive from intelligent viewers of my art feel obliged to reduce their commentary to one throwaway remark about my looks.
This is rather an embarrassing subject to talk about, but it shouldn’t be, because I am not here to talk about how I look in real life, but rather to point out the absurdity of people’s assumptions, the naïve postulation that in real life I look as I do in my pictures. Therefore it applies to ‘ugly’ comments as well as the ’beautiful’ ones, because of course, not everyone thinks I look beautiful.
The person who sent me a message, after watching me talk on the BBC interview, to say that I am ugly in real life, was a different matter altogether. That’s called ‘rudeness’, and is entirely another topic.
I am not saying here that I am ‘ugly’, nor that I mutilate the shape of my body and face in Photoshop to any unrecognisable extent.
What I am saying is that it is gullible, as well as irrelevant, to attempt to make a judgement about the self portrait artist’s real physical self, from my embellished and processed art pieces.
I choose to use myself as ‘a model’ for the moment of the photograph. I am not trying to sell myself a model in the commercial sense; I am not looking for an agency. I am not of that visual calibre – what I mean is that I am not a stereotypical ‘model’. This is not just me being modest - this is me trying to argue that my images make me pretty, not the other way round.
What is so amusing (and sometimes disappointing) is that certain people are fooled by my images, they are sucked into the ‘beauty’ of them, into thinking that I have inherent great looks that are captured instantly and effortlessly by a camera. In fact, it takes great effort and skill to make a self- portrait; at the first level, by the angle of the camera itself, and then by the selection and digital processing of the final image.
There is a clear barrier between my pictorial self and my real self, simply because still-photography behaves differently from reality, and from the moving image. Still images are static, frozen hyperbole, drawn with light and colour and further idealised and obscured from ‘reality’ during the post-processing stage where any number of tools can embellish the image that was initially caught by the lying camera itself. That is a craft. And this is what I emphasise when I insist that the artist wants to be recognised for her craft.
That craft could equally be used to specialise in visions of ugliness from picture to picture.
Compared to other certain female self portrait artists who ‘uglify themselves’ (apparently popular in the contemporary art scene at the moment; who turn themselves into victimised figures, low-key and obscure with the frame) you could say that artists like myself attempt to do something fresh; to celebrate beauty, without shame.
People may ask, is my work all about beauty then? No, but I have a taste for the visually fantastic; usually the visually fantastic woman, that is my chosen aesthetic style.
If my work were all about beauty (speaking hypothetically, as it is not) I would still expect an unpatronising appreciation for having crafted that beauty, which is what traditional art, at least, is appreciated for. Would we look at a Renaissance painting, for example, and dismiss the model as too beautiful for us to appreciate the hand with which it was painted?
Moreover, if my work were to be taken purely for its beauty, that would naturalise the notion that the audience looking at my images is predominantly made up of men. To add to the stereotype, those men are labelled as lascivious and simple-minded, which is an immediate sexist outlook. Then of course, arguing for why a lascivious man’s point of view should not be sexistly taken as the dominant male interpretation is only half of the story, as that leaves out 50% of the audience – women, and their responses to my work.
If you think I am still being harsh when I complain of being called attractive, think of it like this: I am not complaining of being considered attractive, what I’m critiquing are people who use my work to judge what I look like in real life (whether ‘beautiful’ or ‘ugly’) and then deny my work praise or appreciation (that they would have given otherwise, if they like my style) because they consider my looks first; they doubt my skills because they believe, naively, that my beautified pictures helplessly and exactly replicate my supposedly stunning self. I am flattered when my viewers compliment the way I look, but only in context with a fuller appreciation of the work I do as an artist, not isolating a shallow opinion of my work into one brief and final judgement. I also see that Lara Jade has had thoughts similar to these.
There are figures in the ‘elite’ sphere of art ironically taking up a mainstream view of my artwork and distorting me to the level of a puppet or model, when over on Flickr are everyday people who praise my artistic skill before anything else. Let me show you the worst example of the issue in hand. Martin Parr, a well-known British photographer came onto my blog when I was discussing ‘Picture This’, a Channel Four photography programme he participated in as a judge.
He said:
“I looked at your self portaits. [sic]. You are an attractive woman and therefore the images look good. However
I am not sure what your images are about,this is where Lizz scored because she had a strong message she want to communicate through her images. Remember we are all most critical of the work that is like our own.”
I responded with a virtual sigh that his words, of precisely the same attitude I have been critiquing here, are of a “naive, school-boy’s assumption that my pictures are born of some ready-made natural beauty”. I also remarked, “Perhaps my looks makes it easier for people to look at my pics. Doesn’t make it any easier to create them.”
For Martin Parr to put forth that one single remark after looking at my work was what I would deem an immature response, particularly coming from someone with a professional photographic reputation. There was no allusion at all to my craft as an artist in the sentence “You are an attractive woman and therefore the images look good”. The structure sentence immediately and deliberately sets out to attribute all of my visual achievements to being “an attractive woman”. I am not sure whether ‘condescending, sexist twat’ would have been a civilised response but the presumptuous attitudes to artists like myself are even remarkably insidious in even other people’s well-meant words. In responding to people like Martin Parr and in writing this critique, I want not just to defend my own work, but the work of many a female self portrait artist whose skill of juggling both sides of the camera is quite a feat, and too often, even in a harmless, friendly manner – is undermined.
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pm and is filed under Essays. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Blog
March 1st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Hey Aniela,
For the last two - or more - hours I have look at your pictures. All of them. Read your comments and loved it. I need to say that the way you explain your view on art makes me think again about my own photography. I like it but I need to start loving it.
Keep your work going. Love the art and beauty you manage to capture in any way. Life it beautiful.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
When I was a newspaper photographer in a very small town, I felt that I owed it to my subjects to make them look good–to make pictures that they would want to have and save–and that’s what I did. It made my work easy; everyone knew who I was, and they were happy to have me show up and take their pictures doing whatever they were doing.
My successor managed to do the opposite: everyone he shot was at their worst.
All one has to do is look at photos of political candidates to see how this works.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Frankly, I’m surprised to learn of your dilemma. I think you’re somewhat pretty, but not “beautiful” by my standard (you’re too skinny for my taste). The point is that your appearance does not detract from the aesthetics, it’s not the first thing I notice in your images. I guess that sounds like i’m giving you left a handed compliment, but I really do mean this in the best way. First I notice the art, then I notice you.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Hi:
I think you are experiencing some of the pangs of popularity. There will always be people who make comments that are silly, unflattering, and just plain bone headed. I am glad to see it doesn’t slow you down.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Frankly, I’m surprised anyone who looked at any number of your photos would be silly enough to think they could assume the first thing about how you look. I love your work, and agree that the model (you) looks beautiful in all the photos. But you look SO different from one to the next, either because of the lighting, or angle, or costume, or post processing, that it is nearly impossible to discern what you really look like. And I’m nobody but an amateur photographer. Anyone whose ever looked at a picture of themselves ought to realize that so much more depends on the skill of the photographer than the model. Otherwise any pretty person could take pictures of themselves and call it art.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
The very idea that you could be criticised over your photography because of your, existant or non existant, beauty is plain stupid. Photographers use models with interesting faces or beautiful curves, artistic fashion photography uses elaborate beauty, it is ridiculous to reduce your work down to your own appearance!
While I would say; ignore them! Ive noticed that you regularily seem to face this arguement and Ive gotten pissed off just reading them! Good response, and keep doing what you’re doing!
March 1st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
There is a class of “missing the point” comments that crop up quite often - comments like “I wish I had a lens like that” or “it must be great to live somewhere interesting”, or in your case “you’re beautiful”. The basic message is the same - if only I (the commenter) had what you have, then my photographs would be as good as yours.
Of course, what the commenter is really lacking isn’t good equipment or interesting or beautiful subjects, it’s the photographer’s eye - the ability to use what you’ve got to produce a good photograph, without blaming a lack of equipment or subject matter…
March 1st, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Interesting that even the comments on this essay are about whether you are beautiful or not. I think people have missed the point!
I read this with interest…I am currently writing my dissertation on ideas of male gaze and representations of women in photography. Seems that even when women represent themselves as subjects to move away from being represented/seen as objects, the same problems still exist.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 am
I know how hurtful it can be sometimes in self-portraiture to be complimented on your beauty when you’d prefer someone to appreciate your artistry instead. But as you said, from those viewers who lack the sophistication to appreciate your skills and talent, you can still take it as a compliment…
Because after all, it is a beauty YOU envisioned and created (made way too easy by the natural “resources” that are available to you of course… now what’s true is true, what can I say??). You ought to take the credit anyway and simply ignore their ignorance of what they are really complimenting.
You know… it’s ok for others to be ignorant.
Sometimes people are moved, intrigued or fascinated by a visual without really knowing where the magic is coming from; so they attribute it to the basics, to what they are familiar with. And that’s fine. Don’t let it bother you, because for many people who are not well versed in visual arts, this is the only way they can understand the effect your imagery has on them.
Also, nobody should have to apologize for being fascinated by beauty and dedicating their art to it. And why should it make any difference if it is your own beauty, not another’s? And I know how contemporary art almost makes some of us feel like we should be ashamed of exploring beauty with out art! They reduce beauty to “commercialism” and then sit and marinate in their self importance! Well let them go and starve themselves to death in their “elite” cult of ugliness. Human nature will take the rest of the people elsewhere.
And you know, self portraiture (as a form of art) will always be controversial for the beauty factor. Some people are attractive; some are not. Some are witty; some are not. Some are engaging; some are not. Every artist has their goods and content, and there will always be people who don’t get it. But then, there will always be people who celebrate each artist’s personal piece of genius.
The only thing you can do is keep being who you are; and I believe that’s the right thing to do
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 am
yeah…….but….c’mon….
your work wouldn’t be nearly as popular
if you weren’t attractive to people.
that’s not a criticism.
your looks are an integral part of you work.
one (important) element of the whole story.
you have a distinctive (very english) look that hugely influences the meaning of your work.
if you were ugly or plain the photos would
instantly mean different things.
they wouldn’t be better or worse
but almost certainly less appealing
to alot of people.
less people want to look at an ugly girl
than a pretty one……even if the photo
of the ugly girl is better art.
that’s just how it is.
lame perhaps ….but unavoidable.
it’s up to you to transcend this……and use it
to push your work further.
you cannot decide why people like your pictures.
some people like them because of your skill….
some people like them because of your looks…..
usually something between the two, i’m sure.
idiots (like me!)will make comments….so what?
what do they know about you and your work?
just keep doing what you do.
people love it.
just stop worrying about why.
it’s not important.
love from chris
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 am
I wonder if these people would also agree that any image of a great architectural work (I’ll just pick the Eiffel Tower) is a good image, because the perceived beauty of the subject. Or if top fashion photographers are where they are simply by their ability to shoot with the right people. And so on.
I am aghast at how fast people are to sink to low blows, how quick they resort to such weak thoughts, or how ignorant they really seem to be. It probably doesn’t hurt if I find you attractive, but I keep coming back to your work because I think it’s excellent. I would enjoy it even if you used random people off the street as the models.
Maybe any of that made sense …
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
Interesting rant and in many ways a debate that will go on and on. I’ve been an avid follower of your work for many months. Some I like, some I like more, and some I like less, and thats the way it will always be. Then I read your words, some of which I agree with and some I dont. Why do I come back for more … talent, creativity, intrigue. Simple as that !!
Reminds me of dinner party I went to (ok not that posh … food round a friends !!). I was showing her my latest pics to which she commented “what fabulous photos you must have a really good camera”. I didnt respond at the time but after dinner I said to her “what fabulous food you must have a really good oven”. She looked at me, laughed, and then said “ok you’ve made your point !!”
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
@ Matglas - thank you.
@ Michael - your comment shows how very basic and obvious my argument is (and yet, some people seem to miss this point, which is why i had to make the argument) by showing how photography essentially works as an illusion across all media. cheers
@ John - thanks for your comment.
@ Brook - yes perhaps, I don’t think I will ever get angry or demotivated, I will just keep ‘thinking’ as I encounter different attitudes. Cheers.
@ Vicki - thank you.
“Anyone whose ever looked at a picture of themselves ought to realize that so much more depends on the skill of the photographer than the model”.
Yes I agree! This point should be really obvous to everyone!
@ Lucy - yes. thanks very much (for all your comments on my blog, always nice to see you here.)
@ Ben - “The basic message is the same - if only I (the commenter) had what you have, then my photographs would be as good as yours….”
Exactly! Excellent comment. It also crosses my argument over into other matters besides beauty. People do ask me quite often, for example, what camera I use…
@ Ruth - thank you.
@ Ilina - thanks for your words and for coming along to my blog! I will try not to let things ‘get’ to me, always good to explore and think, but not let things demotivate us.
@ mystery cat - i appreciate your comment and agree with most of it. However, there is still the assumption within your words that ‘I am pretty’, and that there is a strong line between who is ‘pretty’ and who is ‘ugly’. I wouldn’t want to start discussing whether I am pretty or ugly (that would be very embarrassing!) but I don’t believe such strong lines exist. I believe I have a modicum of attractiveness that can be bent and exaggerated through angles, light, general working of photographic illusion. I wouldn’t call myself pretty or ugly. But the main message of my essay was to say: it’s naive to assume, or even try to decide, whether the model in real life is ‘pretty’ or ‘ugly’. Like people have mentioned above, it hints at a need to put ‘good’ photography down to a cause - good camera, good looks, etc.
Like I said also, I have no problem with people liking my pics because they like the model. From day 1 of the clones I have been aware of the way I put myself in pics. It’s when it is the first thing people mention, my ‘good looks’, that undermines me.
@ Jamie - thank you. That’s a good point!
@ Malc - haha excellent point there in your anecdote! I had to read that aloud to my boyf just then!
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Malc’s anecdote was indeed hilarious :-)))))
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
There will always be the photographers that don’t believe anything touched by photoshop is photography, artists who believe digital manipulation of photography cannot be art, people who cannot accept photography in any form as art. There will always be the people who cannot look past the the human form, naked or not, to see the art surrounding it or shaping it, they will always believe that the beauty in an image is the model. So what?
Your responsibility as an artist is to ignore them all and stay true to your own vision. There are people who appreciate what you do, you have an audience (not that it should matter either), why care about the people who criticize?
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
it is true (of course) that
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
and someone that you or i might consider
attractive has the opposite impact on others.
but i guarantee that if you took a poll
of your audience and made them decide
between you being pretty and ugly……….
well….you see where i’m going with that.
it does not matter if that reaction has been
achieved by manipulation of your image.
because that is the only ‘you’ they know.
the digital you.
maybe they’d find the ‘real’ you less attractive
or more so…….we’ll probably never find out.
the stylized way that you present yourself within
your work is a hugely important part
of the final product.
in fact it is often the focus of the piece.
if people choose to use that against you,
that is (obviously) their problem.
but the fact that it’s sometimes the ‘good looks’
that are the ‘first thing people mention’,
doesn’t seem strange to me.
or undermining.
it is just an immediate and obvious reaction to
the image you have created of yourself.
whether it is a reaction you desire or enjoy
or understand becomes irrelevant when
you open your work up to public scrutiny.
all reactions are ultimately relevant.
because together they give you an useful insight
into the perception of your work by your
audience.
love from chris
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Miss Aniela,
I came to flickr the other day only to find out to really do anything on there you have to be a “Pro”- as apposed to a “Paid” I guess. The other disappointing thing I noticed was the general Stuart Smalleyism* approach to feedback and the lack of critical discourse. *”Because I am good enough and people like me”. All that said, I feel as though I went to see some box office hit in a momentary lapse of reason- the movie was sold out (thank God), and I ended up seeing a Jarmusch fill instead. The Jarmusch film being finding your work there and having it lead me here.
I have been seriously looking though a viewfinder since I was twelve or some 28 years now. In that time, I have learned much on not just looking but seeing as well. Both an undergraduate and masters in the medium have left me with a staggering vocabulary of pseudo intellectual terms to place myself and the work of others in some grand masturbatory oration that would be worth no more than a fallen tree in a forest full of city eyes.
Full disclosure out of the way, your work interests me to no end. I have been waiting to be moved, to have my curiosity sparked, and to be held captive in the anticipation of images to come, for some time now. I work with collectors, museums, galleries, etc. every day in my real job and when it comes to self-portrayal, I have not been moved to write in some time. The Sherman Film Stills series comes to mind. You should read some of her thoughts in dealing with “Beauty”. She shared some of the issues that you seem to be addressing. Unfortunately, Cindy went nuts in the 80’s and early 90’s and took the whole ugly thing way over the top and not in a Paul McCarthy sort of way. I was not happy with the direction of her work. I hope you find your own way to “deal” that allows you to grow in a way that is good for your images and you.
What I find most interesting in your work is the sense of liminal space- that not here and not yet there sort of space that conceptually lies at the heart of the still image. There is a tension that rest there that should continue to be pushed. This is something I find hard to explain but try this to get the feeling I am so poorly describing: Look at your image “testament of experience” and “the approach” and switch their titles. How does one arrest a river or step in it in the same place twice? If you have a good circle of people to push you, I think you are on your way. I will also say that the strongest element for me in your work is the state of place. I think the locations inside or out is what grounds the work in its unusual ambiguity that is somehow familiar, and therefore uncomfortable and engaging to me (and I imagine others). As your work moves more towards theater if “I could only touch her cloak”, you loose me as it begins to define its self in terms of finite logic and becomes didactic. (see, one of the 25-cent words I spoke of earlier)
The most difficult thing about the art of photography is keeping a fist-view state of mind- even more so than knowing when to quit or editing. This is not a new idea and certainly not mine. In Japan, they have the phrase shoshin, which means “beginner’s mind”. The goal is to keep it. If one can work at his point, to see in is to see out and through the viewfinder, one can see them selves or the persona they wish to communicate. If you can work here, all that crap about making a “Beautiful” image is easy when the subject is beautiful falls away.
I digress… I would not worry much over the “Beauty” thing. In my opinion, are you beautiful? Yes. Are you erotic? Yes. Is this a factor in looking at your images of yourself? Yes. Does it mater in the end? No. Why? It is to easy a cop out. I have yet to get through all that is out there but of the work I have seen I find it interesting regardless of whether you look particularly hot or not in it. I think of it this way- why look at a photo when the bare wall looks just as good? I say claim your perceived beauty while staying true to making interesting photographs. I tend to think playing that will continue to yield amazing results. On your blog you state (saying of others) that, “beauty is inherent in the real physical self of the model and thus instantly and effortlessly captured by a camera.” If people are so shallow and spend so little time looking at your images and no time seeing them, feel sorry for them. For example, in your image Sea View, there are those who will look at this image and think wow- hot or beautiful, or sexy or whatever in that cursory way. Then there are those that will read in to principals of vision, your gestalt, the chosen camera position that is in power over you by nature of its orientation, will see the form that is subject (in this and all other you), will notice the difference in expression of seeing both eyes on the right and the one, more piercing one on the left reflection, and may feel the push and pull of acceptance on one hand and maybe forgiveness on the other and speculate has something just happened or is it to come. but the reality is that most will never even think about the play on words of the title. (brilliant by the way) My point is you can’t trouble yourself with pleasing the stupid people of the world much less the stupid ones who look at art. Ok, that is mildly elitist and Chris is maybe more on target in saying all points of view matter when it is up for public scrutiny. Although I noticed a comment on your image “Self-portrait with Lichtenstein and a thorned basket of fruit” that read something along the line of “I wish I had those hips”. Nothing addressing the historical representation of women, Pop, Neo Classicism, or of you as a women addressing yourself in the context of these cultural paradigms. I hope this was a friend and if not AHHHHH!!! I feel your pain.
Enough unsolicited said. Kafka, on his death bead asked his friend to burn all of his unpublished manuscripts. This obviously did not get done, the work was published and the rest is as it should have been. It is the artist boon to make work. We cannot own it at a certain level nor should we bother much over everyone’s understanding or lack thereof. Do me the courtesy of telling the next person that mentions the “Beauty” thing to connect their mind with their eyes and if you just wanted to look hot, you would let someone else shoot you.
Always remember we photographers are a strange breed- constantly obsessed with creating a past within the present while contemplating not making it to the future.
Good luck with your attempt and I will continue to be a fan.
Alan
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:44 am
Rant on Miss A.
Unfortunately it seems that people are simply missing the point of your work. I always find an interesting tableaux, a mysterious message, an emotional response and original interpretations of classical art in the images you produce. Whether you are attractive or not, is incidental to the finished work. I agree (and sympathize) with you that comments on your “beauty” are quite shallow. Knowing men (I am one),I can only imagine just how crude some comments might be.
I sincerely hope you will perservere in spite of how many ridiculous comments you receive because I feel you have tapped into something much deeper than the depth of your skin.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
But You have also some pictures of other people. Those for example, I like the most.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
A bit weird setting popped into my mind:
I don’t really know if it’s possible to separate the Miss Aniela, the photographer from Miss Aniela, the model, BUT…
Are the pictures self-portraits if it is not you, but a person who looks exactly like you?
What if you had (identical) twin sister who’s being the model in the photographs you take?
How would you react to comments about “your looks” in that case? And how would “your sister” react if everyone would just compliment the photographer?
I’d say there we come up to the “good equipment” comment, thus lining up the model a little rudely along the other equipment. Sure you have to be a good cook, but to make the most of the meal you must have the fresh ingredients to match.
Your abilities with the camera/photoshop AND the looks of the model - beautiful or not “they” are - make the photographs what they are. Like “SOS” wouldn’t have the same intense feeling without (your) big eyes staring at the viewer, but the actual execution and setting of the shot is as important.
Maybe I should set up a mrbrudny.com and (try to) take similar pictures and read the comments. I’d love to know the reactions of the people and as well see if it’s possible to divide myself and how I would feel like.
Hope to see some new lovely shots soon!
-pelle
March 5th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Ms. A,
It seems that you’re protecting your “babies” as any mother would… (and who knew you were a wordsmith, to boot!)
You are wonderfully talented.
Please don’t harbor the dissappointment or frustrations that others send your way…there are plenty of people who appreciate your work for its artistic merits–its ability to move us… Before retiring for the evening, think of the MANY people who love, enjoy, and get lost in the fantasy of images, and smile.
Regardless of reality, the women, as finished in your photos, are beautiful, and entirely sexy. Of course, that’s my opinion. The roundness of her breasts, the shadow-filled depressions on her lower back, the hair and lips and everything else…WoW!!! “Sea View” is one of my favorites– What a celebration of feminine form…! And then the reflections hit you… I’m not wealthy enough to purchase your prints yet, but when payday comes around, I’ll be happy to support your cause. And I’m sure that some of my friends will walk down my hall and see your work as just plain nudity. But, as many have already said, ’some people just dont get it…”
I wonder what a self portrait would look like expressing all your frustration to all these ungrateful criticisms… That would be fun!
Keep it up. And PLEASE come to NYC!!!
March 6th, 2008 at 9:54 am
If only every princess could have such fancy dress photos!
March 6th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
@ Pienky -
that’s interesting. But I would say that both model and photographer should be praised. They are both integral parts of the process - the photographer more so, which is why photographers do what they do and are trained in their art.
As for the model, static ‘looks’ are not everything. Modelling is an art.. which is why there is a modelling industry…
But I’m thinking now that my argument posted on this blog really isn’t that complex.
I never complained about people finding my pictures beautiful. I want to create beauty. That is my intention, my specialisation..
But there is a difference between finding my images beautiful, and ME beautiful.
Someone pointed out that calling the model beautiful is not always meant as an insult, just the way in which humans react to something ‘beautiful’. They refer to the person instead of the ‘image’, with no rude intent whatsoever,
That’s fine..
but it’s very clear in the case of some people’s comments that they are using an assumption of my real ‘beauty’ as a way to put down my work. Look at Martin Parr’s comment as the ultimate epitome.
@ Roy
Thank you. And I’ll accept an invite to NYC!
March 8th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Well said.
Some of the comments on your Flickr page and the notes people leave are just creepy. Like when people leave notes over your various body parts - it’s weird and creepy. It singles out body parts in a fetishistic way and ignores the image as a whole. Creeps me out and makes looking at your flickr stream a bit strange.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Thanks Alexis, that’s an interesting point and I agree that it can feel weird for me sometimes, coming from certain people at least, whereas I do have friends on Flickr who make those remarks comically (such as Haggis Chick)
I encourage anyone to enjoy my work and remained detached enough from the model to appreciate the imaging itself… luckily there are many people like that.
Cheers.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Hello Natalie/Miss Aniela.
I hope you won’t miss my comment here, due this blog entry now being a bit dated.
I found a YouTube posting of the BBC story after reading your mention of it in your post here, and also in an archive listing for your blog. I appreciated it very much and the contrast between you in the (brief) interview and your artwork. The BBC clip nicely underscores the truth of there being a thinking person and artist - *shock* a human being, behind the camera and the artwork.
I have long appreciated your work, and I’ve often been dismayed or even put off by comments like those you have described above.
It’s at once both saddening and maddening that so many have negative reactions to your work and feel it appropriate to direct their own conflicted and limited thinking /at/ you. As if criticizing you or attempting to belittle you with brazenly unthinking commentary, somehow lifts the burden of that person’s artistic, cultural, and critical myopia.
I have been drawn in and captivated, enamored, puzzled, awed, impressed, and inspired to think, by your work, and the myriad of expression(s) - certainly including beauty - that you have created through it.
My thanks and praises to you, and I wish you all the best with the Exhibition (near at hand) and your work and artistic pursuits in the long-term.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:25 am
It’s interesting to me that you’re upset with Martin Parr’s comments (fairly level comments I might add) about your work as if there’s a lack of critical discourse about your images or a lack of appreciation for your attention to craft, and then you immediately bristle at that criticism– positive or negative– due to a perceived focus on your physical appearance. It seems to me that you yourself are lacking in an ability to engage in a deeper level of discourse about the criticisms leveled against your work and what it’s about. You seem to have the attitude that because the images are technically sound that they’re “good photographs”. Technically, yes, they are. As a former mentor would say, “You successfully captured the photons of light.” But I think what Martin is getting at is that it’s not apparent when looking at the images as a body of work what it is that you’re trying to communicate. And since the majority of the images feature you as the subject, I think it is very reasonable to question the content, context and intent behind your method of depicting your subject in your photos and in the larger body of work.
Personally, I’d ask the same question: what is it you’re trying to communicate through your work? What is it you want people to take away from the experience of viewing it and engaging with it? What questions is the work addressing, or what statement is it trying to make? None of these things are clear to me when viewing the work. This is critical discourse.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:33 am
I’d also like to add: how do you reconcile the issue that several of your images seem to be influenced by and/or are substantially similar in approach, style or intent of those of your Flickr brethren such as Rebekka Gudleifsdottir and Merkley???
March 13th, 2008 at 4:05 am
The first thing that stood out to me about your photographs was the talent of the photographer. The very next thing to be noticed by me was the charming character who was at the physical center of this art I was appreciating. You are a very intelligent, and talented.
The trouble with being an artist is that you don’t always get to pick by whom and how your art is viewed. When a girl takes her clothes off in public (or on film or digital file, later viewed by the public), A certain percent of the audience has not had the same experiences in life that you have, which have led you to your beliefs about art and for that matter beauty. Some people are shallow, and can only leave what might be considered shallow comments. I agree with every thing you have said. Any thinking person would.
Don’t be offended at what a certain percentage of the world could never understand. Be proud that you yourself do understand all the things which you have stated here. I think your passion on this subject, and the intelligent way in which you have expressed it here, should do much to make people think before leaving a seemingly “lascivious commentor comment”. I am certain you have made me think twice about the words I choose to comment artist such as yourself. I think your BF is very fortunate. Not because of the way you look, but because of the person you are and the delightful thoughts in your head. Intelligence is very attractive you know. You are very attractive…………and you are an artist. A very, very good artist.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:28 am
If the question then becomes,……Does art have to have a specific purpose or meaning? A single purpose for all to see as the same, and a singular point or purpose or statement. Art does not have to make a specific statement to be relevant. If it did, Well over half of all art would not exist. Art can mean something different to everyone who sees it, and yet still be very relevant. The artist should never be forced to explain a specific statement or purpose. Ambiguity is a very important element in some art. The artist does not have to speak at all. The art speaks for it’s self. It can say nothing to some. let your art speak for it’s self. It is doing a great job so far if you ask me.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:03 am
@ jean Marie
First, I will reiterate that I found Parr’s comment to be the worst comment made about my work that I have ever heard: because it was so ridiculously meaningless and shallow, especially coming from someone who is a known artist. I think that the sheer brevity of his analysis sums up his simplistic approach to any art; how can you even attempt to construe and validate those eleven words he gave?
I was a bit confused at your first sentence but I took it that you meant I focus on the negative comments, “as if there’s a lack of critical discourse about your images or a lack of appreciation for your attention to craft” and that I am “lacking in an ability to engage in a deeper level of discourse about the criticisms leveled against your work and what it’s about”. I think this blog proves that I engage further in discussions about my work certainly more than I’ve seen any other artist on Flickr commit themselves to, and some would say, more than they’d deem necessary.
As Terry says just above:
“Does art have to have a specific purpose or meaning? A single purpose for all to see as the same, and a singular point or purpose or statement. Art does not have to make a specific statement to be relevant. If it did, Well over half of all art would not exist[...] The artist should never be forced to explain a specific statement or purpose.”
I fully agree with that. I think I provide more dialogue and questioning of my work, maybe more than I should be doing if I want to keep my blood pressure at its normal level… I think I ‘question’ myself far too much! (if you don’t know what I’m talking about when I say ‘dialogue’, besides my blog, I provide alot of text and introspection on my Flickr photostream). I try to take influence from other artists and not think and fret like I do, so personally, I kind of find your comment ironically misplaced!
So,
“I think what Martin is getting at is that it’s not apparent when looking at the images as a body of work what it is that you’re trying to communicate. And since the majority of the images feature you as the subject, I think it is very reasonable to question the content, context and intent behind your method of depicting your subject in your photos and in the larger body of work.”
Why? Would you question my work if I were photographing another model, if I weren’t a self portrart artist? I wonder what Martin Parr’s comment would have been if he didn’t know I was the model? He wouldn’t be able to say “You are an attractive woman and therefore…” Why should self portrait artists be treated differently when their job is actually more difficult than the job of a photographer capturing another model?
I will also add that I think it is ridiculous to expect to look at a piece of work or a body of work and to know instantly what it’s about, in one glib statement like his little friend Liz Gordon’s. The very language ‘what is is about?’ is primary-school speak.
I don’t understand the comment about Rebekka and Merkley. They are not exactly my biggest inspirations, I dropped Merkley from my contacts quite some time ago, his work is not to my taste. But if they were my inspirations, how would this further incriminate me?
March 13th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I agree - it’s insulting because it reduces your art to one dimension - it’s a bit like looking at the Mona Lisa and saying “well, she’s not very hot, is she?”
March 16th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Hi,
I’ve followed your photostream on flickr for sometime now, but not really commented, but this makes me want to say what I appreciate about your work.
I’m particularly impressed with the patience and talent you use to transform the images. My forays into the world of Photoshop have usually ended with worse looking images that I started with, and so your techniques and artistic choices particularly interest me. Occasionally I’ve used your seemingly unending supply of creative inspiration to supplement my own somewhat lacking inspiration.
I must admit that I’m also slightly envious of the following you’ve (rightly) gained for your work. For me in someways you symbolise the best things the internet has done for modern art mediums. Not pretentious, not elitist, just getting on with it, and making my lunchtimes that little bit more interesting.
Finally I find the social and political comments in your work, and the text you associate with it to be interesting and thought provoking.
Thanks,
Alan
March 21st, 2008 at 5:45 am
Why didn’t any of the cool kidz in Brighton tell me about your work a year ago? I feel like such a latecomer. By a circuitous route I commented on some of your older works on flickr and was quite ambivalent about the messages they sent out (A pretty girl in a shower is not very clever or artistic to my mind, so I can see some sense in Parr’s comments if he was referring to the older images) but I’ve since seen some of the more recent photos and I’m astounded at the improvement in technique and composition. The latest pictures have a lot more depth and creativity. It now seems that you’ve learned how to compose artistic shots that aren’t reliant on the tabloid version of “sexy” or “cute”. Your latest works are aesthetically pleasing, but not in the dumbed-down “tits out for the lads” way that they sometimes appeared in the past.
Keep up the excellent work!
March 21st, 2008 at 9:46 am
Thanks Arty Smokes.
Not sure I agree with your analysis of my earlier work. I don’t think I ever worked with the idea of getting my ‘tits out for the lads’.
I find it a bit weird and pathetic how some people are falling back onto Martin Parr’s ‘comment’ (no offense) as if it were some valid critique. When you referred to his opinion, to me it reinforced the notion that Parr has a problem with a female self portait artist, ie. the girl in the shower picture can’t possibly ‘be about’ anything because, well, it’s just a pretty girl in the shower. But that is your own reading of the picture, and says more about you than anything, as not everyone would objectify the picture as such.
I also want to add that if you are looking for some definite attached ‘meaning’ to those pics, you should read the dialogue that went with those shower pictures, on my Flickr photostream.
Cheers for your encouragement and I’m happy you like my recent work.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
My philosophical stance is that “All critiques and opinions are valid, equal and pointless”. A bit like art itself!
Taken out of context, Martin’s comments (and mine too) may indicate a “problem” with female self-portraits, particularly with regard to “pretty girls”, but I would aver that the problem is that of society, not of individuals. Yes, our comments say a lot about us and the way we objectify the subject of images, but is it not better to be honest and say “Great tits” rather than “I like the shower curtain/scrubbing brush in the background”. If you place a pair of breasts in the foreground of an image, that is what you are asking people to look at.
It’s funny that you use the “no offence” phrase in the above comment. I’m sure Martin didn’t intend to offend you when delivering his verdict of your work, but offended you were. One can disagree with his opinion or his prejudices, but it’s really not worth getting upset about, since he is as much a victim of male hegemony as anyone else. It should be remembered that his own art is mainly concerned with real (dare I say ugly?) people. Having a personal distaste for “prettified” images is part of his psyche. I have no complaint with that viewpoint.
The vexed issue of the the male gaze and the prejudices of the viewer is one that has been debated for years. I mentioned Laura Mulvey in a flickr comment. Look her up on wikipedia if you’ve not heard her theories on your Media Studies course.
One can discuss the *technical* ability of an artist, but the aesthetics of an image will always come down to personal taste. Basically, anyone that claims they view art without prejudice is a liar.
It does not follow that what you intend your shower photos to portray is precisely how they will be seen. I get the impression that you’d rather we only discussed the technical merits of your work and completely avoided any mention of the aesthetics of the subject. This seems unrealistic. Why bother making yourself look attractive in your art if you don’t want it (and by extension you) to be judged aesthetically? I like Van Gogh’s Sunflowers (or a good photo of a nude) because IT LOOKS NICE. One could go into raptures about the curve of a vase and the play of the light, but it seems to me that saying “Lovely yellow petals” is just as valid as saying “Nice legs” or “I don’t like fat arses”. Shallow comments, but truthful.
You can say you never had the idea of getting your tits out for the lads (and I believe you), but that’s precisely how some of your images will be seen. You can’t completely control it, so you shouldn’t fret.
Creating art featuring contemporary women is clearly a tricky business, as the media bombards us with sexualised photos of women. The art/advertising/porn grey area is larger than ever. In my opinion, your earlier photos were rather too similar to those employed in advertising or porn, whether that was your intention or not. The more recent shots show a clear move away from the tackier end of the scale. When I saw your most recently uploaded nude, the word that came to mind was “painterly”. It was immediately clear that I was looking at a piece of art, not a photo of a myspace whore or something. The contrast between the style of the modern nudes and “Girl in Green Towel” is immense, and it’s a credit to you that your abilities have matured so quickly.
Thank you for taking the time to read my rambles. I very much enjoy reading yours!
March 21st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
You know, I was thinking today a bit more about your comment, and I am actually pleased that you prefer my recent work to my early work from the past, rather than the other way round. Some people have made the same observation about my work’s affinity to the commercial or even porn - but about my recent ‘painterly’ work, not the early stuff!
What that then makes me aware of, to a further degree than usual, is that everyone has an opinion and personal interpretation of anyone’s art.
In this case, I am not offended or pissed off by your opinion on my work, because you are taking time to speak intelligently and open-mindedly, not shutting down my work into one sentence.
Oh when I said ‘no offence’, I was referring to you - ‘no offence to you’, because I was making a comment about people who quote Parr’s comment or refer to it in some way (which you had just done).
About your comments on beauty - “Why bother making yourself look attractive in your art if you don’t want it (and by extension you) to be judged aesthetically?”
- I said above to someone else this same thing: i want to create beautiful images, but I dislike it when viewers have to make unnecessary judgements about the model in real life (i mean me) and how ‘easy’ or not my creations are to make, owing to how ‘pretty’ they assume I am.
I agree about the society thing, there are attitudes that wil vex me forever, but where discussion can be had, and open-mindedness achieved, there can be some hope! (Yes I know Mulvey’s work well, on my degree I’m currently writing my third essay that incorporates critiques of her theory… ;))
March 21st, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I’ve been thinking about your stuff all day and wished I had someone to discuss it with, as I used to enjoy debating femininity in the media at uni. I’m currently single, but in the past I’ve always had feisty girlfriends (the only type of woman worth talking to is a feminist) and we had many conversations about the portrayal of women in art, advertising and film. I really miss those conversations, so I guess I needed to get a lot off my chest in your Debates section on Flickr.
What particularly fascinates me are the contradictions that any assertive woman has to face to be “popular”, for want of a better word. Naomi Wolf faced a ton of criticism (from men and women alike) when she published “The Beauty Myth”. Many people didn’t take her feminist credentials seriously because “she’s well fit, innit?” But no one draws attention to male authors’ looks. A female artist should not have to justify the use of her body in her art, but that’s sadly the way it goes. With art, it’s still expected that women are dumb models and that that men are the talent.
It’s outrageous really. Women should be judged in the same way as men, but we are all conditioned (to a certain degree) to objectify their bodies. I honestly can’t help my eyes from being drawn to fleshtones in a photo. I also can’t help writing “Nice tits” if that’s the first thing that comes into my head. (I have a mild case of Tourette’s - once known as Truth Syndrome - that rears its head in real life too, often to other people’s embarrassment).
It’s so easy for men. I don’t have to think “Am I betraying the hard work of the Suffragettes by wearing a short skirt?” or “Will feminists think I’m a traitor by showing my tits?”
I rarely have to fend off criticism for engaging in sexist behaviour. I’ve got the handy excuse of “Sorry, I’m just a bloke”. Women are judged much more harshly, particularly if they do things on their own terms.
In a perfect world, a woman would be able to walk topless through the streets without comment (just like men can in Summer), but we are stuck for the moment with old fashioned codes. Art has a role in shaping attitudes, for sure, but it’s all so tricky. What you might think is a “strong woman” image could be seen by another person as “sluttish”. It’s quite brave of someone like you to even address the issue so publicly by posting images you may one day regret, so props for actually engaging with the people who have questioned your methods.
I have to say I’m surprised that you’ve had recent work compared to commercial/porn styles. On one of the debate pages, people were trying to define the differences been art and porn. I would offer that porn is made solely to engage the sexual organs, while art is designed to engage the mind. It’s clear that your recent work has much more depth to it than porn or advertising imagery. You’re not “selling” your body in the recent photos (it’s almost a bit-part in some of the images with interesting furniture and backdrops). This, for me, is the key difference from some of the bathroom photos, in which (for reasons you’ve no doubt tried to explain a million times) your “tits n ass” take centre stage.
A rather woolly definition of the art/porn nexus is the old “tasteful/tasteless” debate. Since we’ve established that taste is subjective, it’s difficult to describe one set of photos as “tasteful” (i.e. art) and another as “distasteful” (i.e. porn). If you have a significant amount of viewers who see the more recent work in this latter light, you have more of a problem than I thought, but I’m sure that the majority of people in the art world can distinguish tasteful nudes from “exploitative” imagery. Indeed, it probably is advantageous that you are the creator of the portraits. I’d personally find your photos to be less tasteful if I found out the woman in them was a mere model being told what to wear and how to pose by a male photographer. (This is probably due to my own gender guilt. Vagina envy or something!)
Finally (for now), I’d suggest that you shouldn’t care too much about what other people say or think about your art. While commercial concerns (i.e. selling pictures) are something every career artist needs to bear in mind, real art comes from being true to your own creative urges. You shouldn’t cover yourself up - or conversely, show more flesh - just because other people would like you to. I’m not sure how successful your art will be in changing attitudes, but it’s great that you are trying. I might not like a future change in your artistic direction, but I will support your right to express yourself however the fuck you like. Just keep doing exactly what you WANT and - with your talent - there will always be an audience. Critics (including myself) have our own issues to deal with and points to score. It’s all just a silly game. You should ignore the lot of us and do it for yourself.
Oh, by the way, I wanted to publicise your work on a MySpace blog and link to this website. Is it OK to use your “Dreams of Taschen” picture (I dragged it out of my cache, in order to circumnavigate the copy-protection) if I host a copy on Photobucket?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Miss Aniela,
As a Flickr user, I came across your website, and have (sometimes with great amazement) been following the discussions on your photography for a while. What amazed me, (and I probably haven’t seen all the responses) that at times the discussions became extremely personal and focussed on your perceived “beauty” or “ugliness”. This coupled with your perceived “upper middle class” position (girl with horse) and the fact that it was assumed that the only reason that you received so many hits was because of your looks, makes me realise why this is an issue big enough for you to rant about. I assume that some flattery is always welcome, but after awhile, it looses it’s edge and may become a disturbance. Other remarks about ugly, and social position are just plain rude and dumb, and say more about those who make the comment that those they make the comment on.
I am also amazed about the reactions on the nudity in your pictures, We live in the 21-st century, and not in victorian age. Flipping through any magazine nowadays, shows more nudity, and even if it didn’t, who cares. There seems to be more focus on nudity, than on bigger issues in the world (violence, war, poverty)
Personally, I am just glad that - despite of all these vicious, pretentious, dumb and rude remarks - you are still willing to share your photography with us.
The quality of your pictures is what matters to me, I try not to make any personal judgement on the personality of either the model or the photographer. Some of your pictures do not particularly appeal to me, some I find simply stunning. This goes for creative idea, composition, lighting, use of photoshop and captions. it is that combination. I liked dead girl in the water, not so much because of what she looked like, but very much on the creativity behind it, and the technical skills to get it accomplished. I liked the picture in the old bookshop, purely because of my love for books and the atmosphere it created. etc. etc.
I can’t help to think that would it have been a man that had taken and published the same pictures, with you as a model, he would not have received the same comments.
I hope it doesn’t spoil the fun of publishing your photographs for all of us to enjoy, They have been a great source of pleasure and inspiration for me.
Take care
Asgar
March 28th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I Agree with Asgar and I am amazed to see that this is apparently still an issue. It seems that you more than anybody else on flickr seem to always have to justify yourself on being in your own pictures and looking OK, whereas if you would not be the photographer but ‘only’ the subject, this would not even be an issue. I enjoy your pictures, some more than others and in some you are dressed, in some you are naked and in some you are hardly visible. It is hardly an issue. Yes in various pics there is a lesser or stronger sense of erotism, but I think that has much more to do with the setting of the picture than with the fact whether you are attractive or not.
All of us can have a choice to look at your stream or at a number of different sites such as Suze Randall, Playboy or countless others were stunning models are photographed in a variety of sexual and inviting poses. I can’t speak for anybody else but Usually, I choose your stream and why? The Playboy models can be quite pretty as well? Well, because your pictures are often just damn good or interesting.
If I see you in a picture in a state of undress, then sexality is not the fitrst thing that comes to mind. T&A is not the first thing that comes to (my) mind, I usually think: Well that is a good picture, or even “Damn how did she do that”. I do not have a holier than thou attitude and I can (and do) have raw sexual thoughts about how women look, but that is not at all what your pictures are about. You have interesting places, interesting settings and obviously a lot of work has gone into them. Is that all just icing on the cake of your perceived looks? Rubbish, it ís the cake. One of your all time best pictures I still find a picture in which in first instance you are not even visible (it is the picture of a river in which you are hidden under water). That is a classic. Do I like that for your beauty? No, you are hardly in it, I like it for its impact, creativity and Photoshop technique. If there is one picture that comes to mind that I find great, in which you are naked, then it is the one in which you kneel behind a telescope, again, you are only partly visible, but I find it a beautiful picture, not because you are beautiful (you are only partly visible) but because that has a creativity and a vibrancy that I do not see in a lot of other pictures. Well, I could just rant on as well, but let me just say that I really do not understand what the fuss is about, we are living in the 21st century and T&A are all around us. Being beautiful is no substitute for making darn good and interesting pictures and I close with again greeing with Asgar, I am happy you have not given up on us yet, in spite of the ongoing ‘criticism’. I dare everybody who wants to bring up that story again to instead get their camera’s and just make good pictures. There are women on Flickr that are not particularly beautiful and who also make pictures that are appreciated by a wide audience. For some reason however, you always seem to have to justify yourself.
Your pics bring me enjoyment and inspiration.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:38 am
you write a lot about issues, and themes and so on… and while i enjoy your photographs, i find all your talking distracting me away from them.
sure, i often appreciate the context in which a work of art develops, and at the same time, i find that the purity of visual work allows me to have my own reaction, informed by my own outlook.
i find that your opinions impose on my enjoyment, and detract from the work itself because while the photographs are enjoyable, the rants are petulant and self-absorbed.
talk to me through the pictures… if your point isn’t getting across, or if you have concerns or issues, challenge yourself to address them visually.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
ok. maybe best to stay off the blog pages then, plenty more petulance to come.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:10 am
yawn… (i was actually waiting to see an interesting response..)
guess i’ll keep skipping the verbose rants
April 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Well no, I could give you a longer response if you want, a very thorough one which I often offer in response to commenters, but I did think it would be unwelcome. After all, your message was to concentrate on taking pics, not talking.
I think you had an interesting point but the way you phrased it was weird - as if to say ’shut up, we don’t want to hear your opinion of your own work’, rather than ‘Oh I prefer your images to your words, that’s just my opinon though, I will stick to looking at your gallery pages instead’.
People often encourage ‘the artist’ to not explain what he/she is doing, and whilst I think this is a comforting outlook (as if the art will say all, and nothing needs to be explained) I disagree that the artist talking somehow undermines their work, makes them look paranoid or unsecure. I also think it’s an easy way out - as if ‘art’ is sacredly existent and doesn’t need questioning. I think it would be too easy for me if I didn’t verbally explore issues around my work especially when there are people who think my pics are all about tits and ass popularity. Writing stresses me out, which is why I take pictures instead, but I know that sometimes I have an issue to address that can only be done with words. Why should I be told to shut up? Can’t I have an opinion like everyone else? What gives the viewer sole right to oratory?
Anyway, I agree with your point about ‘talking to me through the pictures… challenging yourself to addres things visually’, when taken out of the negative ’shut up’ context. Some people would argue that I already do this. That is exactly why they don’t need explanations or ‘rants’ from me that you might say try to fix the meaning. In a sense there is a contradiction then in what you are saying - work harder to put meaning into your pics, and yet don’t talk about the art, don’t worry about the art.
The more ‘meaning’ I try to put into pics, naturally the more I will want to talk about it verbally. The more complex and stressful the whole exercise of photography will become.
I do appreciate your valid comment, cheers.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I would agree that h’s comment of April 18th, 2008 at 1:38 am appeared to be saying “Shut up”.
While he/she/it is entitled to their own preferences, it is the artist’s prerogative to completely ignore (or rebel against) such “advice”.
Sure, some people only want to see pictures and not have to read an essay in order to gain a greater understanding of the context the artist places the work. But the artist should not have to change her methods just because someone doesn’t like them. The text is a perfectly valid part of “the work”. One might not agree with every word, but it’s not like you have to read it. You can dismiss the text and just enjoy the pictures alone if you want to, but telling an artist what they should do is arrogant, particularly when such comments have such a condescending “yawn, yawn” tone.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Miss Aniela,
I’m glad that the first pic that brought me to your work had nothing of this beautiful craft/beautiful model dilemma, at least for me. I was, then, able to appreciate your craft, rather than reasoning if I liked it because of the model or the art. This is yet my favorite of your (Flickr’s) work.
Saying that, now I can browse through your images trying to see if I like them for the art, the craft, like I really did on that first one, and set aside if I find you attractive or not.
Well, I’m not writing to get into the discussion, but rather to suggest you a look at Helga Stein’s work, that flows a bit in this theme. Take a look at her Flickr’s page:
http://www.flickr.com/people/helgastein/
Her last post is from a year ago, probably because she’s off that project by now. The whole idea came up on discussions questioning her beauty, specially on the internet, on chats, and then she started taking self portraits and modifying them to a point where they were no longer real images of herself (in a portrait sense). Something, anything, is always modified. There’s never a ‘real’ portrait. In the end, you can no longer judge if she’s pretty or not, and that’s her provocative intention: who are we, really? are we real or not on the web? what really matters and when?
She probably got a lot of comments about her beauty, as well. But that’s not she. Or, better saying, we’ll never know what in those pics is real and what is not.
What belong to her and what not.
Beuty or not aside, keep up the good work.
Cheers, Fabio
May 15th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Oh, I was talking about this one of yours:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndybisz/2230613132
May 21st, 2008 at 6:56 am
Beautiful work. Your attention to detail is stunning. You have a great eye for composition and lighting. I love how your photographs are somewhat hidden in shadows for the most part, but have an ethereal almost eternal light to them. Keep up the great work, its so inspiring!
August 9th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
As a Flickr member, I stumbled upon your Flickr page via a link from Haggis Chick. I have been following both your works for some time, although I’m not the person to comment regulary. Mostly I get too caught up in the images to attribute a comment. But I was reading this debate and I want to react on this, since I find it an interesting issue.
First of all I want to say that I am deeply impressed. You could even say I was sometimes overwhelmed to look at such beauty. And with beauty, I do not mean the means of your appearance.
I can honestly say that not once I considered you as “beautiful”, “pretty” or “ugly”. I do not see you as “the reason this picture was made”. To me you are just a subject, one of the many that makes an image what it is. And in an image, every detail is important. (I have a habit of looking at details, like in a film I’m mostly looking at backgrounds and so on, I find it interesting) The things I did think when gazing at ur pics was: “my god what a composition”, “how did she do that”, “that must’ve been hard work”.. and so on.
Generally, I do believe that you can make everything and everyone beautiful if you want, sometimes it just takes more work. People all have something about themself to be proud of, if not their build, it can be the eyes, or the lips, of even your fingernails. I am not saying that it doesn’t help if you have an interesting build, but that is only one aspect of so many other things, and surely not of the highest importance. People can be interesting without being a “model by commercial standards”.
It’s just all about how you put it forward.
I can also relate to your feelings about people thinking that it all comes so easy. I myself am a student illustration, and I know that creating an interesting picture is not laying back and do some clicking, to just “let the talent go it’s way”. It demands determination, dedication and a hell of a lot of work. For example, A lot of people ask me to make a drawing of this and that, thinking it will only take me an hour or so, when in fact, to get a satisfactory result, it takes days and days.
(But I only have to draw, what is so hard about that?)
Also, when people get to hear I’m studying illustration, one of the first things they mostly ask is: “so you do get to draw naked people, do you?” “Are they good looking? Or are they old bats who want to get the impression they are sexy?” and other varieties of this kind. Let me tell you, we have all kinds of models, but mostly woman. I do not know why. There is one girl that has the perfect measurements. She’s in her twenties, tall, slim, long hair, nice skin. One of the other models is a woman about 56, not really tall, and as you can imagine her age shows. Some parts are shaggy, she is not really tall, and so on.
And yet I prefer the older model a lot. I admire her for her dearing to sit totally naked in a class full of eyes focused on her body. I love the way she shines. She just makes herself comfortable, she is confident about herself, and it shows. It’s doesn’t matter that she has a lot of curves, not at all, because I find it’s more interesting to draw than the other model, who doesn’t have those curves. I do not think in terms of fat, anorexic, nice, pretty, ugly or whatsoever. I just draw the person that’s in there, I’m not making a copy of how she looks. If that was the case I would suggest to put her in front of a mirror, or to make a snapshot.
That is what I believe what art is about. We let others see what we are seeing, to give another interpretation of things. To try to get an emotion in visual. A detail that attracked your attention. Your views about things that you want to share. An experiment. Another part of yourself.
And how you look, and what others think, mostly don’t matter.
Everyone sees an image in his/her own way, each with another personal background. We are all individuals with different passions and interests.
Don’t let people who don’t share your passions get the best of you. Keep up the excellent work, I’m looking forward to new pics already.