» “Naked, turned on Lolita, who lies on a sofa”
The article in El Pais! (see online here).
Some viewers told me that they disliked this article. I’ll discuss it in my next post when I also share some pics of the exhibition launch from Thursday night. For now I’d like you to make your mind up for yourself. Is this article a misrepresentation of ‘Miss Aniela’?
Translation (below) thanks to Eva (title quoted from Patricia Ossietta’s translation)
—-
“Photographic Self-Eroticism”
“A British artist’s success in the net posting intimate self-portraits.”
Beatriz Portinari - Madrid.
“Like other music bands and artists, her fame was born in Internet, via her Flickr-page, where millions of potential admirers share photographs. The enigmatic name Miss Aniela (www.flickr.com/photos/ndybisz/) had everything to become successful on the Net: she was a lolita who got naked in front of of her camera, with a sexy pose and flash, a bit of Photoshop, oniric light, clones … and the internet users at her feet.
“Her images made clear pictoric references to Balthus, sometimes even as a cinematographic recreation reinvented by herself. There is the excited woman on the coach, the relaxed and naked on the sofa, another one without clothes and in front of the window or cloned among the rocks. Behind the 477 photographes, seen by three million people since she opened her webpage two years ago, hides the British student Natalie Dybisz (Leeds, 1986), who opens tomorrow Self-gazing, her first exposition in Spain.
“In spite of the polemic her images usually provoke, criticised by feminist movements, Miss Aniela assures that each photograph has a reivindicative message, started in her youth with tricks of photos where she appeared kissing herself. “In that moment I started to read feminist literature and I wanted to express a certain kind of self-erotism, associated to what I felt in those moment. I wanted to celebrate being with myself”, explains the young woman, accused by some sectors of being narcissistic and by others of being pornographic and exhibitionist. The thing that started as a online diary where she wrote her thoughts with her daylife images became a more risky and daring work, with the danger of being censored loads of times, in the one where the illumination and the scenification are her allies. After participating in the collective exposition ‘How we are now’ last year in Tate Britain in London and becoming a reference of the main trend publications, Miss Aniela assures she wants to continue with her photographic nudism: “Everything comes from my passion to create powerfull and intriguing images, using the first model I have closer. So, why should I do something different now?”
“Self -gazing. From tomorrow in the gallery Camara Oscura. Alameda,16. Till 31st May.”
This entry was posted on Friday, April 18th, 2008 at 9:54 pm and is filed under Exhibition/publicity-linked. 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
April 18th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I don’t get it really. So, they say that what is wrong there is that some pictures are naked, right? Didn’t they notice other photos? Besides this argument doesn’t make any sense. I assume that feminist movements will criticize Goya as well. This is silly. No this is simply stupid
I understand that one can dislike these photos (de gustibus non est disputandum) but for Pete’s sake, pick right arguments!
April 19th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Props to the translators for doing a slightly better job than babelfish.
I don’t think the piece is overly offensive, but I’m both blasé and cynical about the media no matter how highbrow it purports to be. One must remember that facts (including news) are refracted through the eyes of journalists seeking to get “the message” to a wide audience. Broadsheets are just the same as tabloids, really; they just use longer words.
Remember how disappointed you were with that “Picture This” TV show for dumbing down? El Pais is “guilty” of the same treatment. It isn’t an intellectual journal of photography. It is a mass-market publication, designed to interest a wide audience. The esoteric is disregarded in order to get more basic ideas across. Anyone with a personal knowledge or interest in a particular art form will spot glaring omissions and “lazy” stereotypes in an article designed for the mass-market.
I wouldn’t say the article misrepresents you, exactly. I’m not sure whether you were directly interviewed (and for how long) but just about any journalist will mould quotes into a form that suits their purposes best. (A famous rock critic once said “I spent my life trying to make musicians sound more intelligent and interesting than they really are - thus enabling them to become millionaires - and they still complain that I misquoted them in a couple of articles.)
I’ve said before how your art is “infuriating” in that it can’t all be bracketed as one thing. It’s not all erotic, or wholly narcissistic, or wholly (old school) feminist. If it was entirely predictable, I’d probably get bored by it. For this reason, I think the guy at El Pais has provided a fairly decent introduction to your body of work, which has clearly provoked many new people to check out your flickr.
If fans of your work are annoyed at the article, I think it is because they don’t want you being pigeonholed. That’s fine, but they must be realistic. I’d like to see how they can sum up all the subtleties of your work with 750 words or so.
They also seem to be reading between the lines and drawing conclusions that I simply don’t see. The El Pais piece isn’t even critical. It doesn’t say, for instance, that “nude pictures are wrong”. It just mentions some of the themes of your art, and sends readers to your stream and exhibition to make up their own minds.
Would you prefer if the article just said “Miss Aniela is beautiful and all her work is perfect”?
I’m reasonably happy with the piece as it’s good publicity for you. If this article is unfair, wait till The Sun and The Star start writing headlines like “Turner Prize Natalie’s Photos are a Load of Arse”.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:15 am
@ Arty: Well, I was one of the “fans” that didn’t like the article. I’m studying journalism and I think with 750 words they could have said more and better. It’s not about they’re saying Aniela’s work is bad; is just they focus the attention on her nudity and based her success on that. That’s why I didn’t like it.
But as you said, El Pais is not a photography magazine; is just the most important newspaper in Spain; and I think they should have been more open-minded, as they used to be.
ps: and glad you understand the translation.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Thanks alot for your feedback.
Arty you say
“your art is “infuriating” in that it can’t all be bracketed as one thing. It’s not all erotic, or wholly narcissistic, or wholly (old school) feminist. If it was entirely predictable, I’d probably get bored by it.”
That is exactly why I felt (and I assume why others felt) a dscomfort with the focus entirely on the nude parts of my work. Like you say, Eva, “they focus the attention on her nudity and based her success on that.” It kind of gives the impression that all my work is nude, and that my nudity is what made me popular.
However, I do not necessarily see ‘And’s’ reading into the article, that there is ’something wrong with nudity’. I agree that the article is not saying anything negative about my work. But the fact that is approaches only the nudity is a suggestion, an invitation, for the viewer to read my work as soft porn. Maybe some will, maybe some won’t. Yes, they can go to my site and see for themselves. I don’t think the article tells us what to think about my nudity, but it provides a narrow outlook by talking only about the nudity. However, I do accept that this is the angle taken by the journalist, and I’m not angry, that would be futile as interpretations will always be varied from person to person (and journalist to journalist). In thie case I am lucky to have people (my viewers who come to the article with pre-knowledge of my work) can intelligently recognise where biases naturally occur and make their own personal response. That’s why I left this article on the blog for people to make up their minds, I’m realising more and more (especially in the last couple of months) to relax and let the viewer see make their own interpretation of everything an ‘artist’ does, not to worry about trying to impose your personal views onto them! Let them talk amongst themselves. Whether or not I join in, is now the hanging question…
Lol @ the arse Turner Prize.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Vehemence is a dangerous word but the right one.
Ive read this article like 5 or 6 times before visiting the exhibition.
First time I read it I got a very bad impression of it, indeed it shocked me. And aw come on, Im 18, I dont have any idea about art and journalism, so ehm my critique comes from my first impression as just a spanish newspaper reader. It wasnt just me, Ive showed that article to my parents, class mates, Eva and I read it together…etc. We all complained about the sensationalist point of view that it provides.
BUT
Ive just read it once and once again (beacause of this thread) and I must say the article is not as bad a it seemed at first read. Indeed with all that nudity, erotic and soft porn allusions in the first paragraphs the journalist is complaining about what people on Flickr sometimes say about Miss Anielas stream (nudity, narcisism etc). Then the journalist makes a contrast in the last paragraph. Its like: Whats behind all this vehement opinions? And she writes about Natalie´s point of view. Thats nice and neutral. Ive been searching more articles writen by this woman. I found some, and she uses always the same structure. She seems to love contrasts.
Im afraid people can get a wrong first impression as I did. But in the other hand I think this is a great publicity, the title and images themselves catch the attention of thousands and thousands of readers.
Congratulations for your exhibition Natalie.
April 19th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
“She was a Lolita who got naked in front of of her camera, with a sexy pose and flash, a bit of Photoshop”
This is a reductive and demeaning introduction, as we all know there was and is a lot more than sexy poses and a “bit of Photoshop” being used in your work. It is, however, fairly typical for the opening paragraph of any piece of journalism. It grabs the attention, and invites the reader to find out more, which is found lower down in the article.
“It kind of gives the impression that all my work is nude, and that my nudity is what made me popular.”
I suppose it does, but one only needs to look at your “600+ Faves” set on flickr to see that, generally speaking, the nudes are more popular. Of the sixteen images currently in that set, eight are nude or topless, and four more have strongly sexual connotations, as they focus on your bare legs.
People don’t look at your photos just because of the nudity (and you seem to generate just as many comments, if not more, when you are clothed) but to deny that the nudity is not an important factor in your popularity would be futile.
I don’t know if there was a press release prior to the Spanish show, which could have planted a seed in the journalist’s mind, but I think you will continue to be questioned about the sex-art nexus for as long you make “beautiful images of a beautiful woman”. The old BBC clip seemed to be all about the “controversy” of nudity in your art. Perhaps, this debate needs to be left in the past. Controversy has helped you gain publicity, but I think it’s probably best not to bring up the tired old subject when you next have an interview. If and when the journalists ask you about nudity or pornography, just tell them politely to read your blogs and flickr profile for your well documented views, and request questions on other subjects, since there is more to you than tits n’ arse.
Make the journos work for a living!
April 20th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I have found this blog looking for information about your photos, because a friend of me recommends me your work as “very interesting”. She was the journalist of El Pais that you criticise.
I can’t believe what you are saying about her article that, by the way, gave lot of entries in your Flickr. And I’m sure that if her newspaper knew what you were going to say, they wouldn’t have published a word about your art.
She is one of the most open-minded journalists of that old newspaper, and you can’t imagine the problems she had to convince the editors to publish it. I know, also, that she made you a long interview but couldn’t write everything she wanted because of the few words they let her.
After reading this blog I think you need more humility and do less value judgement without knowing the context.
April 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Great message, Pilar Rubio. I don’t wish to speak for Natalie, but I don’t think she’s been openly critical of your colleague. Other supporters were initially disappointed at the apparent angle of the piece, but we all realise it was a great piece of publicity, and I’m sure Natalie is extremely grateful for that.
Most artists seek some sort of control over the interpretation of their work and representations of themselves as people. It’s only natural to wonder how such an important article in Natalie’s career could have been treated differently.
I’m one of the few who had no major problems with the article, and others have admitted to having knee-jerk reactions that weren’t appropriate.
Natalie has said above that she is realising that her work has a life of its own, so she is trying to be more “relaxed” about how it is treated.
While it’s very easy to criticise the press, your message served as a timely reminder that journalists are people too.
April 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
@ Pilar
I was over the moon to be in the newspaper and I thanked Beatriz by email after I first saw it on the plane (nicked it from the cabin crew). I fully appreciate the publicity it gave me - which included 3000 website views on Wednesday.
I never said I disliked the article or regretted being in El Pais, all I have done is discuss the opinions of my viewers - viewers who know the newspaper well, and also even the journalist’s past work.
What I have done is allowed a discussion of these viewers’ personal interpretations of the article, whilst trying to prevent myself from having any opinion of it really. I just want to appreciate being in the newspaper, and let others decide whether the text can be criticised. Is it wrong for people to respond intelligently to a text in this way?
Besides, like Arty says, there’s a difference between the ‘press’ and a journalist. I am not criticising the writer herself, just as in the same way, I would not criticise the BBC reporter who interviewed me last year, who though was an communicable and intelligent person, narrated a somewhat glib final piece. That’s because of the limits of editing, which I understand in this case have not allowed Beatriz to give a fuller interview and impression of me.
I appreciate the way the press works, but that doesn’t mean we can’t openly discuss and evaluate their notorious ways. No one should be personally offended in the process, and I apologise if anyone has been offended.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
In Spain, we say:
__________________________________________________
“La intención es lo que cuenta…”
__________________________________________________
“Intention matters…”
__________________________________________________
Cheers to Both of You!
(The Offended & The One On The Defensive)
PS - Sorry for the intrusion! But my faults outweigh my virtues!
__________________________________________________
May 19th, 2008 at 11:31 am
.
I have this article
nailed on my studio’s wall…
cheers from spain!
:]
July 12th, 2008 at 3:17 am
Wow, there’s a revolution happening here, I love it! God bless the internet. I think the article is well rounded, your work is pure art of form and emotion.
http://chicaandhervan.blogspot.com/
my work is not yet at the quality as yours, but I’m inspired and improving.
xo chica