Miss Aniela Photography

Tried to upload a picture here (of me looking shocked) but it won’t work. I’ll try later.

In This Week’s Magazine: Sepia No More by The New York Times.

Warning: its ignorance and snobbery might be too overwhelming. Hang on to your contact lenses - they might just blast out.

I wrote this response which should appear on the Comments of the article shortly. I even put my swear word ’shit’ with two stars so they’d better publish it.

——
Wow, how much snobbery and ignorance can be packed into one article?

The stance Heffernan takes on photography couldn’t be clearer; true photography is, of course, made by ‘art-school photographers’ who ‘continue to shoot on film, embrace chiaroscuro and resist prettiness’. Anything that has been near a computer is ‘not quite right’.

Dare I say it, I am a “photographer”, because I create, using a digital camera (gasp!) and varying amounts of Photoshop (gasp!) - or what you might dub ‘digital tricks’, that is, if you were the most resolutely anti-modern snob who doesn’t realise that Photoshop is in fact a tool like any other “production mischief” used in the sacred darkroom, and just as challenging to utilise.

Like others I see emerging through Flickr, my photography career started with being, yes, “proficient” at “how to create images that would look good shrunk in “thumbnail” form” and how to “flirt with Flickr’s visitors in the comments area to keep them coming back”. (By the way, the way the writer has used the word “flirt” to describe Rebekka G’s process is not sexist at all, is it?)

It is amazing how the writer casts off the Internet as a medium in its entirety - apparently, it’s only a place for “failed” or “out of step” artists. That is a laughable suggestion when I consider how many artists would never have got into photography nor felt encouraged to keep creating more work had it not been for the encouragement they receive from a worldwide audience on the likes of sites like Flickr. Flickr does not make these artists. There is no such thing as a “Flickr photograph”. All kinds of people use Flickr, but I know that fine artists use Flickr as tool to gain feedback on their work and showcase it for wider external publicity, the quite unshameful and really quite fascinating equivalent of physically trolling one’s portfolio round galleries.

According to this article, Flickr viewers “pretend” to have “expertise” in photography, their comments are “naive”, “gushing”, and don’t recognise real photography when they see it, even when posted as a spoof. Does this mean - gasp! - that perhaps the majority are having a say about what actually is exciting imagery? Could this be a forum for everyone to express their opinion on art, in this case photography, whether they are educated at art school or not? Could this be a blurring of high and low art; could Flickr represent - shock horror - democracy?

What exactly is wrong, other than defying the nature of “real” photography from Arbus and Bresson, with artists who work at “abandoning realism”? With, what the writer dubs, “creamy fantasy pictures”? With anything that isn’t “rawer and grainier 35-millimeter photography”? Who has the right to say what “photography” is or isn’t? Why should photography be subject to such elitism? Why isn’t the writer welcoming to a medium that helps make these changes?

Heffernan should get over the fact that this is simply no longer an age where the artist needs “elaborate deference to institutions, hard-won group shows and expensive years spent in unnoticed toil” as “the only way to success.” And all the better for it! Sites like Flickr don’t make it any easy to get your work seen, if anything, they make it more competitive, all it means that the artist does not need to be a first rate, first-degree snob to get anywhere near an appointment with a gallery.

Without the Internet (Flickr) I would never have created the wealth of images I now have in both my online and physical portfolios; and without Photoshop, I would never have been so stimulated by photography to start with. I would not have had two exhibitions, including a current show in Madrid, been featured in the Tate Britain, had publicity with the likes of the BBC, El Pais, La Repubblica, and art magazines internationally and be selling work, nor would I be invited to speak at an important Microsoft photography event later this year.

I would find it hilarious (if it wasn’t so exasperating) that the writer does not see how precious the internet and Photoshop are as tools to the artist today, even when she is consciously discussing Rebekka G’s Toyota commission that resulted from building her impressive portfolio on Flickr. Of course, we have to shit all over pictures that have used anything but traditional processing means; so it’s wrong to be impressed by Rebekka’s really quite impressive early pictures (only a certain social group should be able to say what is worthy of praise and it’s all down to how it was made.) Not only are Rebekka’s 4 million views incidental, but the external recognition of her work by art galleries and by the Toyota commission itself just simply can’t mean anything. All because she used Photoshop. (And her “movie-star eyes” must be mentioned because they must make her self portraiture soooo much easier).

It is quite stunning how uneducated this article makes the writer look. Digital photography: “forced, intense, contrived, juvenile”? Might not be your cup of tea Ms Heffernan, but don’t slag off the many artists who choose to embrace technology as part of their artistic process that is as dignified as any other. Is true photography about ‘resisting prettiness’? If so, my work, and that of an array of talented emerging artists showcasing their images on Flickr, is rendered worthless. I certainly will never accept that value, and I think only a few thousand million people, including an increasing amount of gallery directors whom you thought had the same notions as you, wouldn’t either.

Above: l-r, 5-1!

Ok, here’s my current ‘Top 5 flickr inspirations’. It comes as an odd time to write this, because at the moment I’m kind of pissed off with the Flickr community.
I fully appreciate my Flickr viewership, exemplified by the 170+ comments on my latest pic, ‘Their evening banter’. I consider this one of my best works and so to have so much feedback at least shows some promise that Flickr viewership can be trusted ;)) Most of those comments are meaningful and substantial, but the one that means the most to me by far is the one I received from the manager who let me use that hotel room. Therefore the comments mean more on a quality over quantity basis. I think Federico Erra came along and faved it. That means more than ten comments like “so beautiful !” that actually make me feel a little ill. What do they mean? I see that comment written on crappy pics all over Flickr, should I be flattered to receive it myself? Have you actually looked at the pic? Or do you just see a naked/’pretty’ woman and decide blindly that the highest superlative is needed?
Someone recently said that there’s none of that ’so beautiful’ nonsense on my blog. So this is the best place to write my critique.

I want to withdraw myself from Flickr a little bit because I’m bored of the childish behaviour coming from those who feel is necessary to sit down like a saddo and judge everyone, unfairly stereotyping and incriminating users for being snobby or untalented or any other derogatory term these bored-minded people can come up with.

However, I also want to withdraw myself from Flickr a bit precisely because there is some truth in what these people say. I just wish their vitriol was better aimed, or at least not so sweeping. Not everyone is an attention-seeking talentless poo round which sycophantic flies gather. However, I feel as if I am at the end of my tether with people on Flickr blatantly ripping me off, who don’t even realise it. They and their sycophants make me feel like the word ‘artist’ is being thrown around far too much in this, yes democratic, but ever so naive, cyberspace community where anyone can ‘make it’.
As I said in my first Inspirations post, I count a real artist as one who is honest about his or her inspirations, who makes no effort to hide them, in fact, who makes a special effort every now and then to highlight them, to name them and link to them so that viewers can put their work, and thus their originality, into context.
There are so-called ‘artists’ on Flickr who simplistically recycle the images they have previously seen and admired, taking praise for having created a great piece of ‘art’. It bothers me twice as much because I feel I am the only one who can recognise that I am amongst those being plagiarised.
Obviously all photographers/artists will have to put up with copycats for some time, or even all of the time. But this is why I have a problem with Flickr, because so many viewers and users, blind to where plagiarism has occurred, are eager to plant virtual kisses all over the arses of the amateurs spawned by the internet phenomenon. It seems to make it easier for them to make a unoriginal image and get away with it, to even get praised for it.

Here are the current inspirations.

5. Ilina S

NY-based Ilina has a great popping processed style that is right up my street. I think her most recent work is the mst impressive - I was bewitched by her Valentine’s post. Her face, skin and eyes come out wonderfully in her work, as in this pic. Her Flickr portfolio is quite small so I’d love to see more from her. I haven’t yet been directly inspired by one of her pieces, but her and Vaneska Thomz (further below) generally maintain my confidence to be brave and bold with post-processing.

4. Lara Swift
She’s in my first list too. Had to add her into both lists because she’s produced some corkers recently - like this one and this mermaid one. Her work is quite deathly and gothic even, but that doesn’t put me off because she seems more nonchalantly original than alot of similarly death-loving artists. I have also heard her mention she has depression, which makes her artistic intentions a little more meaningful.

3. Vaneska Thomz
Vanessa, like Ilina above, has a stream full of square-cropped boldly colour-paletted images that offer me courage as a digital photographer. ‘Air’ is amazing and I was directly inspired by this one of hers but never quite produced anything close to it. Her work uses alot of textures and can get quite surreal. I do prefer the simpler ones which I find more effective (same goes for my No. 1 below). Pictures with floaty garments like this one was part of my inspiration to do more with interesting clothing. I also love the soft processing, hair, setup and composition of her pic ‘elegantly wasted’.
A pic I did recently, ‘Party piece(s)’ was made with Vanessa in mind (I was flattered when she faved it) but I did not mention her because it was not directly inspired by any particular pic of hers.

2. Oladios
I’ll write her what I wrote in my testimonial for Oladios.
“I came across Ola’s weird and wonderful work one day through the Female Self Portrait Artists’ group and was immediately struck by how well she photographs her cats. What’s more, she captures them perfectly within the difficult feat of self portraiture! She becomes her own character within the quaint comic strip world of her images; a mysterious girl interacting with the animals who are placed as if by a paintbrush. This play between human and cat Oladios tells us is very much in the style of Balthus’ paintings, but Ola takes his nubile nude and replaces it with her clothed - and masked - self.

“Ola is one of the very few people on Flickr for whom I feel art is a special vocation, almost a divine power that comes from above, rather than from the influence of her peers such as on Flickr. Artists like Ola don’t worry about fitting in, they don’t try to master a certain level of photography in order to be accepted. They just get on with creating magic through what they are naturally good at - employing their superior sense of the visual.

“Whilst she may take inspiration from other artists, artists like Ola never seem to be copying an image or rendering photographic cliches as if there were a limited supply of ideas in self-portraiture. Instead, they take inspiration from selected diverse and obscure sources, in Ola’s case, those inspirations go from Balthus’ paintings to Nirvana lyrics.”

I haven’t been directly inspired by any of her pics as yet, but her work just generally fills me with a good feeling about photography. It’s weird when you realise that most of her pics on Flickr are taken in the same room, from the same angle, with the same subjects, and yet she can create a different surreal narrative every time, using some props and a crazy imagination!
My faves of her work are Jozin z basin and this one.

When I did my pic ‘Self portrait with Sally’ I mentioned the work of Ola with regards to keeping animals still and obedient during photoshoots. She not only seems to have control over them, but seems to have the power of a circus ringleader to even get them to do roll over and jump up!

1. Quizz
Bogna’s work impresses and excites me more than anything I’ve seen inside or even outside of Flickr.
Her work is like a modern-day classic art museum, a girl who uses her digital camera and Photoshop to create painting-like masterpieces that look more like photorealistic paintings.
My favourites of her work are most usually the ones with least use of ‘texture’ - that is, the ones that allude to paintings, with the subject unobscured by the addition of textured layers. My favourites include ‘Pillow book’, ‘Publications feel good’, ‘Read my lips’, and ‘Balancing on the edge of light’. I was lucky to do a collaboration with her - see her image here, mine here, though I’ve never met her (the collaboration was done digitally).
Quizz always inspires me but usually, when inspired, I end up creating something completely different, which is a good thing!
You can see the influence of Quizz in images of mine such as An impromptu performance and Bless this mess. She’s inspired me to try harder with motion and expression - a poetry of the body. As a result, I often look theatrical, as noticeable in They found themselves on stage.

Out of her recent work in my opinion the astounding image water, exceeds the level of most of the other more ‘popular’ images.

And that’s my 5.

Some more ones to watch:
Brady
What Milk
Sophie Charlotte (only young! some fantastic inspirational spritely work that inspired me recently)

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.

Picture what?

Three weeks ago I sat down to watch the first installment of a programme called Channel 4’s ‘Picture This’, slightly disappointed that I hadn’t heard about the competition in time to enter, as digital photography and photo-sharing are a big part of my life.

By the end of the programme, instead, I was confused, angry and wanted to complain.

The fundamental flaw of the programme, established from the outset, was its lack of clarity. What kind of photographer are these judges looking for? An all-rounder, apparently - one who can do casual portraits, studio portraits, and documentary - and more areas, I gathered, in the two more episodes to come. I found this unrealistic, as most photographers find their niche and their style in one area and become renowned for that. It at least sounds more like the criteria of a bread-and-butter photographer, and yet, the competition rewards the final winner with an exhibition and a book, which alludes more to the fine-art photographer. Very confusingly, the judges seemed to want someone who can both be conventional and original, or at least, be conventional when they require it, and original at other times. As they judged the contestants’ final images, one person’s image was praised for being fitting nicely into what’s required for a left-spread in a magazine, whilst another contestant was criticised for their picture being the kind that is too often seen in magazines. Then another was mocked for looking like a shoot for a band’s new CD cover. What are they looking for, a photographer of commercial or fine-art value? It was absurdly unclear.

I cringed as I watched the programme precariously touch upon ‘retouching’. The contestant ‘has retouched the picture’, the voiceover trembled. The competition is apparently looking for ‘Britain’s best new digital photographer’, and yet, the traditional stance on photography demonstrated by the judges in the programme couldn’t be clearer. Is digital processing going to be treated like the plague in a programme that is supposed to be celebrating the digital age and the proliferation of photo-sharing - a programme sponsored by Flickr?

I have always upheld the notion that the ease and inexpense of digital photography has democratised photography, in that it has opened up the art to a whole world of people who might not have discovered it otherwise. To me, digital photography goes hand in hand with the proliferation of the use of digital post-processing in programs like Photoshop. In this programme, digital post-processing was represented as nothing more than ‘trickery’ and, referred to by Joy Gregory, as an ‘artifice’. The participant Tarlyn, who dared to manipulate her images, was rejected, and shown stating that she now wants to create ‘purer’ images. How much I wanted to get my point to her, that the judges are snobs of traditional photography and were in the wrong place judging a competition to find ‘Britain’s best new digital photographer’.

I personally hold strong the view that Photoshop is a tool like any other artistic instrument. I do not agree that it carries any less status than those techniques used traditionally, from filters fixed to cameras, to chemicals in the darkroom. All art involves having an artistic vision, and today, one’s vision has the opportunity to use computer-based tools, and that is a technological progression which we cannot ignore and should not be considered wrong. I find it absurd that some people think of Photoshop-based post-processing as ‘cheating’, as it can only add to a picture that has been composed well to begin with. Moreover, if the artist can create something magical from an initially poor picture, that is down to their skill on Photoshop. Photoshop is a challenging tool to use, and even the ‘Auto-correcting’ tools cannot necessarily be an instant answer to creating a successful image. It is when both production and post-production are intertwined skillfully that the results can be breathtaking.

As an exhibiting artist myself, in the judges’ eyes, I certainly can’t be a real photographer, but an artist of trickery and artifice. I was glad I didn’t bother trying to enter, only to have my hopes dashed by a set of sour ponces.

Picture shit

Little did I know that the third episode would rile me even further beyond belief.
I was personally unimpressed with most of candidates chosen by the producers to start with. But as I watched the final, and saw the stunning work of Lucinda Chua alongside her opponent’s, I was sure Lucinda would win. She clearly demonstrated herself to be the better photographer, if her professional use of lighting, setting, models and final selection of images was anything to go by. I was absolutely appalled by the ‘work’ of Elizabeth Gordon. She chose to document her history of alcoholism. In the judges’ eyes, she had a story, unlike Lucinda. Trouble is, she had no photographic skill to do anything with it. Was I the only viewer looking at a set of wonky outtakes akin to those that an amateur snapper would get developed at the local Max Spielmann’s? Hideously ‘composed’, poorly lit, and with absolutely no technical positives whatsoever, I could not believe this woman was in the final at all. That confused me enough, and yet, Elizabeth Gordon went on to win the competition and have a book and exhibition. I was speechless.
The first episode rejected Jay Mawson for having too ‘raw’ a talent; in the second episode, Ed Thompson was ejected for sticking too much to his usual professional documentary style and Aron Brown for not sticking to his style.
The final rejects Lucinda for having a look they apparently deemed too commercial and polished, and prized Elizabeth for having a ‘raw’ story.
Is it only me that sees massive and confused contradictions running throughout?

I can only come to the conclusion that this is a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Whatever the judges’ and the overall institution’s motives are for producing this show are evident in their choice of winner. At first, the privileges given to the arts-educated was clear. At the final hurdle, the tables are turned and the thumbsucking ex-alcoholic - whose deficient technical skills and generally blind habit of taking absolutely shit photos means she really should have gone at the first round - comes to represent democracy, ‘Britain’s best new digital photographer’. ‘I can’t believe I’m here!’ said Elizabeth at the launch of her book at The Photographer’s Gallery. Nah, neither can we.

Let’s face it, television as a medium is rubbish. The over-simplification, and condensation of matters it tries to ‘inform’ us about, might be invisible too much of the time, but becomes strikingly clear to the viewer who watches a programme themed on a topic close to their heart. TV is hardly the fairest and most democratic medium, but it will exploit illusions of democracy and meritocracy wherever it can.

I enjoyed watching the programme, not just because it led me to writing a heated response in which I can vent my energy, but because it taught me a valuable lesson. Not just that alcoholics apparently spit beer out into the air (perhaps that would solve the problem?) but that as long as you have a story, you can be an art photographer. All you have to do is take shitter pictures. (It makes me think of that massive crap amateur picture of a seagull on the weekend print stall by Brighton beach. Doesn’t matter if the photography’s crap, all you need is a stage.)

I’m off to ‘document’ my depression right now!