DAVIS AYER

I came across David Ayer work on a website called juxtapoz and found it extremely fascinating. I really like this idea of colour, he's made turned pictures of naked women into something quite surreal, which intrigues me. I can't work out if hiding the females faces makes the images less or more controversial, on one hand their identity is hidden but at the same time it feels like they're being used for them, rather than having their expressions in the image to lead the viewer know that she is happy with this. I really like effect he's used though on the image.  He does his work through double exposures which is another technic I could try. With the middle image I really like how the model has been given a camera too, it's this idea of everyone watching each other which I find interesting. With this as well, she seems to be more in control, you get this idea that she is having fun, rather than being made to stand in front of the camera, naked and uncomfortable. The colours in this image I would say are unnecessary, I don't feel they add anything to the image, I think it would be a strong image without it. 

IDEAS

Looking at my previous research so far I have come up with a few ideas…

1. I could use objects to represent private parts, such as balloons for breasts etc. This way I can include a naked body but not show their private parts, making the images have a more relaxed fun approach to them rather than a serious controversial note to them. With this I would still be able to use landscapes, but experiment with props and sorts instead. Definitely something to think about.

2. Creating a narrative, the issue I have with the images i've already taken would be that people jump to the wrong conclusion with them. Such as 'oh my god, men could have been staring at her, watching her, making her feel uncomfortable' (nonsense) however I can't stop people from thinking this, so with the help from my CP tutor, we came up with the idea that my images would have a narrative. Maybe the model is in control of the 'clicker' and takes the picture when he / she feels most comfortable. With this I would set the shoot up, so everything to do with camera settings, where the tripod is / or if I'm holding it, the landscape etc. This way, I can say that the model chose to press it, rather than I 'forced him or her' . 

Another way I could do this is by interviewing everyone I take pictures of. Ask them questions about how they feel, what it means to be naked etc. Ask them all the same ones, so there is a running theme. This way people can't make up their own 'story' of what is happening in the images etc as there will already be one with the image. 

3. I also thought about fabric concealing the body,  I was thinking either clear or black, so black conceals it completely, yet also creates a sense of shadows and light. However clear means you can still see the model nude, except there's still this image of viewing him or her. The only issue with this is that it might be hard to take the pictures not from a males perspective, but I suppose there isn't any harm in trying. 

4. I found this image by Amanda Jasnowski and I would love to try doing something like this.  I think it's absolutely stunning. Notice the arm pit hair as well, I absolutely love that the model is completely natural. 

Prue Stent

Stents 'Pink' series is something that probably isn't too relevant to my work but it really stood out to me - making me feel inspired if you wish. It's true, pink is never used enough or if it is, not very well. Prue Stent used this colour through out this serious to represent women, not just women though, the theme centres around feminism and the struggle women have with identity (see article at juxtapose). I really like this idea of creating a narrative through a colour. Red would give off the wrong connotations and blue would be stereotypically male, for example. I feel that pink was definitely the right colour. I feel like each image represents different things, like sex, struggle - in life,  calm, etc 

The females are naked, however the pink acts as a cover up, protection almost. It conceals them enough to make the image seem more innocent than it probably is. The colour being such a 'fun loving feminine' colour, makes it hard for you to speak negatively about these images in response to the girls being naked etc. 

This is something I could think about, although might be difficult now that it's already been done? Something I could try though, considering after recent feedbacks, I don't really have anything to lose. 

JANE RADSTROM

Jane Radstrom is an artist who considers her work to contemporary realism, in this series she wanted to focus on the nuances of body language and expression. 

"It is important to me that the girls are presented realistically, showing unidealized beauty and what I think of as a modern sense of confidence in candid moments, I hope that when you stand in front of a piece you can feel the presence of the person depicted.'

In my opinion I don't think she's done this, I feel as if she has done what I had unconsciously done on my shoots, created something that a man would have done. Although I like this idea of movement - something I could possible try with my own work - I feel like you don't look at the images as 'expressing candid moments' rather you look at them as if the females are teasing the males, the men are watching them, the women are putting on a show. Of course it's hard to say this is what's happening, as you can't see that from the painting, however this is how they make me feel. This is something I wouldn't want to have in my images, I don't want them to connote anything sexual and I feel that these do. 

I feel the same about the image below also, in fact I feel worse about this one. Although you can understand the female depicted is beautiful, sexual, natural etc. Which are all things women want to be portrayed as. I still feel that this is very much aimed at men. This could be used to make women uncomfortable with themselves. Although the tones of the art work are helping to decrease the sexual connotations, its the actual position of her body that stops me from straying away from this notion. You can definitely see the confidence but I wouldn't say she has successfully shown 'unidealised beauty'. 

Rineke Dijkstra

DO THESE CHILDRED LOOK VULNERABLE? 

JOCK STURGESS

Jock Sturgess is an male photographer from America who specialises in nude portraiture. Some of his work was taken at a naturist resort in California or nude beaches, does this change the way we look at his images? By adding a narrative does this make it okay?  His books have been compared to child pornography, however Sturgess stresses that he has a strong relationship with his models and the girls family, whom both consented to the images. These girls were not forced to pose for this photographs. Does this change how we look at the images? knowing that the girls felt comfortable with the photograph?

"He has photographed some subjects over a series of decades, tracing their growth into adults, as well as created images of families spanning several generations. Sturges has attracted a significant amount of controversy over his works, which some deem as crossing a boundary in using children in his erotic imagery, but he continually receives public support against such criticisms" - Artnet

I'm looking at his images to see how they would compare with mine, or if i can get any ideas from them regarding my own work.  Heres an example of his work.

The girls in the image below aren't looking directly at the camera but at the same time they also don't appear to be vulnerable. I know the image quality isn't too good but they look comfortable. It remind me of a movement before the image is taken. The obvious negative to this picture would be how young they are, but Sturgess hasn't taken pictures of them in a sexual manner. They're naked, not nude.

I think this image is worse than the one above, however I still only see it as a beautiful form/body. Her pose is too sexual, although it's a positive that she doesn't look vulnerable, i feel that Sturgess crosses this line ever so slightly.  Also I find the girl watching her rather disturbing, I get this feeling of envy or jealousy. The naked model showing off.

Why doesn't the photographer show the whole make naked? 

Kim Kardashian and all that is wrong with this world.

Kim Kardashian, the celebrity wannabe, the girl who got famous from a sex tape, the women who married Kanye and single handedly made his gold digger tune come true and for this posts purpose, the 'lady' who attempted to break the internet last night. 

Thats right, Kim K has released a set of images revealing her bottom online. I mean, this hasn't been the first time she has done this if you count her numerous half naked 'selflies' on Instagram, but for some reason these ones annoyed me more. Before you make judgement on this post, I know previously I said that 'women should be allowed to pose how they want, should be able to feel comfortable with their body' etc. But this is different and let me tell you why.  She has quite obviously done this to receive a high level of male attention, she has done this to show off and make herself feel better. By doing this she obviously feels that she's going to get an extensive amount of positive satisfaction from it and some sort of ego boost. This is the world we live in, she bizarrely thinks this is a good way to gain compliments and to make herself feel better? I just don't get it… For one, her body isn't real. The bum is fake, I mean its obvious, it's a freak of nature.. I'm still trying to work out why anyone would do that to themselves? but the only answer I can conjure up would be 'trends and our society'. Back when I was at school if a girl had a huge behind she would have to face endless abuse, 'fat ass' 'wide load' etc now it's become fashionable to inject fluid and what ever else into your arse crack and call yourself a 'real women'. These images set us females back so many places now, it goes against what the likes of Knightly and other celebrities were desperately trying to change. Knightly revealed her real breasts, Kardashian revealed a fake arse.. see the difference?

Kim claims that her reasons for this is to shove a middle finger up at the haters, but in theory she has just given them more to comment on. Paper magazine are using her laughable celebrity status to gain readers for their magazine, they're using her: "for our winter issue, we gave ourselves one assignment: Break the Internet. There is no other person that we can think of who is up to the task, than one Kim Kardashian West" they also call her "a pop culture fascination, able to generate headlines just by leaving her house" surely this shows my point clearly?  If anything I think I'm more disappointed with Cosmopolitan magazine, who claim she looks 'smoking hot',  cosmo magazine is read by girls from the ages as young as 18 to ladies over the age of 40. What kind of message are they sending out when they say that a fake ass and a women oiled up is sexy?  

How does this help my work?

How not to take a picture of a naked girl of course. I would rather look at a photograph of a woman looking slightly vulnerable but real, then someone pleased with themselves because they're fake, it just sends the wrong message out to young girls.

The Guardian - Topless Keira Knightly and 2014 the year women reclaimed our breasts.

A recent article - Monday 10th - to be exact was published on the Guardian website. In this article it mentions a recent controversial 'stunt' by Keira Knightly. If you don't know about this, then i'll tell you. Recently, Knightly posed topless for the front cover of Interview magazine, but she only agreed to do so if the magazine promised to keep her body natural - meaning no photoshop, no manipulation, nothing. Knightly states " her decision to bare all on the cover of the September issue was in fact a protest against the media for its damaging attitude towards body image" and this isn't the first time I've seen this. Recently there has been a lot of celebrity women coming forward baring their breasts and no, not to do it for the pleasure of man but to make our breasts 'ours again'. They want to show people the real women, the difference in breasts, the un-manipulated photoshopped tits, the untouched by surgeons boobs - the real, the small, the saggy, the large, the no boob etc. Comedian Tig Notaro, after being catcalled at recent stand up show, un popped her shirt to reveal post op breast cancer surgery (I know, what an incredible women) she then carried on the show topless, to prove a point that 'No breasts are okay too'.  This is another example of women embracing their bodies - no sexual connotations used what-so-ever. 

Taken by Patrick Demarchelier

“I think women’s bodies are a battleground and photography is partly to blame. It’s much easier to take a picture of somebody without a shape; it simply is. Whereas actually you need tremendous skill to be able get a woman’s shape and make it look like it does in life, which is always beautiful. But our society is so photographic now, it becomes more difficult to see all of those different varieties of shape"

- Keira Knightly

In this guardian article, the writer states that we should be allowing women to do this. We need to get this society back into looking at women's bodies the way they should me - natural. In fact the last paragraph simply states " So this kind of nonchalant defiance that Knightley, Notaro and everyday women are offering up isn’t just important – it’s desperately needed. If we want to normalize women’s bodies, we need to present them with a shrug, not just a wink. They’re bodies, we’re people, deal with it. You don’t like it? Tough tithes" 

How does this help my work though?

This article is basically stating that as long as the womens bodies are real, we're showing them in their natural form, how the women want there bodies to be, then what is wrong with that? We need to show this more, because if we don't, we will carry on living in the world where studies show young boys to believe that fake tits are real - Seriously, they believe that fake breasts are what girls actually have and that if they were too see my tiny, odd shaped ones, then they would be the unnatural ones.  Really?..

Is this something I could bring forward in my work?

I keep saying that I want to show women in the truest form, yet also contradicting myself due to the era we live in - the normality behind getting rid of body hair or adding tattoos etc. It can't really be done. But maybe thats what we all need to realise? we have all changed. This isn't the 70's, girls shave now. I know I'll probably be condemned for saying this, but so what? regardless to some of the negative connotations to shaving, girls have grown up thinking it's okay, many believe it or not, don't shave simply for their lovers. I mean take me for example, i don't shave, but then sometimes I fancy a change and do.. Is that so wrong? I'm single, I haven't got a man to please, so why do I do it? Because i suppose i've been manipulated by our culture - This point is something I think I should show. I should looking representing the girls of today, making slight references to the society we live in. 

Esther Sabetpour

From the moment I came across Esther Sabetpours work it astounded me, the prints were so beautiful and natural. Her self portraits are truthful and elegant, you almost forget that she is naked. Her scars in my opinion, add to the beauty, they act as what clothing would do, covering her naked body, giving the illusion that she isn't completely naked. Most people when it comes to body imperfection would say negative things about these images, however I find it hard too. Despite the connotations of the scars, she makes them a part of her, she embraces them, the colours, the shapes, everything.. it is simply stunning. 

What I need to ask myself though is, how does this link with my work?

Obviously the topic of being naked is the clear link between mine and hers. But what I really wanted to explore is why it seems okay for her to be portrayed as vulnerable in her images? yet the female in mine can't (if you look back to my previous feedback). Of course, many would say that Sabetpours confidence and bravery to show her body in this way is simply something to congratulate, simply because - as I stated earlier - the negative connotations towards the scars. However should it matter? scars or no scars, shouldn't we always commend females who are brave enough to stare down the lens, naked and confident? Hannahs stretch marks - although considered not as serious as Sabetpours scars - could be her personal body issue and she exposed them, does that not show bravery? I'm not talking about pornstars or glamour models, I'm talking about real women, with real bodies embracing what they have and showing it, presenting themselves to the art world. What is wrong with that? Why in our current culture do we slap on negative connotations to any images which show a bit of nakedness?  If a women wants to shave her pubic hair, go ahead. If she doesn't thats fine also? By doing that, she's not saying she wants to be seen in a sexual manner or as a pubescent child, she's just doing what unfortunately growing up in this world, has taught us to do. It's the world that is wrong, not the photographer capturing it. 

Moving on on though.. 

Esther hasn't just captured her body with the scars, before the accident she took naked self portraits too, which are equally as beautiful. There is one image in particular that caught my eye, her naked self is climbing up a swimming pool ladder, where at the top awaits a man, he's looking away from her but what is her body saying? When I look at this image, I feel that she is empowered, although there is sexual connotations, the picture gives of the feelings of confidence. Another way to look at it is, why is the man clothed and she isn't? does this link with my previous posts, this desire for women to get naked to please the man? You could say, due to the fact the male is looking away, her body is putting on a show to attract his attention (just look at the arms and the way her legs are). These are just some of the things I've thought when looking at the image.. 

BUT

What this tells me is that you can look at an image like this - or similar-  in many ways and not everyone is going to be happy. We live in a world where because everything has already been done before (or mostly has) that we link it with what we already know, so that could be sexual images by helmut newton or 'oh look, that women is naked.. she's obviously trying to be Kate Moss' or what ever else. We also live in a world that is so constricted, we get boxed in, everything needs to have 'warning' label on it, because apparently anything can offend any one these days.  This is something i'm really going to have to think about with my work...

At the end of the day.

Both women are brave. 

How they appear in the photo, as vulnerable or confident, still doesn't take away the fact they were brave enough to bare all.  

Edouard Manet - Olympia

'Manet was a Realist, but sometimes his “real” situations shocked and rocked the Parisian art world to its foundations'

This painting by Manet was first exhibited in Paris 1865. This painting was brought to my attention after I showed my tutor the image of Hannah staring straight at the camera. This image when first shown, caused an astonishing amount of controversy and criticism and it was for the same reason, the females gaze rather than her nudity. The female in the painting stares at the viewer, making her seem 'confrontational' giving of the connotations that she is a prostitute. This is because at this time, women wouldn't be open to sex, it was all 'hush hush' so too speak. It's not like today where women are happy to get naked or appeal in a sexual way, it's more open now in my culture. This is me taking it metaphorically though, because in fact there are many connotations to prostitution in this painting, her slipper, her orchid and her black bow all being some of them. Her hand is also something that gives off the message that she is a prostitute, her hand blocks her private area, giving off the notion that although she is naked, she isn't enticing men to 'come get her' but in fact showing that she can grant or restrict permission for men to come to her. She is confident, not vulnerable which is something I need to portray in my images, however I then run the risk of my images connoting this element of prostitution. I need to be able to find the line and stay on it.  I would like to think that my image of hannah didn't give off the impression of 'come get me' and rather ' i'm naked and I'm happy' (maybe something not as cliche as that, but you know what I mean). 

This is my own image I'm referring to : 

More feedback - November.

After my recent - safe to say - not so good but slightly helpful feedback, I had yet another one on one with my actual VP tutor. Here I went through my recent feedback and asked him if he could break it down for me because some of the things that were said previously, I was struggling with.  In this session we went through each of the images I had showed the previous tutor and I was told how they could be taking in a negative way etc.

The below received the feedback of : 

- Beautiful and outstanding, tutor wouldn't consider this image to show the female as vulnerable, due to her facial expression. He also wouldn't class it as a fashion shot, as the stretch marks, in true fashion style, would be manipulated / air bruised out. The only negative that the tutor could think of would be that her shoulders could show vulnerability, the way they are raised up.

^ This is something I would agree with, I had thought that myself. How I can take this foreword though is difficult, because it's been done plenty of times. It would also still receive negative feedback due to the fact that it is seen as natural for men to be topless in everyday life but women aren't, so these types of images, shot within this framing style, would seem a normal shot for men, but not for women. 

Another negative comment for this image could be that it is too intense, her stare could represent the misogyny, meaning the hatred of women. Which is something theorists - NEED TO FIND OUT WHO- have said that women have started to do this too. It's also been said that because of this, women feel a sense of empowerment when they are topless, or pose nude. An example of this being a mens magazine competition where women had to show their breasts to judges,  the lady with what would be considered to have the best breasts, then won a photoshoot to be put in the mens magazine - again, revealing her breast. When did we see this as a prize? The question we need to ask ourselves is why can't women see that we're just being used by the men, we're allowing ourselves to be treated this way because we've been manipulated into thinking it is some sort of ego boost or it's impressive to be sexy or get our boobs out. I suppose in my culture another example would be, women putting half naked or nude images on instagram or social networks, basically fishing for the approval of men and to receive 'likes' off random males - this will then give the women who do this a sense of pride and self achievement. Why?   


I'm hoping this image doesn't represent the above comment. I'm hoping people see this image and assume the female is confident, yet respectful of herself - something which hopefully you can pick up by her facial expression and her stance. 

The next image feedback:

 This image received the feedback I had expected. It's quite 'expected' was one of the comments. As the previous tutor stated is that it looks quite 'kate moss' which is also what this tutor agreed with - matters don't help when the model does actually look slightly like the famous model.

-He also said that the image is quite eery or dream like.

Other feedback I got on some images which I haven't posted on my blog as of yet, was that some did clearly look as if a 'man took the image' , this is because I have been brought up into a culture of women whom which has learnt to view ourselves as men would view ourselves, so I unconsciously created images that represent this notion. With this said, i have been told to look into 'Ways of seeing' by Berger. In this book, it explains this idea of seeing thoroughly, it has also been said to be criticised by feminists.

Also, I was told that an image of the girl above, that I took outside, doesn't look as if a man has taken it due to the fact it isn't 'arty' enough, meaning men try to pose the women to look like a 'form or shape' a vision of beauty in a more angular way. Where as mine would be considered as a straight portrait shot. Despite the feedback of the image being beautiful, the issue this image raised was the fact she had no pubic hair. To have no pubic hair is to go back to pubescent years - you're basically changing your body back to when you had no hair, so when you were a child or younger. For many this is disturbing, and rightly so. I could take these types of images but i would have to consider this aspect. It's difficult though because like I mentioned previously, we have been brought up to change our bodies to impress the males in our life, or we do it for ourselves because we've been taught that this is the natural thing to do. If this is the case, all my models would be hairless? so do i carry on taking these types of images to place with my previous statement or do I try to find women who keep 100 percent natural ? - something that will prove to be a difficult job to find - again because of the current views of pubic hair in this society.  I think the first thing I need to do is take a picture of a male in this way, so I can compare the two. See if the outcomes are different, answer questions like

Is it different because it's of a man?

Does the male express the same vulnerability?

What does this make us think of the original image of the female?

Does this change our opinions when the images are put together as a pair?

ETC.

I hadn't noticed a lot of the negatives my images portrayed, so todays session helped me understand what I needed to consider when taking these types of pictures. I'm now aware of what images of mine are particularly male related and what aren't and also the difference between 'nude and naked' in my work.

Things I've been told to look at :

-Pornified
-Female Misogynist culture

-Living dolls by Natasha Walter

- Edward Monets 'Olympia'

-John Bergers ways of seeing

- Kiera Knightly article on her recent topless image

-Reneki Djisktra (find correct spelling)

First set of feedback.

Recently I had a one on one with a new tutor, a tutor whom hadn't met me up until this point. Unfortunately, due to this element, she didn't know my work, how I worked, my subject matter or what I was focusing on, etc. So when I represented the below set of images, you can image the outcome wasn't what I expected.  I was met with a lot of questions, some of which were valid and some of which I was unsure about.  The questions were raised as to why I was taking these images? my answer being (something basic of course, as I haven't had the time to research a full detailed analysis of 'the why' behind my work) because I appreciate the body, the human form, this natural element of us - Our naked bodies is something so real that we should embrace and feel happy to have. (These are my thoughts obviously). However apparently it wasn't enough to think this, I needed a more critical argument as to why I took the images I did.  I'm yet to find one if I'm honest at this point.

Another question I was asked 'Vulnerability, is that what i'm trying to say in my images?' because according to my feedback, it's not okay to make women look vulnerable in images, it goes against feminism, "I wouldn't accept this". This is something i'm yet to research into as I look further into this topic of 'naked'. But for now, now that I have thought about it, why is it seen as so negative? Vulnerability is a quality all women have, including feminists. It's a side of everyones personality, so why can't I show it in my images?  I'm not trying to belittle women or show them as weak, because women aren't weak, I'm just showing a side of their personalities we all obviously have.  Another question I need to think about is 'Do we automatically associate nakedness with vulnerability?'

Other feedback I got was that 'I'm clearly not feminist..' (?!) one image was like 'fashion' and another looked like a Kate Moss image, I need to take pictures of some men now. It's safe to say that it didn't go well and that I'm feeling rather disheartened about the whole meeting..

It wasn't all negative though, I been pointed in a direction - yet to know if its a right one of not - to some reading. I've been recommended a Val Williams Book, an art show where women look at men (need to google!) and look at Claude Cahuns work.

Here are some of the images.

3rd year final work

This blog is dedicated to my research towards my 3rd year final photography degree.

So far, I wouldn't say I had a key idea to where my work is going but I know that it will be something to do with the idea of 'naked'

What does it mean to be naked?

What is the difference between naked and nude?

Is an image of a women looking vulnerable wrong?

Can a man look vulnerable when naked in images?

Does this go against feminism?

Does feminist have to be a women? can it be a man?

What ethical boundaries do I need to keep an eye on?

Will I be crossing this?

Why am I taking the images?

What am I trying to say?

All these questions I will be exploring throughout my research. All of the above challenge me when creating this work, I need to be aware of all these elements and approach this idea cautiously, trying not to offend or cause discomfort to the viewer.