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.