I’m hoping to be able to make time tomorrow morning to be able to do some self-portrait work, so long as the old camera will be a dear and cooperate. (Can’t use the new camera for that, and besides, we seem really to not care for one another — it’s hopefully going back soon.) If I don’t get to it tomorrow, it won’t happen until after my Dad is gone.
I know it’s been a while. Primarily, that has to do with time and how much I’ve had to cram into a day, but it also has to do with interest. As longtime readers know, I tend to cycle between my arts, with one often crying out for attention over another: I have seasons of creativity that demand different media at different times.
Too, though, subjects here are few and far between, and I haven’t been all that interested in myself as subject lately, and without the real interest, there’s no real work.
But as winter is at its end, I want to capture my body in the state it’s in right now, because I know it is soon to pass. Due to both the winter months and to less activity during the winter than I’m used to, I put on a bit more winter weight than usual, to the degree that I even managed a teeny belly, which delights me. I can grow a lot of lush things on my body, but my midsection has always been the one area where weight just doesn’t tend to go: maybe I’m changing with age, who knows. But through my life, I have coveted other people’s bellies. Much to the chagrin of lovers of mine who don’t like bellies — or bellies on them — my hands always want to wander up and down a convex curve of someone who has a belly of substance. If allowed, I’d just run it back and forth like that for hours. Not sure what that’s all about, but there you go: I’m a belly admirer.
I’m also as pale as I get, which is to say pretty darn pale. While the Mediterranean genes keep me slightly olive beneath it all, during the winter months, my freckles become less and less distinguishable. So, between the paleness and the extra-cushy stuff, there’s something about my body during the season of dark and cold that I cherish in its difference. It reminds me of the passage in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek where Annie Dillard talks about the vulnerability of vertabrates: there is something both more transparaent and injurable and yet more insulated about bodies during the winter.
This is sensible, of course. We stay indoors far more often, and when we go out, we drape ourselves in layers that our own skin doesn’t provide. We are inwardly quieted and more slow. We are more sedentary, more solitary, we need to create more warmth in our own skin, and so, like any other mammal during cold times, we pad ourselves. When we’re not smart enough to do it ourselves, our own biology and the patterns of nature do some of the job for us.
It’s vexing to me how much to-do is made of winter weight and color and what is apparently a very dire need to change it as soon as is humanly possible. Of course, as the days lengthen, as light increases, as we become more active again — effectively, as we come out of hibernation — and we feel better, more energized, more vital. Again, even when we don’t pursue it intentionally, it’s the rhythm of nature and its effect on us: how intense the differences are between the seasons of the earth and our bodies and minds are clearly effected by our behaviours, but the changes would exist no matter what.
* * *
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately on some ideas I first started exploring in college, and which were going to be my primary focus of study until that crafty William Blake seduced me into a slightly different direction. Essentially, I’m coming to some conclusions regarding sexuality and body image in that the more divorced people become from nature and the most simple aspects of daily life — and I’m thinking this is particularly true for women — the more divorced we become from truly being in our bodies, and being in harmony with our bodies and our sexuality.
Working with teen and young adults, especially a generation in the western world who is the most divorced from nature in our history, these ideas have been coming to the forefront for me again. Trying to explain that a winter body exists because winter exists, and that it is only sensible and sound to honor and appreciate it for what it is, just as we do any season itself is likely to fall on deaf ears, even among many members of my own generation.
I’ve spent a lot of time trying to talk about the body as something which — bearing in mind of the greatest influence of our genetics — takes the form and shape of what it is used for. If we engage in sports, what sports we choose to engage in will determine where our muscle most develops. The simplest explanation would be to talk about how easy it can be to recognize one kind of manual laborer from another just by the shape of their bodies, but to middle-class kids where many of them have never even walked to school one, where a majority of them don’t even know a single manual laborer, and may never do any themselves, this is obviously a lost cause, too.
Same goes for trying to work with some of them having real disconnects with their body and their sexuality in terms of exploring what is sensual, as in, of the senses. They rarely cook, and when they do, it’s rarely with fresh foods (much less food they’ve grown) or fire; even then it’s more about product than process — rushed, rather than savored. Many of them don’t even know what the whole of their bodies smell or look like without every product on them known to man, what it feels like to wind up totally covered in mud and dry in the sun, or to bathe in river or lake water for a week. The bleached-out world so much of middle America is woefully lacks a lot of opportunities for exploring the senses and what is natural. I can tell a teenager that the scents of their bodies are normal and just as they’re meant to be, but when the whole of their world is deoderized, sanitized, homogenized, and the only natural scent they might ever smell is their genitals, it’s going to stand out and seem foreign, rather than naturally blend in and feel natural. More than once the suggestion to some having a particularly tough time connecting with their own bodies to look into massage, dance or other bodywork, even to just start taking walks out of doors more often pretty clearly gets me dismissed as a crunchy old hippie. (Go figure: with the ones that DO get out and hike, like to camp or dance, cook because they’re vegetarian and family food won’t work, the body image and sexuality problems don’t seem so pervasive or intense.) There’s a section of the book where I work to get them to redfine “sexy” more holistically, with more emphasis on all their senses, and who knows if it’ll catch.
So much of this shift away from nature is thought to be a luxury; a privilege, and one given as a gift by the generation before to them. So many of them are expressly reared to drive, not walk; to nuke something frozen rather than cook; to take a pill rather than try and heal other ways; to spend lesuire time seated rather than in motion (and to HAVE so much leisure time in the first place); to hide or remove what is natural rather than to cultivate harmony with their nature and nature-at-large. The more time that passes, the more I observe things through this lens, I’m seeing less of a gift and more of a curse, especially the more and more extended childhood — or rather, dependency — is in our culture, and it is a curse not just upon people, but obviously, one on the planet itself.
And with that, I’ve got to tear myself away. There are so many branching-off points from here, but I’m about to miss my own evening walk I had set aside time for and very much need today. Mark and I are meeting for dinner in an hourish, but I’d hoped to be able to catch a solitary, moist, dusk-time stroll through the neighborhood before then.
How cool is it when you must force yourself away from work to something far more pleasant in order to practice what you preach?







March 8th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I’ve found myself in the same boat lately- wanting to take some self portraits but not being able to find the time. I haven’t done a real study in self-portraiture since I finished grad school almost 6 years ago- I miss that sometimes.
Sorry to hear you and the new camera don’t mesh. If it any consolation, I don’t like those Olympus SLRs either. Have you seen the Canon G7? It’s not an SLR, but it’s got a ton of functionality and the quality of it is amazing. The big photo trade show is going on in a few days, and usually after that happens prices drop on many models. The shop I work for has it on sale for something like $530, I think.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
It’s interesting to talk about bodies being something that change according to what we do when what so many women “do” is careering their sexual appeal to men.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Lisa: I feel like, for me anyway, SLRs are the photographic equivalent of a penis car. The lenses just don’t need to be that big, I just don’t need all these gadgets. And I’m so clumsy that I still don’t even feel comfortable taking it out and about, sure I’ll drop it or have it get nicked on the bus, what have you. It just seems like I can do everything I do with a camera with a high-end prosumer model that isn’t an SLR.
I have looked at that Canon, and while that won’t work for me for self-portraits, it will work for everything else, so that may be what I wind up with, and then (hope, hope, hope) have my older camera repaired for the self-work.
Irm: but see, that’s not what women “do.” Women still move however they move, do for a living whatever it is they do. Certainly, some women focus their appearance, their movements, their time that way, but it’s a rare woman (I’d say) for whom more of her time is actually spent on that catering than on the other areas of her life. But obviously, a lot of mandates are given in that regard: that is the hegemony we live under, after all.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Spot on, as always. Your post brought back memories of living in remote Alaska, where gender equity wasn’t a topic of debate, it was a fact of life and survival in the wild. Couch potatos and Divas didn’t last long. And since we all had “Arctic Tans” and hair where hair grows, we didn’t have many issues with body image. Not implying that we had it all right- but we were less obsessed than what I see going on these days.
Ouch! I guess I’ll have to Neuter my Nikon D50! Next thing you know, I’ll be driving a Corvette and wearing a toupee!!
March 9th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Hee- I love the penis car analogy with SLR cameras- you are so right with some of those. I use an SLR because I like to be able to futter with aperture and shutter and change lenses and whatnot, but sometimes it really is too much camera. I bought a little Canon point and click that I can use for more spontaneous/sneaky work. One of these days I’d like to get a second SLR body to use for working shoots, and many of the bodies are just too big for my small hands, and also so heavy. There has been a movement toward smaller bodies- the Nikon D40, for example, however it’s not one of their “pro” models- read: it’s marketed toward soccer moms, whereas all the “pro” bodies are built like brick shithouses. Interesting message the manufacturers are sending, huumm? So much in the photography industry is so male centered anyway- it can be quite annoying!
Anyway- sorry to be a camera busybody, but since I work at a camera shop as one of my many jobs, I have an insider’s view of some things. Isn’t your old beloved camera a Canon? Canon is one of the best companies about repairs- you might know this, but you can send your camera back to Canon for repair even when it is out of warranty, and they can usually fix whatever is broken, even if the model is a few years old. I’ve been impressed with their service- most of the other manufacturers are not nearly as good. Plus, I’ve never seen a repair cost more than $200, and usually it isn’t even quite that much.
March 10th, 2007 at 7:51 am
I love what you are saying about the relationship between nature and bodies. A month ago it was below zero for the weekend, and my partner and I decided that if evolution over a hundred thousand years of living in cold regions meant that our bodies expected to stay put, snuggle, sleep, and get round on days this short and cold, well, that’s what we were going to do for a few weeks. Once it got above zero, we started walking the 15 minutes to the grocery and back again. And now it’s going to get up to 50F, and we’ll start bicycling and going for the longer walks by the river and trees again.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Lisa: that’s good to know. I’ll by all means send the old one in, then. And as I’m about to post, I lucked out and found a demo model of my last camera for only around $400. All the reviews of the G7 I saw basically kept saying that it was great….save that it was missing the perks of my model, it’s predecessor.
Beauty of the oldie is that without it being this huge, hulky thing, I can still adjust aperture and shutter.
Tg: that just plain rocks.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:26 am
You’ve got such a healthy approach to body image. I’ve put on some happy relationship weight recently too, and I go between being annoyed about it and feeling very sensual and grounded. It’s interesting how being bigger is, in reality, a mixed bag rather than bad, bad, bad.
March 11th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I’ve got a term for that one: couples chub.
It’s good stuff. Mark gets a bit down about his too, sometimes, but I’ve explained that usually ten pounds on = good realtionship, and ten pounds off = badness.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Heh heh. Penis-car analogy. You bet. I’ve seen news photogs make all kinds of excuses for why they have to hang onto that 300 /2.8 Canon. Sure it has uses, but that’s not WHY they drag it around.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Body image. Hmmm. I’m wondering if I should have a series done by you Heather. I don’t see a representation of the over 60 female body.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
My year would be MADE.
It’s very, very hard to find older subjects, and there’s nothing I’d like more.
But if you want some good representations that I really like, do you know Etta Clark’s work?
The photo she took of Marie Wilcox-Little is possibly one of the most gorgeous portraits I have ever seen, and the physicality of it — and the grace of the subject — is to die for.
March 12th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I have that book! It was a present from a kid about many years ago. I could never live up to anybody in there Heather. But if I think I’m coming to the coast, I’ll take a swing down to see your studio. It won’t be this year. It would be fun. Having been on the ‘other’ end of the camera, I have no shyness or fears or discomfort. I’maham.
March 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I really like what you’re saying about divorce from physicality and feeling grounded sexually/mentally–I find that I feel like a big strong powerful girl who should have tattoos and take over the world whenever I bike around NYC…but not so much toward the end of the winter when I’ve put my bike away for the past couple of months. Also there are all those cars.
Man, I want to visit Seattle.