“So, out of six pictures for the article, Katy Grannan took five that stereotype women in familiar ways: three whores and two madonnas. We are aware that she’s replicating her own conditioning. Doing anything else, portraying women as fully human, is swimming upstream. Every photographer (or other creator of images for the media) will do this until she consciously examines her work and intentionally creates authentic images of women. Laurie remembers doing exactly this before beginning photography for Women En Large.
As some of the commenters to Majikthise point out, it isn’t only photographers who do this–women modeling for pictures are also very likely to fall into stereotypical “female” poses.”
(Bolding mine)
I LOVE this post.
Mind, I love Laurie and Debbie, period, and Laurie is easily the most inspiring living female photographer I can think of when it comes to presenting women and women’s bodies in a feminist framework; in a truly real, compassionate, empassioned dynamic. I feel confident saying that without work like Laurie’s, my work would probably look very different.
You really do learn a lot about the reality of how incessantly watched, how constantly judged women feel in their bodies and with their bodies when you work in portrait and nude portrait photography from behind the camera if you’re really paying attention. Over time, you do come to recognize certain common poses, certain commom expressions in the face and body of a feeling of vulnerability, of worried-imperfection, of a struggle to find a home within one’s own skin, or even a sad acceptance that it will never feel like home. Over time, when you look at the work of others as well as your own work, it becomes more and more clear when you’ve nailed something real, and when you’ve erred and gone ahead and shot the same, tired stuff. There is, of course, something to be said about the fact that when the subjects do the same thing and you capture it, you are still shooting a very pervasive reality, but at the same time, there are ways of doing that, difficult as they can be to find, that show that up for what it is, and ways of doing it which make it appear that that is ALL there is, and that that reality is somehow ideal.
No need to say much more than this, just go read and absorb. They say some really important things about photography and female subjects, and about how images of women, and how people choose to present them, can really — intentionally or not — undermine women’s issues, and blow otherwise fantastic opportunities to improve things for women.
(On that note, I had a male friend into the studio yesterday and got some great work done. As folks here know, it’s a rarity for me to work with the male nude, and I won’t be shy in saying that when it is a situation where I have a great subject who I know doesn’t compromise my safety and who treats me with respect, it’s almost a vacation of a gig compared to shooting women. I don’t have to be as cautious, as vigilantly-mindful, as self-critical while I’m working. And as Laurie and Debbie brought up, in my experience, a male subject is almost always a lot less likely to be “pose-y,” and thinking a whole lot less about if the viewers of a photograph find them attractive or sexy or beautiful. I don’t have to, while working, try and counter, with my subject, a ton of learned behaviours per how to present, what looks “best,” and the lot.
Between the COPA win and the afternoon shoot — with another Aries/Taurus cusp-person like myself, to boot — yesterday was a really good day.)
Also on a related topic, it’s looking like a group client I was flying out to Minneapolis to photograph in the end of May have changed their plans per their own issues. Since I’ve already started to schedule book promotional things there, and other things around it, I’m inclined to still try and take that trip.
Since I moved, I’ve had a handful of folks from Mpls write in asking to hire me for photo work, but alas, I am no longer there. So, if anyone out and about there still wants work done — paying clients — and the end of May/beginning of June will work for you, drop me an email? Thanks!
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
I can’t wait to see your shots of Ben … it makes perfect sense that he’d be a great subject, given he’s such an amazing photographer himself.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:26 am
Actually, we photographers tend to make the WORST subjects. In short, we know too much, and we’re way too used to having control over everything.
But Ben was an exception to that rule. I’m not, but he was.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
Reeeeeally. Interesting! Regardless, can’t wait to see…when might the trial shots be on Flickr?
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:45 am
It might be a while: I have serious photo-backlog right now. I’d estimate that I have about a good 700 photos to go through from over the last few weeks.
Sigh.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I _really_ appreciated what you said about my work. Thank you.
About photographing men: My experience, as you said, is that straight men are much more relaxed about how they look. But men are not used to the idea of being photographed in the nude and have no “internal tape” for it. When working on “Familiar Men” (my book of male nudes), I found that they were mostly harder to get to relax and be “themselves” compared to most women. I wasn’t a problem since they did relax and get comfortable enough, but it definitely took more work on my part to make that happen. Interestingly, almost all the older men (over 60) that I photographed were remarkably comfortable. Of course, shooting friends is different.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Dude, Laurie just left a comment here. Yeep!
::fangirl squeal::
Okay, I’m better now.
Verra interesting. Mind, I should probably have qualified my observations by saying the vast majority of men I have photographed were either friends or lovers, and/or were not generally gendernormative. Not sure if that matters, but it might.
If your subjects in that book were uncomfortable, I didn’t see it, but then I’m betting that you likely have a pretty awesome vibe.
And my kingdom to have older people in the studio here. If I celebrated Christmas, I’d make that my Christmas wish every single year.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
This is really timely. I’m visiting a DEAR friend in Portland - we both started exploring photography around the same time. My photo stuff died with the end of darkroom access, while she just opened her first show. We both dig teh photo-art.
We were in Powell’s a few hours ago and browsing through the photography section. She snagged a book of “Erotic Photos” and we grabbed a table to flip through it. It’s a pretty hefty book - several hundred pages - and COMPLETELY disappointing. Usually in a book that size I can find at least a few dozen photos that appeal to me, but here there were maybe two.
Looking through that book illustrated, more than anything else, how Exactly The Same every photo was - all women by themselves or with other women, all white, most looking up or shyly down, thin, porn-y type bodies . . . it was really disappointing. I guess it stood out to me so much just because it was SO MUCH of the same over and over.
Oh, hey! Did you make it to the Frida exhibit? How was it?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Thanks so much for the directions: the Frida exhibit was really fantastic, and I’d suggest you go see it. (And that bus to Tacoma: holy CRAP, have I never been in such a cushy bus in my life!)
For those clueless as to WTF we’re talking about, there’s an exhibit at the Tacoma Art Museum right now that is just portraits done OF Frida Kahlo. (I actually have a blog entry in my brain about this, so I’ll be brief.) Suffice it to say, as a portraitist AND someone who loves Mexican art, and particualrly Kahlo’s work, it was a serious treat. Not every day you can look at a ton of pieces of one subject, particularly one who you know a good deal about.
And I loved that they had Weston and Cunningham’s portraits of her hung next to each other, because I’m a silly romantic like that.
I miss you, girl: let’s set a date to get together soon, please?