Hiro Antagonist ([info]hiro_antagonist) wrote,
@ 2009-03-12 14:43:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Share this!  Next Entry
Entry tags:photography

Truth / Lie, Part II


Megan Cump - Feral


Lexi of Subjectify recently made a rather insightful post about something that's always bothered me.

"i am both compelled and troubled by Megan Cump's project Feral, which i saw on Flak Photo. in the project, Cump goes on solo hiking and kayaking trips and photographs herself going back to nature in some surprising tableaux. the images themselves are compelling enough: beautiful landscapes; contemplations of nature and man's role; a naked, young photographer interested in her ability to lose her humanity and have a feral immersion."

"secondly, i am troubled a bit by something else, which is not Cump's fault, nor is it limited to her: self-portrait projects from a visually-privileged position of young, white, nude beauty. i have been thinking about the "trouble" with beauty in art photography for some time. i can see an alternate world in which i would earnestly feel that female photographers' naked self-portraits were brave, theoretically rigorous, challenging, honest, etc...etc... except i rarely do feel that way, because lately i notice that mainly thin, beautiful women engage in these projects in the first place. or at least, their projects are the ones that gain recognition in the art world (which is why i see them?). of course, such projects might have something thought-provoking and honest to offer, but overall, it still troubles me."


As a photographer, I have taken a fair number of self portraits, and from what I can see, I'm not alone in this as a photographer. While I'm not Quasimodo in appearance, what I strive for is technical and aesthetic competence above all else when shooting a self portrait. Something akin to a benchmark, showing the best of what I'm currently capable of. Some self portraits are quite popular in terms of how many hits they garner, and usually the most popular are popular because they're very well executed photographs.

Something that puzzled me at first was how amazingly popular some photographer's self portraits were. I'd look at the photo and internally think something along the lines of "Well, it's a nice photo but not *that* nice..." I.e., it was done well enough to be popular, but how popular it was seemed to be leaps and bounds beyond how popular it should have been, given the technical and aesthetic merits of the portrait.

Every time this contradiction arose, it was a "hot chick". I didn't want to admit at first that the reason for the amazing popularity was "It's just because they look good, not because they have any particular skill as a photographer." But as time went on, and example after example raised the same troubling specter, the truth became undeniable and I became a bit more bitter with every example I saw.

It seems a bit harsh to say that anyone who's female and reasonably good looking can never take a self portrait that can be viewed and praised honestly on the merits of their skill as a photographer, but at this point? It seems a forgone conclusion.

I feel bitter every time I see photographs like that, and sometimes I feel bad for feeling bitter about it, but less and less with every example I see.

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

well...
[info]tricstmr
2009-03-12 08:52 pm UTC (link)
1. A problem that I see is that somehow this is all being considered as if there is some objective/non-human inherent standard of beauty and technical merit that applies without basic subjective human emotions coming into play.

.. and yet humans, in all their fallibility are supposed to be doing this.

If that is what you want--find aliens to do your judging. But the best that you can hope for in terms of judgement is self-aware and acknowledged bias by individuals when judgments are made..

Importantly, even if the pictures don't contain "hot chicks," this kind of subjectivity is taking place.. it's just not as obvious.. and it slips under the radar because it isn't thrown into relief.

So don't be bitter.. this is life. People are genetically pre-disposed towards various conceptions of beauty which are made up of both intrinsic physical hardwiring to find symmetry beautiful--as well as various cultural norms that are more flexible and variable.

2. In any case.. why should the "popularity" of something have anything to do with the skill displayed in art.

3. Going back to the quote you have... getting angry at the young beautiful women taking the photos is unfair. If said person wants to rectify the situation, then encourage various non-beautiful people to take self-portraits...

Again.. in summation.. acknowledge the bias.. but don't punish people for unintentionally falling into the category that enjoys the preference...

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: well...
[info]hiro_antagonist
2009-03-12 09:25 pm UTC (link)
" as if there is some objective/non-human inherent standard of beauty and technical merit that applies without basic subjective human emotions coming into play."

There is, just like any reviewer for any subject matter. Not that it is necessarily possible to avoid all subjective emotion inherent to something that makes a strong impression on humans because of how they're wired, just to realize that it exists and try to compensate for it.

Say you review movies for a living. You favor black and white musicals from the 40s and 50s, and aren't as fond of any other sort of movie. But as a reviewer, you understand this and work to grade movies that aren't your favorite sorts on their technical and aesthetic merits without being biased.

In short, there can be inherent standards for judging a work that compensate for innate human bias in certain areas. One doesn't have to be an alien, one just has to avoid being an unthinking somewhat ignorant and uncritical viewer.

If humans can conceive the qualities 'fair' and 'just' and collectively agree as to what they are, to begin with, this indicates that we don't have to accept 'life' for what it is and throw our hands up and say that it's always been this way and we might as well just accept it. You imply that life is a utopia - "this is life... and life is what is and shouldn't be changed." Utopia was coined as another way of saying 'no [such] place' for a reason, ya know?

If humans can conceive of the qualities 'fair' and 'just' and be bitter in their absence, bitterness is not an unreasonable emotion to feel in such cases.

2. Popularity is something that is often found hand in hand with skill. The Beatles weren't popular because they had very little skill as musicians. They may not have been the *most* skilled musicians in existence at the time, but they were certainly quite skilled at what they did.

I'm not angry, just bitter. Not at the photographers in question, necessarily, but more at human nature and the unquestioning lack of critical judgment in some cases. I'm as attracted to beautiful women as the next guy, but I can distinguish between them being beautiful and being good photographers, mind you. It's not hard, and the vast majority of humanity should have no problem doing the same.

I might be one more human being that counts towards the number of hits for a photo that falls into this category, but I'm not going to write thinly disguised praise to their skill as a photographer when I'm thinking they're hot and could give a **** less for their skill as a photographer.

Not just the masses do this, but gallery owners and others in similar positions. It's when the latter fall into this trap that it becomes something to be really bitter about.

As to how fair it is to be bitter - not angry, there's quite the difference - should injustice be something accepted blindly and without reservation?

I don't think people 'accidentally' fall into this sort of thing. From what I've read of their words on the subject, most of them understand the phenomenon and either accept it, or say it doesn't matter that much and then are silent on the comparative gap in skill between themselves and the people they're exhibited with.

Say if someone put my landscape photos in an exhibit with Ansel Adams works, for a hypothetical example. Would I honestly say with any shred honesty that we were in the same category of skill at the subject? Hah!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Just to push you.. part 1
[info]tricstmr
2009-03-13 01:03 pm UTC (link)
.. cuz I find this post very interesting..

1. I think you you gloss over too easily the problematic nature of inherent human subjectivity. Being aware of subjectivity doesn't mean you can get around it quite so easily as one thinks--even if you try to be fair and acknowledge your biases--they often tend to sneak back in.

I'll use your movie reviewer example--What you describe--movie reviewers who only like b/w musicals--reviewing other films.. In real life, have you ever seen such reviewers--working for a newspaper or whatever--disqualify themselves from reviewing films that don't fit their ideals? I haven't, or I should say, when I read movie reviews--whether it's in the onion, the NYTimes, or other such standardized sources--I come across movie reviews constantly that show obvious lack of understanding of their own biases towards certain kinds of films.

1b. A second and related observation that I might make--as a whole, these movie critics do actually seem to have a general idea for what they think is a good movie. Often there are films that go through the critics and come out with really, really high ratings--whereas there are other films that go through and are roundly criticized as not being all that good of films.

Then.. when you compare how the movies actually do in terms of sales, you find out that the critic's top picks often (although not always) get soundly trounced and were hardly ever seen by the general public... This happened a year or two ago, I know, where even one of the NYTimes critics wrote an op-ed piece wondering whether movie critics were "out of touch" considering that all of their top pics combined (and there were like 10 of them) made less than one standard hollywood film in sales..

Now some observations here: It might be that the masses just don't appreciate "good art" in film.. but it also might be that what the critics--a small collection of people who watch movies in a way that most people don't--are actually "out-of-touch" because the standards that they have chosen to represent what is good in film really don't have much to do with what the general public wants in a film. This speaks to both of the issues of "popularity" and "fair & just" reviews (which I'll talk about below)... and it goes back to my point about subjectivity...

namely that while the movie reviewers think they are being good at removing their subjectivity--they have often totally failed at understanding that they have created a new kind of subjective evaluation that is based on their own collective standards of the particular in-group that they are a part of.. Thus, while they think that their in-depth knowledge and expertise has made them more objective (and in some ways it has, I'll admit)--in reality--it has also made them subjective in a less obvious way... and they rarely acknowledge that..

I wonder if this might not also be the case in photography..

2. Specific point on "fair & just"--you point out an immensely important part about what it means to be "fair & just"--and that is that people "collectively agree as to what they are"---and I would point here and say: They often don't agree on this.. Yes.. on certain things they might come to VERY rough consensuses.. but the more detailed and explicit you try to apply the concept of "fair" to something--the less agreement you often find.

"fair" is a contested concept..and using it as a basis for anything is very very tricky. Another way of saying this is that fair is never objective, but always the product of everyone's collective agreement to a certain subjectivity.. but each time you add a person, that agreement must be remade or else "fairness" can become a club to beat people with.

Think about this in other subject--If I say "It's obvioiusly in the interest of "fairness" for everyone to have healthcare"--this may seem true to a lot of people--but if I add "and because of this fairness, we should implement universal national health insurance" I will get a LOT of people who disagree with me and say that isn't part of fairness at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
part 2
[info]tricstmr
2009-03-13 01:03 pm UTC (link)
3. Why do you think that I imply life is a Utopia? I have no such ideas.. if anything--I think life is inherently messy and a generally fucked up thing.. All I think life is is a sum of the choices that people make.. Change can and sometimes should happen--but not for any other reason than we want to change it.. not because of some idealistic "objective" reaons.. but because we have gotten together and decided that we want to change it..

I'm intrigued tho.. why do you think that I believe in a Utopia or something like that.. because I dispute the possibility of "objectivity"? To me, that is merely a result of taking critical analysis and applying it as thoroughly as I can.... but it doesn't mean I still don't have goals and wishes.. I just try to make the picture I see as clear as possible and to critique my own preconceptions as best as I can..

$2.00 for your thoughts here!

3. Popularity--Popularity isn't the anti-thesis of talent or skill--but talent and skill are not sufficient for popularity.

I will pick on your statement "the vast majority of humanity should have no problem doing the same."

Why do you believe that?
Why should they care?
What values undergird this position and claim?--That everyone should spend a lot of time learning what it takes to make a photograph elegant?
That everyone should be an art critic?

Going back to the movie example again for a brief second--this would mean that everyone should come around and think like movie critics do about films..

But that implies that they all spend as much time watching and thinking about movies as the critics do.. but they aren't getting paid to do that!

4. With regard to your gallery owners--I think a similar thing applies--you are looking at them as art appreciators--but really, what they are is capitalists--and you should not ever think that their allegiances are more towards art than money.

of course, there is the argument "but if they just put up the really good stuff, then that stuff would make money"--but that's not always the case..

5. Just so you know--I can also be bitter about this and I understand that bitterness--but I try not to be. My girlfriend's band, Sensuous Enemy is quite good--she has an amazing voice (I'll post a quick link to one of her songs in a separate post and then delete it so you can hear some of it--but they are also on myspace and www.sensuousenemy.com )...

Now. obviously I'm biased--but my external evidence of this view comes from being at all of the shows and having other musicians--often the headlining ones come up and say "wow, that was really awesome, she is amazing" --and yet have the big crowds that came to see the headlining bands totally ignore them when they play.

A few people will come get the cd--and they have the same remarks as the musicians who appreciate the actual musicality of her band--but most of the people there just don't care... they don't come to hear "good music" as musicians might define it--they come to hear the music that they came to hear...

Does this engender bitterness--especially when promoters will pick "popular" bands whose music is totally CRAPTASTIC--except they look like the backstreet boys dressed in black and have a lot of fans--over other bands that make really solid music.

Yes.. it does.. but dwelling on the bitterness doesn't lead anywhere.. Make your excellent art and do what you have to do.. but trying to make the audience conform to your expectations is, in my experience, a waste of energy..

and now.. I must go! I look forward to any further thoughts from you!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]theophania
2009-03-13 01:12 am UTC (link)
I've been totally blind ever since I was two-months-old and in my 25 years here one of the things I've learned about sighted people is that most are very superficial. They take their sight for granted. For instance, I'm good-looking, many would even say beautiful. I say that not out of vanity but because I've often heard it. Yet take off my glasses and automatically most people look at my moving eyes instead of listening to what I have to say. It could be the most important thing in the conversation but they won't see it. That, or they'll be so amazed that yes, I dress myself, yes, I went to college that they won't judge me fairly. Or I'll get pitty "oh, I'm so sorry that you're blind." Yeah, I am, now can we move on? I was isolated most of my life by my peers because I was "different". As sad as it is, people judge what's on the outside instead of looking within. So it's no wonder that the so-called beautiful women get shown and the average ones or the men don't get shown as often, even if their work is groundbreadking or just plain interesting. I'm glad to finally find someone who appreciates visual beauty while not being afraid to photograph the common or the little things in life. Don't lose that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]hiro_antagonist
2009-03-13 08:51 am UTC (link)
Breathing people take air for granted ;)

Noticeable blindness is something that would make people stare, given the reactions I got when I shaved my head, I can only imagine what it must be like for you :/

I'm not terribly surprised that most people find it astonishing that the blind can have a functional life, given how visually oriented human nature is. If you think about it for more than a second or two though, it's not as problematic as losing one's motor control / contracting multiple sclerosis, for example. Not one shits themselves upon hearing that Stephen Hawking still does plenty of hardcore science work, interestingly enough though.

Given that I'm primarily a visual person, in terms of art, memory, mental associations, etc, I've wondered from time to time if I could cope with being blind. Without my contacts, I am legally blind, though blurry colored patches aren't as problematic as no vision at all might be. On the whole though, even if I did loose my eyesight, I think I'd cope just fine. I might not be able to make video games, or do most of the art I'm used to making, but I'd probably put a lot more work into writing and reading, two things that are already in my top five favorite things ever.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mahldeeta
2009-03-14 01:59 pm UTC (link)
Wait, so thats a self-portrait?

Me = clueless, sorry.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]hiro_antagonist
2009-03-14 08:41 pm UTC (link)
Of the artist in question, not me! :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mahldeeta
2009-03-16 05:57 am UTC (link)
Of course. Haha.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Log in with OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…