From: Gary Miller (gmphotos@earthlink.net)
Date: 09/14/00-07:37:38 PM Z
The main difference between photography and drawing/painting/sculpture, and
the acceptance or not or the nude form probably deals mainly with
photography's mimetic quality. I have been turned down by several art
models at my school when I asked if they would sit for figure study photo
sessions. These same models have not problems sitting for a figure study
drawing or painting class. Photography just seems to cut too close to the
bone. It is seen as reality, no where to hide, the real thing. Although we
all know that it is as malleable as any other art form, just now it is more
obvious with the influx of computers and PhotoShop on everyone's tongue. It
is a curious phenomenon which I do not think will go away soon. However,
photography's mimetic quality gives it a great deal of power. This is where
advertisers and the media exploit the perceived truth in image quality. The
image of what is beauty (not Beauty) in our society has been mainly female
based, young, thin, proportioned gently. This I think has been created by
the advertising world to sell products and at the same time to dupe people.
both men and women, into accepting this visual definition of beauty that has
been created. We can see how the image of what a beautiful person looks
like has changed throughout history and how much fashion dictates this. I
always get a good laugh, although I worry a little too, when I am walking
through the city (San Francisco) and see a group of very young teenage girls
decked out in full make-up and short skirts looking like so many Britney
Spears clones. The media is driving this. I do not understand why so many
women seem to blindly accept this persona of beauty. I taught a group of
high school juniors and seniors this summer in an introductory photography
class. One of the first assignments that I had the class do was to bring in
a current magazine so that we could discuss how photography was being used
currently. The women/girls all brought in fashion magazines. The guys/boys
brought in skateboard, or snowboard, or other sport magazines. When I tried
to open up the discussion about the way that women were portrayed
objectified in the fashion magazines, I had no takers. I could not believe
that the 15 girls in the class did not see these depictions as wrong, or
disempowering, or anything more than an example of the way that they should
strive to look. The guys didn't chime in either. So it seems that the
younger generation has been bought and sold, and swallowed the guise of
fashion and how they are supposed to look. The same goes for the nude in
art. I see more photographers photographing naked women. But on the art
side, at my art school, the model population is pretty even between male and
females. Again I think that photography's accessibility and mimetic quality
lend it more towards imposed sexuality in the image. Remember there are a
lot more players now, and a lucrative pornography market. As more people
see pornography they will become more accepting of it and the way that it
depicts men and women. This will further perpetual the myths that have been
established, further establishing bad habits. We all see to be such pawns
in this nude game of life.
Gary Miller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT