Ender100@aol.com
Date: 12/25/02-02:57:01 AM Z
Judy,
In no way would I ever accuse you of being a grinch... besides, I thought
only men could be grinches...heheheheh just kidding... sort of a
quasi-gender-joke and as with most my jokes falling just a hair short of the
mark... not a male hair nor a female hair... just an asexual hair...so to
speak... anyway, I was sorta counting on your lack of resistance to the
question, or I wouldn't have asked it.
However, I will defend your right to be a grinchette if you want to and
they'll have to pry my cold, dead fingers off my D1X if they try to stop me.
Anyway, one would have to be green anyway to be a grinch.... and I know you
in no way are green or even green with envy or pyro stain or anything else...
I do understand the issues you wrote of... regarding how people are portrayed
in our society.... in fact both men and women.... even alt-photographers.
So here I sit alone on Christmas Eve in Florida pondering the difference
between cockroaches and palmetto bugs. Now to me, a native of Illinois, they
look like cockroaches. But, I've never heard a cockroach sing before and
these suckers can sing like a bird! And they are about as big as a bird...
So anyway, once I tired of pondering roach/palmetto bug, I read your response
to my question, which was quite clear. And I do understand the issues of
gender, power, peeing, and being nekkid. I've done all of them, though not
usually at the same time and not necessarily in that order.
Before I go on, I think there is a great show at the Center for Creative Pho
tography—an exhibit called "Girl Culture" by Lauren Greenfield (female
photographer) that powerfully adresses some of the issues you raise. I was
fortunate enough to see it recently.
http://www.library.arizona.edu/branches/ccp/home/home.html
OK, so it's already Christmas morning and the palmetto bugs are singing and
circling.
Let's take a wild leap from reality and assume that I am not a dirty old man
that just wants to get young girls nekkid, that I am just as interested in
photographing males as females, and let's assume that I would photograph both
young and old and obese and skinny and black and white and brown and yellow
and green (this would include grinches), and pretty and ugly and pretty
ugly.... every combination you can imagine... I am MR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY....
so now... what do I do if I find the HUMAN body an interesting subject to
photograph? How do I do that without walking into the valley of the shadow
of the grinch?
OK, one plea I will make in advance to the grinch... please your
grinchness.... do not say that there is no reason to do it because it has
already been done... that would launch me into another discussion that might
screw up my New Years Eve party...and I've already paid dearly for young,
shapely cocktail waitresses wearing Catholic Schoolgirl outfits to cater the
damn thing.
So, help me oh wise grinch ;)
(actually it is a serious question...I probably just dipped into the eggnog
too much)
By the way, as a male I might admit to having kissed Santa, but I didn't kiss
him on the lips. But if it weren't for those damned stereotypes, I coulda
done it if I had wanted to....well I wouldn't have used my tongue though...
Happy Holidays to everyone out there in Alt-Photo land... you are a great
bunch of people.
Mark Nelson
In a message dated 12/25/02 1:39:30 AM, jseigel@panix.com writes:
<<
Mark, you absolutely force me to be grinchlike, because these are
questions of utmost moment I cannot resist. Of course nobody is
reading this anyway, because they're all pinning up mistletoe and kissing
Santa Claus, so I can say anything I like, right? In fact I will send
season's greetings so they can stop here.
For the record, however, and SINCE YOU ASK, I will address the current
issue -- though I note that the terms of your question are a bit changed
(For instance, I didn't say "objectify," a vague term in this context,
etc. etc.)
In our culture, the people in power (or of importance beyond spectacle and
weirdness) do not pee for the camera. Nor do they pose naked. That
actually says it all, but taking a break from some very boring work I
elaborate.
Ms Gowen's only public meaning, import, and persona is as model, and as
model doing these things. Or, at best, being photographed by husband
artist, thinker, creator, doing other inane or meaningless or unimportant
or nothing, or possibly demeaning things.
She is higher in status than, say, the naked lady with the arched back on
the cover of Farber's book, because she does this (presumably) for love,
not for hire, as the chosen mate of the artist, thinker, creator, etc., so
at least the inference is that he loves and values her & she is worthy of
same. But that is her only public existence and status.
I do not know of any case where a woman photographer has created the
persona of another woman by showing her spread-legged, skirt hiked and
peeing on the floor, or naked, or other low-status acts. There may be
such, if so, I trust this list to know of it... Nor do I know of any case
where a woman has become famous for photographing a male appendage (I mean
the person as an appendage, not a body part).
The closest I can think of is Sylvia Sleigh who painted a whole "harem" of
important male art figures, including her husband, Lawrence Alloway, in
languid nude poses. She began maybe 30 years ago, and besides being a
"political statement," they are charming paintings. Christina Anderson
shows 2 of them in her book "Tutti Nudi."
But these are men with known personas, Alloway for instance was one of
the most important critics of his day... they are also posed with great
charm and dignity. One is even titled "Imperial Nude, Paul Rosano."
So let me know the woman who has made a career of photographing her
otherwise unknown husband, nude and/or peeing on the floor, and then we
can argue particulars. But even were this to occur, the power and image of
men in society is not the problem.
How women are portrayed in our culture today is part of the problem.
Take the double page ad for pentium 4, ran a couple of weeks in NY Times
mag, shows 13 people seated, enjoying "music." Representing all ages and
types. A violinist, a magician, a welder, football player, a couple of old
guys, even a pretty fat guy, and actually a homely no-chin guy. Then
whoops,only 4 women, all young, slim, pretty, two of them purely
glamorous, another a mother with her baby, and the 4th in bra top with her
eyes closed, a runner.
Open any news magazine, or the daily paper..or TV news -- senior portly
jowly men, & women carefully coiffed & made up fluff persons. Yes, there
are a couple of older women -- rail thin & stunning.
It's so normal we don't SEE it. So I pick up the first section of today's
NY Times (Tuesday) -- dozens of men, one woman so tiny you can't see
gender sitting on window sill of her loft near the World Trade Center, 3
very small women in background audience watching a man sign autographs,
one nun with a group of priests praying and one highschool student
modeling a heavy backpack. Only two of these female creatures have names,
none is there for something she's done. And this is a rather good day for
women in the Times first section.
Of course this is the way it is -- Rome wasn't built in a day, and so
forth. But somehow I just don't think the photographer's wife peeing on
the floor is part of the solution.
cheers from Grinch village..
J.
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST