From: Thom Mitchell (tjmitch@ix.netcom.com)
Date: 12/25/02-09:48:10 AM Z
snip > 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). snip
Judy to refute one of your statements: Donna Ferato has some very graphic
images in the new aperture anniversary issue . One is called "Eve finds her
g-spot" which shoes an older woman apparently masturbating and the other is
a picture of a performance "artist" whom is upside down naked in front a
house in some sort of yoga pose with some sort of lawn ornaments behind .
Now Ms. Ferrato, who also has a great book called "Living with the Enemy"
which is a series of photos on domestic violence against women from the late
80's and early 90's, is not a photographer whom I would characterize as
being exploitive or degrading of women.
As to the rest of your diatribe I agree to a point. I personally could
care less, peeing is a body function everyone does and if the point is shock
value I am not impressed. Even if it was made 20, 30, 50, 100 years ago.
Then again there are a lot of sacred cows in photography whom are very ripe
for skewering or a least reevaluating in the larger scheme. I will try to
find this Gowin print so I can see it (or a reproduction of it) for myself.
Otherwise lets get back to more interesting topics like ..... Andre
Serranno's Piss Christ.... just kidding.
Again a very merry Christmas or at least holiday season to all, my wife is
very sick today with some sort of intestinal flue otherwise I wouldn't be
online. I'm not that much of a geek.....
Ciao, Thom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 01:35
Subject: Re: cheese and the moon. Re: Definition- landscape arguement
continued
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 Ender100@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Hi Judy,
> >
> > a couple of questions. First, can you describe some work of men or
women
> > that does NOT objectify them? I know what the term means, I'm just not
sure
> > how different people apply it. I'm not trying to start a fight over it,
just
> > wanting to hear your view.
> >
> > Second, if the photograph of Ms Gowan had been taken by another woman,
would
> > it be any different?
> >
> > Oh, my favorite Barby Doll was done by some guy who would buy Barbies,
dress
> > them differently and sell them... I imagine the Barby Doll company (I
forget
> > who sells it) probably tried to sue his pants off (so to speak). They
were
> > called S&M Barbie.
> >
> > By the way, Annie Sprinkle probably still has a website somewhere out
there.
> > I think she went into the Tantric way or something like that. It was
> > somewhat interesting. I believe her claim to fame, however, was not
> > urination, but female ejaculation. Perhaps she was the first Giclee
artist.
> > There, I got Alt-Photo into the paragraph so I won't get yelled at
hehehehe
> >
> > Mark Nelson
> > In a message dated 12/24/02 3:50:04 PM, jseigel@panix.com writes:
> >
> > << Which is to say, this "conversation" has gotten ridiculous, but
there's a
> > real point -- although Ms Gowin has a more amusing, and so-to-speak,
> > active role than W. Weston's model in the sand with (also!) her legs
> > spread, the fact is that both are presented as objects. This one's the
> > Betsy Wetsy*, the other the tele-sandy, but they are both low, so to
> > speak, on evolutionary scale. An earlier picture of Ms Gowen shows her
> > topless with a garland of flowers around her neck, another intimate body
> > display. >>
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST