|
Forums >
General Industry >
Prop Outrage
Jan 22 14 07:49 pm Link Forbidden Topic Jan 22 14 08:03 pm Link I saw that photo somewhere online yesterday and understand the controversy, but. Awhile back I shot a bunch of bondage. Back when fetish was still interesting. I tied up and photographed all kinds of girls, but one photo of an African-American model drew the same kind of outrage right here on the MM forums. Asians and white models all roped up were pretty much ignored. The model asked for bondage, we shot it, and we both showed it. I'm pretty sure the black model in the subject photo wasn't under duress either. Does the outrage mean that black models have less freedom to choose what they want to do? Don Jan 23 14 06:07 am Link D. Brian Nelson wrote: The chair is not a model, it is a sculpture. It was produced by artist Bjarne Melgaard of Norway and is based on a series done in the sixties by artist Allen Jones. Jones did three (I think) but they were all white. He used strippers as models to make the sculptures and they were meant to depict how society views women as objects. By updating them using women of color, Melgaard is also trying to provide commentary on issues of racial and gender subjugation within modern society. Jan 23 14 06:20 am Link Neither chair is flattering. Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: With this as context, it shows the purpose of the art. Does causing outrage through art change the world? Jan 23 14 06:27 am Link Nasty chair!! Bad, bad, bad!!:-)) Jan 23 14 06:38 am Link Hunter Wald wrote: Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: Hunter Wald wrote: I would like to think so. It is perhaps less so today as so many lack in critical thinking skills when it comes to art, which is a direct result of diminishing art education, and critical thinking skills in general, being taught in schools. That said, while art (be it music, film, photography, sculpture, literature, etc.) does not in and of itself create change, it often acts as a catalyst, with individual works of art combining like small waves to produce a larger effect, reflecting the zeitgeist of the moment. The art itself is like the pebble being thrown into a pond. One lone pebble does little, however if hundreds of rocks are dropped into the pond, the effect is more noticeable. Jan 23 14 06:42 am Link  There was a comment above about how this is a forbidden topic. If this veers off unintelligently to soapbox territory, then yes, it is and would be locked by mods. However, I think there is a worthwhile discussion here to be had among artists. I need to step away from the computer for a few hours to scout a location for an upcoming shoot. I hope that others will take this opportunity to really think about what the artists (both the sculptor who created the original work and the photographer who took this portrait) are trying to say with their work, and how such imagery works to inform our views of societal stereotypes. The question was asked: "Does causing outrage through art change the world?" This is an excellent question and one worthy of discussion in this thread. Jan 23 14 06:49 am Link Lets keep this on topic and not veer too much into the SB territory; and the thread should be fine. Jan 23 14 06:54 am Link If this is a forbidden topic, I apologize, I saw the article and thought it was an interesting piece. My apologies if I offended anyone. Jan 23 14 09:11 am Link I honestly don't see a problem with it personally, but I can see why people would freak out about it Jan 23 14 09:19 am Link Oh my God. I didn't proof read. That chair is NOT flattering. Jan 23 14 09:23 am Link That chair is degrading no matter how you look at it. Think about it. Would you subject yourself to it? Jan 23 14 10:19 am Link J-Gan wrote: Yes Jan 23 14 10:20 am Link Danielle Reid wrote: That's absolutely horrible. Jan 23 14 10:26 am Link Artifice wrote: April Jan 23 14 10:28 am Link  Jan 23 14 10:33 am Link This goes to an item in my profile where I say I'm generally willing to shoot anything that isn't, in my opinion, either dangerous or demeaning to either the model or me. That's very much a personal decision to be made by the artist and, I would hope, the model. In this particular case, I don't really see the message that the picture represents the objectification of women in art. There's just no expression outrage, no subjugation of the "chair", just a pretty sterile pose by both models, that relies on the observer to bring his own level of outrage if there is to be any at all. The art itself expresses nothing, neither approval nor disapproval, at worst only acceptance. For the same reason, I find most bondage, D-in-D, etc. not much more than sometimes interesting/sometimes even beautiful compositions that really don't say anything. I do, however, consider bondage that displays disfigurement, etc. as a somehow desireable goal to be demeaning, whereas a similar picture that presents the model fighting back, even possibly succeeding against her tormentor, to be a valid artistic statement. But I guess that just boils down to personal prejudice. All IMHO as always, of course. Jan 23 14 10:34 am Link Danielle Reid wrote: of course, except for those who "march to the beat of their own drum" Jan 23 14 10:37 am Link J-Gan wrote: I'll admit, I have no idea what you're talking about. Jan 23 14 10:51 am Link I don't suppose anyone has any actual thoughts on: Art's ability to influence change in societal perceptions? What referencing Jone's earlier work so clearly is meant to represent to the viewer, and does that change the way the image is read? What the role of a portraitist is when creating a photograph and what that photograph can tell us about the sitter? The ethics of editorial portraitist vs photo journalism (if any even exist)? The fairly recent (mainstream) notion that art exists to celebrate rather than to challenge and how this paradigm shift in the way the masses view works of art informs the national dialog at times like this? Etc... Jan 23 14 10:57 am Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: I had a paragraph written up, and then I reminded myself that this is one of those there is no upside to this conversation threads, so I replaced it with a smiley face. Jan 23 14 11:00 am Link Danielle Reid wrote: it means you do things your way no matter what others say or do Jan 23 14 11:13 am Link Artifice wrote: Yes, I saw that paragraph and was going to respond but when I returned to quote it, you replaced it with a smiley face. Jan 23 14 11:16 am Link J-Gan wrote: And I kept checking back for a while to see if anyone else had quoted it. Jan 23 14 01:43 pm Link I say it was a poor prop choice, unless you want to create some controversy, in which case it was a perfect prop choice. Jan 23 14 06:39 pm Link I think in any case where you have one object "sitting" atop another object is symbolically showing the oppression of the lower object by the upper object. There are a few exceptions of that depiction that would be acceptable; 1. anyone sitting on a real chair 2. a baby sitting atop an adult parent 3. the lower class of America supporting the upper class of America that we see every day Jan 24 14 12:45 am Link Anyone else.... Anyone... Bueller.... Bueller..... Jan 24 14 09:39 am Link Jan 24 14 09:42 pm Link I've seen dozens of pictures depicting women as furniture. So when it is a black woman it becomes racist? I don't think so. Lot's of pictures show bondage. If I use an African American for that type of shot will that make me racist? What the hell is wrong with people? It is popular to use nude women as serving tables at certain events. Heaven forbid if a black model is used as furniture. OMG! What if as part of the meal, all of the models were adorned with the salad, containing watermelon. People need to stop looking for things to upset them. Jan 24 14 10:02 pm Link Oh come now, it's not like it has nippled milk dispensers or anything. Now that would be something. Jan 24 14 11:18 pm Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: Hunter Wald wrote: Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: I would like to think so. It is perhaps less so today as so many lack in critical thinking skills when it comes to art, which is a direct result of diminishing art education, and critical thinking skills in general, being taught in schools. That said, while art (be it music, film, photography, sculpture, literature, etc.) does not in and of itself create change, it often acts as a catalyst, with individual works of art combining like small waves to produce a larger effect, reflecting the zeitgeist of the moment. The art itself is like the pebble being thrown into a pond. One lone pebble does little, however if hundreds of rocks are dropped into the pond, the effect is more noticeable. Exactly Jan 24 14 11:20 pm Link Hunter Wald wrote: Sometimes. Jan 25 14 01:35 am Link 
Photographer Posts: 4288 Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica The creation of the chair/sculpture is art, but I am so jaded that I cannot see the use of it as a prop for a magazine editor's portrait as anything less than commerce. Jan 25 14 07:31 pm Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: How about, "Don't make your subject look like a white supremacist." It's not the chair, its the whole mis-en-scene surrounding it, all white and elegant, and such a formalized socialite kind of pose - the chair is so badly out of place you cant help but think it's expressing a message of ethnic dominance. I mean, the prop, that chair, has zero connection to either the subject or its surroundings. Put a white rockstar sitting on that chair - Vince Neil or Kid Rock or whatever - put it in Rolling Stone, few people would even bat an eye. That's a totally rockstar thing to do. Shit, I think a portrait of Bootsy Collins all dressed up sitting in that same chair would be so totally bad-ass! Jan 25 14 11:17 pm Link the media can be very choosey in how it expresses outrage. I believe the editor's comments reflect the REAL meaning behind the art. I find it disgusting when media twists something to stir controversy. Jan 26 14 12:21 pm Link |
check my travel dates
