Is There Beauty in Vulnerability?

<p>Is there beauty in vulnerability?</p>

<p>Fred G.'s frequent allusions to "intimacy" raised this question in my mind. </p>

<p>This photo by Donna Pallotta triggered the impulse to post the question:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/12482852</p>

<p>I thought that I would just toss it out and see how persons interpret and respond to it. I have no agenda and no script as to how I expect the discussion to go.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><B>A note from the management. This is not a "No Words" forum. If you have a series of photos that you think is pertinent, create a presentation, not an inline gallery in the middle of a thread, and provide a lionk. The thread has been pruned to exactly one picture post per person.</b></p>

<p>Beauty and vulnerability? I'm afraid I don't see either in that shot.</p>

<p>I think the question could just as easily be, is there vulnerability in beauty?:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=2493354&forward">http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=2493354&forward</a>=</p>

There is beauty in everything. It's subjective.

<p>Lannie,<br>

That is a question worth pondering. The picture has a nice mood and narrative. I see how it inspired the question. Photographers must all at some time peek over the shoulder of someone in concentration or reverie and steal their moment. The subject's vulnerability may excite prurient impulses. Is that an aesthetic or a compulsion? There is a photo book called "Voyeur"</p><div></div>

<p>Lannie,<br>

Intriguing question; at first gut reaction I'd reply as William and Frank did; there is beauty in anything if you choose to see it.<br>

But you add a link to a photo and refer to intimacy. That calls for a more eloborate response than just that. I agree on your linking between this intimacy and vulnerability. Thank you for expressing this.<br>

Fred, in a 99% certainty you'll read this, I hope you don't mind the below, and sure let me know if you do.<br>

_____________________<br>

In my view, this intimacy stretches further than the photos. It's not only a clue to Fred's photos, it's a clue to Fred's postings here. It's willingly and openly sharing inner thoughts, processes, ideas and be ready to be found wrong in them. It's a way of communicating: open minded and ready to discuss.<br>

There seems to be vulnerability in that, because you let people indoors, and they may try to wreck your furniture. People easily mistake it for being easy to influence, easy to sway opinions; weak. That, it isn't. If anything, it's a case of feeling strong enough to do so, and to not shy away from disagreement or worse. Vulnerable, but with a iron-concrete foundation. Open minded and ready to discuss, but with an opinion and a message. (*)</p>

<p>This is what I get from the photos as well. The intimacy allows in, but once in you're given enough clues, signals and signs as to what's going on. As a viewer, you're quite well guided to experiencing what is inside that picture (**).</p>

<p>And now, how does this relate to beauty?<br>

Obviously that's also a matter of personal taste; in this mix of intimacy, iron will and vulnerability, most of all I get the thought of a human being, communicating with me. It's personal, it is stretching out to other humans and trying to touch and move them. The intimacy is there between artist and viewer. So, when it touches (and Fred's photos frequently do that for me), it does so on a level that many photographers do not reach. One-on-one, human to human.<br>

________________________<br>

The photo that triggered the post for you does not do that to me, though I can understand your reaction to it. The scene has the right intimacy, like being drawn in into her life. For me, however, the presentation (post processing) ruin the atmosphere. As said, taste plays a role.<br>

Here's an <a href="../photo/13791132">example of a photo that I feel fits the subject</a>. My comments on that photo apply equally to this subject, I think.</p>

<p>--------------------------------------<br>

(*) I'd say the same applies to Luca's honest approach is saying he doesn't know in his <a href="00Z9b3">excellent thread</a> ranks as a same type of vulnerability, and any question raised there is an view into his thought process. An intinmacy in how the thoughts develop and seek. Though I stopped contributing in that thread (because I have nothing useful to add), I follow it with interest and applaud the way this thread has evolved. Rather than stating opinions, it explores and seeks. I get much more out of that than a bunch of fact-oid statements.<br>

(**) It sounds like I am saying the viewer has less liberty in deciding what he or she sees; this is not exactly what I'd want to say here, though we could argue it's the case. I never yet thought of it like that, so my thoughts aren't sorted yet.</p>

<p>I'm not very interested in the beauty part of this question, though I acknowledge it. What is engaging to me is the idea of vulnerability, both in the photographer and the subject, and maybe even in the thinking behind our themes, approaches, etc.</p>

<p>I think in some instances there can be a 'beauty in vulnerability'. One 'experience' I captured in a photo might better describe my feelings on this, however being personal, the experience and therefore also the image, may or may not resonate for anyone else.</p>

<p>I was travelling in Morocco in the mountains, and the few women I encountered were pretty much all veiled and showing only their eyes. But one afternoon in a mountain village where I'd stayed for several days and been befriended by a group of young children, a small boy took me by the hand and led me up a hill path behind the village where we had a splendid view out over the valley.</p>

<p>As we rounded a corner we came to a small group of young unveiled women, washing their clothes in a little stream and drying them on the sunlit rocks. They were all surprised to see me, but they smiled and accepted my presence as my 8 year old guide and hand-holder was obviously well-known to them.</p>

<p>We shared no common language but we managed to communicate with smiles and laughter. And after a while when I raised my camera to photograph the view, two of the young women gesticulated for me to photograph them. Which I did, quickly, taking only a couple of frames.</p>

<p>This is one of the frames. Unveiled, self-conscious, but cooperative and aquiescing to the shared experience of photographer and subject in a way that rarely occurs, but when it does is an experience to savour. And given the circumstances and their normal use of the veil, I think portraying a vulnerability that does indeed bring with it a beauty, and dignity, that I find compelling.</p>

<p><img src="http://multimedia.streamlinenettrial.co.uk/Assorted_Images/maroc1.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="608" /></p>

<p>That's a beautiful story, John, and an even more beautiful photograph.</p>

<p>I'm glad you got out and lived to tell the tale. One does not want to make oneself too vulnerable.</p>

<p>I don't think that women were meant to be veiled, and apparently these two would agree.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><br /><strong>Anders.</strong> I wasn't bothered by the post processing. Possible narratives arose from the details that kept me looking. The vulnerability content was implied by the subject's back being toward the viewer sneaking up unawares and observing intimately. In this case the grainy, gauzy , monochrome reinforces the subject's removal from the moment and the color tells us where her full concentration lies.<br>

Children are vulnerable no matter what they are doing or where they are. It is a matter of survival for all creatures to instinctively know this. <br>

<strong>John M.</strong> I see a child-like vulnerability and beauty in these "un-protected" women. Had I not known the back-story, it would be there still. </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Beauty and vulnerability? I'm afraid I don't see either in that shot.<br>

I think the question could just as easily be, is there vulnerability in beauty?:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=2493354&forward" target="_blank">http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=2493354&forward</a>=</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>William, if that is your conception of beauty, you are welcome to it. Beauty to me has something to do with authenticity. She looks plastic to me.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

 

<p>Not especially. It's just a shot that seems to contain both elements. Besides, she kind of reminds me of my high school sweetheart - not an ounce of plastic anywhere...</p>

<p>You are "vulnerable" when you are "caught with your pants down", I think English people would say. We all have elements that render us vulnerable which throughtout history has been called our <em>Achilles Heel</em> with reference to Greek Mythology and told by Homer in the epic poem : Iliad.</p>

<p>Such vulnerability can of course be shot in photography and the link given in the OP is maybe an example. Whether John's shot of two unveiled Moroccan girls (young girls are mostly not veiled) is very touching but whether it shows any vulnerability is a matter of opinion. The older girl might be considered vulnerable, standing unveiled as here in front of a stranger, according to certain islamists interpretations - not mine!</p>

<p>When it comes to beauty, I have much more problems of linking the two concepts. Vulnerability, in my eyes does not produce any beauty per se, unless feeling of perceived power and strength of the viewer faced with vulnerability of others, can be interpreted as an element of beauty. I doubt it for most of us.</p>

<p>Although the two young women may havve experienced hardships within their own lives, their faces still reveal their innocence. Perhaps that's a real sense in which the beauty a photograph expresses derives from the subjects' vulnerability. Then again, vulnerability may be context-dependent. A newborn infant is vulnerable in a different way than a teenage girl going out on her first date or an old person ravaged by alzheimer's disease. </p>

<p>Another take on vulnerability is from the standpoint of the photographer. A photograph that appears to be off the proverbial track, unconventional, inconsistent with "the rules", etc., reflects the photographer's intent to take chances, which may increase his/her vulnerability. Risk-taking may be the ticket here. </p>

<p>People are vulnerable when they are intimate (in a variety of social contexts). That can be beautiful, I think.</p>

<p>Vulnerable people, especially persons who deliberately drop their social armor, are more appealing to me than those who look like they are psychologically armed for battle. They do not go about with grim looks. They invite communication. I like to be around such persons. I like to capture them once in a while in a photograph. Their faces bespeak a certain openness and tranquility. I find that beautiful.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie - Clearly 'vulnerable' under the circumstances you describe means 'open.' If you consider beauty to encompass authenticity, then I would agree with your conclusion - "I find that beautiful." I'm sure you weren't referring just to physical beauty.</p>

<p>Michael, Lannie, sounds to me like you're close to saying what I tried to say before (though maybe I was very explicitely using an example, though I'd uphold the example is a good example). And so, yes, I agree to what you're both saying.<br /> Openness, authentic, human, direct....as Lannie, to me, it much has to do with drawing in, engaging communication, inviting. That can be the subject, as well as the photographer (or both), indeed. It's not easy, in my view, and I find it little in photos.</p>

<p>Sure the word 'beauty' (beautiful) is always going to be arguable, and perceptions and taste play a big role of course. Risk (for this thread) is that you're not going to escape this level. So, rather than "just" the appreciation, how does it fit into your process of making photos? Do you feel able as a photographer to create this openness and tranquility, and how?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>how does it fit into your process of making photos? Do you feel able as a photographer to create this openness and tranquility, and how?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>BRAVO!</p>

<p>Beauty is easy, but your folks gotta ask yourself a real question: "Why do I/You/We like to see vulnerability?" Here your go.</p>

<p>I agree that if the subject of the OP is <em>openness</em>, <em>authenticity </em>or <em>intimacy,</em> you can "find that beautiful" but <strong>vulnerability </strong>would normally be describing a person in a situation where he/she is in danger of being physically or emotionally wounded - correct me if I'm wrong !.<br>

A person sitting on a small branch high up in a tree is vulnerable - he/she might fall down ! Or an unveiled young girl walking around in a neighborhood where all women are veiled, is vulnerable - she might be harassed by others. In such cases the beauty of the situation might be more questionable, especially if the situation is provoked by the photographer.</p>

<p>Ilia, I guess tha you are saying this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>you folks gotta ask yourself a real question: "Why do I/You/We like to see vulnerability?" Here you go.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've already given my answer:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Vulnerable people, especially persons who deliberately drop their social armor, are more appealing to me than those who look like they are psychologically armed for battle. They do not go about with grim looks. They invite communication. I like to be around such persons. I like to capture them once in a while in a photograph.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Anders, you make an excellent point. At first, I was thinking about vulnerability in the positive sense in which I might, for example, allow myself to be vulnerable in the arms of a lover. That's taking a risk, because one can get hurt, but it can also be a source of growth and intimacy.</p>

<p>The "Achilles heal" sense of vulnerability you bring up is substantial. It's challenged me to think about "vulnerable" in a way I hadn't been.</p>

<p>Vulnerability can be exploited. Think of gawker shots of "the homeless." But, following what Michael brought up, if a photographer allows <em>himself</em> to be vulnerable, he may portray his subjects differently and perhaps more empathetically.</p>

<p>Portraits are often seen to be about what the person looks or IS like. They can also be about what the subject is looking at. What the subject may be looking at is, at least in part, the photographer. The vulnerability of that photographer can be reflected in the subject, and it may very well be reflected as strength or some other emotion. I am profoundly aware of the gaze of my subjects, their eyes on <em>me</em>.</p>

<p>Vulnerability can be created, or helped along, photographically. (We're talking about people, but we're also talking about people photographed!) It can be found in composition, perspective, lighting, depth of field, and texture. (Consider the difference between open and more closed compositions, shooting someone from above or below, having your subject sharp vs. a little soft.)</p>

<p>Vulnerability can be ugly. Vulnerability can be a dialogue between weakness and strength, both desirable qualities in many situations. Vulnerability is often a challenge.</p>

<p>A viewer can be made vulnerable. That can be uncomfortable, especially if the viewer is looking for something comfortable and acceptable.</p>

<p>Remember V-war time Life mag shot: young girl running over the bridge, screaming, arms rised up, combat situation right behind her? Napalm? Smell of victory? Empty shells, plenty all over the ground? Sally Manns stuff? That's vulnerability. Somebody seating on thin branch or take "social armour" off is but a play for the better word.</p>

<p> "To take a photograph is to participate in another person's (or thing's) mortality, vulnerability, mutability." --- Susan Sontag<a href="http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=82&name=Sontag,Susan"><br /></a></p>

<p>Putting Beauty aside, a few thoughts: Vulnerability lacks protection and invulnerability has it. The latter, being armored, shielded, etc. would also be insulated, fearful, removed from unforeseen possibilities and isolated from sensory input. This can be useful if one is on a "roll" or tracking. But all protection/armor has its price. Being vulnerable means increased sensitivity, mobility, courage, visibility, grace, transparency. It doesn't have to mean high literal drama of the imminent death/disfigurement/dismemberment kind. For a photographer, pushing, putting oneself beyond your own horizon or comfort level is to make oneself vulnerable. Vulnerable to discomfort and failure, but also to exploration, new ways of seeing things, and success. In the subject, invulnerability isn't always a negative. The exterior of the insulation/camo/armor conserves information about what's inside. Sometimes very interesting info.</p>

<p>All of these things can be of great use and/or significance if one can synergize with them.</p>

<p>

<p>Yes, Luis. People put up armor all the time. It's a truth and one worth making a photograph about in many instances. So armor (or our personas?) are very much their own kind of truth and pop up in my photographs all the time.</p>

<p>I'm not sure my own armor doesn't pop up as well, which can be honest and revealing also.</p>

<p>Beauty, in some of its uses, provides the armor, the white wash. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, Luis. People put up armor all the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your strength, Fred, is your willingness to drop your intellectual armor--since there is armor and then there is armor. Obviously you are "well-armed" by training and intellect to defend yourself in argumentation, but you much more often open yourself up, which keeps the conversation going. Thinkers who do not open up don't say much, after all.</p>

<p>Along another line, sometimes armor <em>qua</em> clothes can be safely dropped, especially in a communal/familial/tribal context. Here is a truly classic self-portrait by Roger Keagle and friends from the 1960s:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/2039293</p>

<p>I saw a glimpse of some of the counter-culture in Gainesville, Florida in the early 1970s, albeit as a bit of outsider.</p>

<p>The book <em>The Holy Goof </em>just popped into my head at this moment. I am not quite sure why. I think that I read it in the eighties or early nineties, when it came out. Maybe the "beat generation" knew something about vulnerability.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>