Why do many people want perfection? (Critique?) (Comments?)

I recently posted these two shots here (one is a crop of the other). I

prefer the original, but boy did it get panned in the Photo Critiqe

forum. I like a bit of realizm to my nudes (and my shots in general).

I find real people much more compelling than professional models (fake

people? Hmmmmm....gotta think about that one :D).

 

In general, most people prefer the crop. My question is sort of a

philosophical one, why is it that the c-section scar (which is what a

couple of people 'fessed up do disliking) is unapealing? Which image

do YOU prefer?

You ask an important question and the answer is complex. It can be defined many ways.

 

One is that it is a genetic/evolutionary reaction to prefer looking at the more perfect body. Even babies(2-3 months) will prefer to look at the faces of people whom adults rate more attractive than the unattractive. Jenkins 1987

 

Most people including myself prefer to minimize the apearance of scars. They tend to result from negative circumstances and as such embody those feelings that come forth.

 

Your eyes are drawn to it, and as its cause is analyzed, it takes on greater importance. It pulls at you to understand why. But then perhaps that's what you want.

Tim, fascinating answer. I didn't know that about babies :). I have always tended toward the idea that "the body tells a story." Scars and such have never seemed ugly to me (but, I've been accused of being a tad odd :D). I did get what I was after in the first shot, but was surprised at other's reactions to it (being a bit of a hermit in the foothills in Taiwan probably helped add to the surprise...I sometimes forget how other people view things). I suspect that I'm going to have to either minimize the presence, or use it as a focal point...maybe there is no middle ground here.

 

RML, thanks. I am tending to agree that I'm starting to prefer the crop, even though the original intent of the shot was lost (and I completely agree about the background...thought I'd set the F stop so there was less DOF...another Homer Simpson moment :). Funny, Hustler and Playboy have never been my thing (yep, beautiful bodies, but about as real as Madison Avenue...errr...well, they ARE related :D)...I think this shot is a reaction to people being too self critical of their own bodies, something maybe created by unatainable advertising shots. I'm sitting overhearing a conversation between two women, one is complaining that she has put on 5kg and that she is ugly. I'm begining to think that I may not try and hire "professional" models, everyone is capturing their beauty. Maybe (because getting women to pose here is a real challenge) I ought to go photograph Taiwanese street walkers, bumps, bruises, and all. These are often women who view themselves as "past their prime" and undesireable, but...every body tells a story :).

 

I dunno, maybe I'm (as the Chinese say) "thinking too much" :D, wouldn't be the first, and won't be the last :D.

I can't quite understand Tim Flagler's remarks. He may be correct in citing evolutionary preference. Yet, evolutionary preference tells us to do a lot of things that our learned preferences countervail against. In fact, the whole idea of evolutionary preferences do not make sense except in the context of the learned preferences! So whatever the realist's conception of beauty is, it isn't given by evolutionary preference alone. There is a beauty in individual character that disappears the more one favors a convergent ideal. The very language of "scar" and "blemish" invoke a tacit acceptance of the very kinds of standards that are in question. Let me see life in a face. Fashion magazines are full of pretense, and hence, render their models ugly. I don't buy their images for a minute.

 

BTW, I love Tina Fey on SNL with her facial scar. The camerapeople try to minimize it on Weekend Update, but I like seeing it. Drives me wild. Amy Poehler probably doesn't match most people's ideals for female beauty, but she certainly is beautiful to me.

 

Luke

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that perhaps the reason people were getting hung up on the c-section scar has more to do with the photo's ambiguity, than anything else.

 

Your model is in a glamourous, kind of high-fashion pose--so when people critique it, they're probably assuming that's what you're trying to show--and they're trying to very helpfully point out anything that takes away from that Madison Avenue look! :-) I probably would've done the same thing, had I critiqued it, withough knowing you were trying to show beauty in imperfections.

 

When I am critiquing photos--I try to critique them not in terms of what *I* like--but in terms of what I *think* the photographer was trying to achieve--and I comment on things that support this imagined goal, as well as things that detract from it.

 

I have found similar situations with my own work--where I was SO clear on my point--that I didn't realize that not everyone else would have the same background--and thus the same context--as me. A good example--was an image entitled "Temptress" that I did with a woman as an allegorical temptress--Eve, Circe, Morgan le Fay. I posed her in a very stagey way--half-nude--holding an apple in front of and slightly off to the side of her breast.

 

Having grown up with mythology and artistic symbolism being part of my everyday life--I assumed that this was a photo that didn't require an explanation--that the reference to Eve, holding out the apple--which is also near her breast, and thus implying a tie-in between knowledge of good and evil/forbidden fruit/sex--was almost over the top!

 

When I sent it to a group I belong to, for critique, however, I was dealing with people who primarily do standard portrait photography--and only a few people seemed to get the reference that, to me--was painfully obvious. One person told me that if I wanted to do nudes--I should just DO 'em--or if I wanted to cover up breasts, use a hand, because it was more natural--but I should definitely lose the apple! (Doh!)

 

Since then--I've tried to explain what I was doing with each photograph more carefully, before asking for critiques--and I've found that people's critiques are more aligned with my purpose then--and they don't say silly things like, "lose the apple". ;-) (This isn't to say that they don't think it--or that my art works for them any better than it did before--but at least I've provided them with some of my context, and that helps them decide what they do and don't wish to comment on.)

 

As for the philosophy behind beauty/perfection...well, as others have already said--it's a big subject--but there's no doubt that it's at least partically wrapped up in our genetic heritage, as has been suggested repeatedly by studies done with infants, like the one referenced earlier. BUT--people CAN appreciate other things--it just helps if they can understand WHY you're showing what you're showing! :-) (If you doubt it--go to a museum--to an exhibit for an artist you don't like and don't understand--and listen to the recorded guided tour, as you view the exhibit. You still might not like the artist when you're done--but you'll have a better undrestanding of their art--and a greater appreciation for it! :-))

 

Just my two cents...

 

(Oh yeah--and there's not much you can do with people who critique without reading any background/context you've tried to give them...you just have to sort of ignore them! ;-))

I like the uncropped one better, but I can see why a lot of people don't. Like somebody said above, this is sort of an idealized, graphical sort of composition and an idealized, graphical sort of body would be expected.

 

I'm actually more distracted by the waistband marks than the scar.

Luke, I understand Tim's comments, and maybe that is my point (sometimes I don't know the entire point of a project or a shot until long after it is shot, developed, printed, and framed :D)...questioning evolutionary preferences...understanding them, then also understanding reality. As I think about it, I don't KNOW if there is a word in Chinese for scar...if there is, it isn't used commonly (haven't run across it enough in 15 years for it to stick). There are an awful lot of 'em here (scooters, motorcycles, life in general). Now that I think about it, scars SEEM more common here than they did in the U.S..

 

Aurora...hmmm, your first statement kinda hits it. Why is it that life's marks are unglamorous (I know the answer, but in a perfect world it ought not be that way :D). I'm actually really glad that that shot got some low ratings and that the people who gave them were willing to tell me WHY (usually I send emails and get no response, people must assume that I'm miffed or something). I also try and think of what the photographer was trying to accomplish when critiquing a shot, and more often than not give a rating (higher) that reflects that instead of my own personal preferences :). Then again, I tend not to leave low rating, but leave a couple of comments in their place. You did an Eve shot? Funny, that was one of the shots I wanted to do the day this shot was taken. All of the apples at the supermarket were small (needed one of the giant Japanese Fujis). Maybe I should give more information when I ask for critiques, but in general I don't talk much about the intent behind what I do. I figure that people may read more in to it than I intended, and usually what they read in to it is more important to them than what I actually intended :).

 

And Mark, we actually talked about the waistband marks for this shot, and thought about waiting for them to go away. My general feeling was that they didn't detract from the shot as I intended :) (an intent that was lost in the critique process, I think I'll re-post it with more explanation and see what happens).

 

The model, BTW *HATES* this shot and thinks I am nuts to even question what she sees as a "natural" view of beauty. She can't figure out why I don't re-touch the blemishes and the like :). I think at an intelectual level she understands it when I ask "What is unapealing about the story of motherhood written on a body?"

The problem with the uncropped photo is not the scars, but composition. Your uncropped photo is cutoff at an un-natural looking point on the body.

 

If this shot had been full body or even cut just above the knees it would have been better. I good way to judge cropping on nudes is to look at where clothing would fall. If she were wearing shorts you would crop just below the shorts.

 

The cropped photo cuts off where the top of pants or skirt would be. This is a more natural crop point.

 

The other issue with the uncropped point is the angle of the shot. By shooting from a low vantage point you have made the hips appear larger, this also brings more attention to her scar.

 

In my opinion this shot done from a higher angle and full body would be very flattering to her.

Your main problem is posting a specific exploration for critique on a general forum... then

reacting to the tendency of such forums to gravitate to the lowest common denominator

or most acceptable forms of generalized aesthetics.

 

It's like floating a new idea in front of a giant focus group. Such an endeavor places

pressure on any exploration to conform to the law of averages.

 

IMO, whether your photo is good or bad isn't the issue. It's more about what you are

exploring and how well you articulate that IN THE PHOTO itself. If I imagined this image as

an 8 foot tall print in a gallery amongst similar explorations of real life studies, the context

changes for me. I get it then. But that's just me, not the mob.

The original is a more dynamic composition, but I'm more put-off by the

distracting background corner than the scar.

 

Different people have different aesthetic preferences for their models. Aesthetic ideals have

changed practically each decade for the last century, and even differ by geographic region.

(Contemporary Chinese fashion photography looks quite different from cutting edge

American advertising and photography, for example.) Some people don't like tattoos or

piercings or scars. Some prefer them.

Vince, that is a brilliant way of looking at cropping. I think I'm going back in to the darkroom to re-print quite a few shots to see what happens (that is if the )@$#@#$@#$ Ilford importer actually gets fixer...there is no more on the island at the moment).

 

I actually wanted the scar (and the stretch marks that show better on the print), and wanted to emphasize it...with the question "Why is this considered unapealing?" The first response, the psychological explanation, makes sense. However, if that is how people view beauty and what is appealing...boy are a lot of women in trouble as age and childbirth set in. In fact, I'm...errr...obsessed? with this idea right now that I am actually not considering a couple of younger models, prefering to try and get women over 30 who have had kids (and that is usually the #1 objection to posing...stretch marks...which is exactly the point of getting the models to pose).

 

Marc, yep. I'm figuring that out. I've pretty much decided to let the masses decide what remains up on photo.net. I post elsewhere where I can leave piles of images up, but as one of those who are unable to become members due to the brilliance of Pay Pal and Visa's inability to verify no romanized alphabet names, I'm limited to 100 images (in theory, I know, but I do respect the soft limit for the most part). If an image's rating goes below a level that changes depending on my mood at the time I look at the image, I delete it (save'um'disk space for photo.net).

 

and...errr...well, I'm trying to find a place that can do a roughly life sized print for me...that was kinda what I had in mind, about 3-4 feet tall. Unfortunately, this is Taiwan and some things may just not be possible until I make a trip back to the U.S. or Canada :).

 

�[� Z

 

Yes, I agree...I'm probably going to try and re-shoot this, but the feel will be different. I've considered cloning it out, but that would violate my rule of not doing something digitally that I can't do in the darkroom...hmmm, maybe that should be my cue to burn 10-20 prints figuring out how to get rid of it in the darkroom so I *can* do it digitally with a clear concience :).

 

I dunno about prefering tatoos, piercings, or scars. They just are. I can't imagine that someone would prefer a scar, or scars. However, their presence tells a story (one woman who I would love to shoot has arms covered with self-inflicted scars...talk about a story...I ended up getting that story out of her, and it isn't what the scars would first indicate...not random self-mutilation or suicide attempts...unfortunately, she's unwilling to have her photo taken at all).

 

Anyway, thanks for your responses. I'm constantly evaluating what I am doing and why, but still tend to fall back on the old technique of live music improv...if it feels right, do it and damn the logic :D.

<i><blockquote> I actually wanted the scar (and the stretch marks that show better on the

print), and wanted to emphasize it </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Lighting/flags for emphasis then.

after a couple of weeks away, I am really glad to see this posting so thoughtfully considered. Thanks to all who contributed... t

A.Z., why am I picturing planting a flag like a 16th century British colonizer...and why am I picturing a model with a VERY large meat cleaver coming after me :D.

 

Yes, thanks to all who contributed. VERY good discussion :).