Your Background

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Michael, if I apply Charles's ideas to my own photos, the first one below is easy and is about cultural trappings and sees Andy as a derived and constructed being, which I actually think is true for most of us (we do construct ourselves culturally). But, even so, showing that in photos can simply be through gathering a collection of signs, symbols, and somewhat hollow imagery that's there for the taking (and color and glitz). Without ignoring our cultural construction, we can take a photo to a different place, which I think the second photo is starting to do and it's a direction I am more inclined and challenged to pursue. The second photo is, in fact, a homage to Scandinavian photographer Rineke Dijkstra, with my own and Andy's own twist. Interestingly, several times in my 10 years of photographing seriously, it's been homages that have led me to more individual expressions in subsequent photos. Another way of approaching background, I suppose. In the background is always the work of others I am influenced and shaped by, no matter how "unique" or "original" I ever become.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p> </p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p> </p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>That background consists of images from a highly sexist subculture. Kiki's placement against that background suggest to me that Kiki colludes with that sexist subculture's precepts in order to 'fit in'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I said it before and I guess I will have to say it again. The world is changing. Women can stretch their images without being judged the way you have judged. I work with burlesque dancers, strippers, alternative lifestyle people, and they choose their own image, not letting someone who cries "sexist" with old fashioned views thinks they should do. Kiki is a strong woman who lives in a world you don't seem to understand.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>I think you're right Michael about Johnson/Berkeley (its been so long since I read the story).</p>

<p>Say, to clarify about Samurai sword. There I'm exploring the idea of how I might heighten my concentration and focus in photography, wielding a camera as though life depended on what I'm trying to say in a final print. Part of that idea is to engage more fully with the creative impulse that is trying to find expression through us in making a photograph. So I thought, what if I mentally tried to compose myself and my concentration and focus, what if I composed a Haiku, freestyle, to try and bring clarity to my own mind. Perhaps with the short poem acting it out physically in a sort of pre-capture performance art. At some point of clarity, weald the sword, click the shutter. Since I'm mostly taking pictures of small, flighty birds I can't see where waving my arms around, stomping while muttering poems under my breath is going to help though.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Jeff - "Kiki is a strong woman who lives in a world you don't seem to understand."</p>

<p>I do think that Kiki understands the world she lives in better than I do, perhaps better than do you. After all, Jeff, you and I are men and it is a man's world. Kiki is a woman in a man's world, and the subcultural imagery that comprises her portrait's background is a man's world too. The only evidence of another world present in her photograph is a spider, the 'Other'. The spider is flattened into an adornment, but it is still present, as the 'Other' always is.</p>

<p>The world isn't changing according to the evidence you provide to support that opinion. Burlesque dancers, strippers aren't new. Those jobs didn't come into existence only during our lifetimes. Those images, roles, already existed in the world into which we were born. Those roles existed as suits of clothing on a rack, there to be sorted out, picked through and donned for money. Folks 'suit up' for reasons and don't get to pick what they get to wear once they decide to wear something, or nothing, in order to make money.</p>

<p> </p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Charles -- Don't you think you're placing an awfully heavy burden of sociological interpretation upon a single photograph (Kiki)? Your take on Kiki's photo seems pretty absolutist in what it represents for Kiki, and for the world at large. Sometimes a cigar <em>is</em> just a cigar. I don't deny that the world is still filled with sexism, but that Kiki is an unwitting victim or tool of it, or that the world still exclusively belongs to men seems overly simplistic. It's an image of a woman licking a Jack Daniel's bottle, with rock posters in the background. If anything, I took the portrait of Kiki to be a bit tongue-in-cheek (no pun intended), and that she is as much mocking as embracing the role she knows she is playing for this portrait.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Steve - "...and that she is as much mocking as embracing the role she knows she is playing for this portrait."</p>

<p>Which suggests to me a tacit acknowledgement of the sexual nature of her licking the bottle? A bottle is not a bottle? I didn't address that symbolism directly in my post. We've been talking around the suggestiveness surrounding the bottle, or at least I don't remember anyone commenting directly on it either. Let me analogize. Let's say that a member contributed to this thread the photograph Piss Christ; and then went on to discuss only the technical aspects of that photo and few members, if any, commented on the content, besides me. And Fred. And now you. And no women commenting on what is very easy in that photo to consider as an objectification of women generally in an adolescent sort of way. Someone should call that out, I did.</p>

<p>As to whether Kiki is this or that: It isn't about the real Kiki. It is about the objectification of women generally. That's a complicated topic. As to whether society is this or that: I have my views and respect other views.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>We've been talking around the suggestiveness surrounding the bottle,<br>

And no women commenting on what is very easy in that photo to consider as an objectification of women...<br>

Someone should call that out, I did.<br>

It isn't about the real Kiki. It is about the objectification of women generally.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is an entirely different discussion and may be the reason that other people have not commented upon it. It may also be the case that some of us are more desensitized to the sexuality of a photo than you. By contemporary standards, Kiki's licking of a bottle is relatively mild. Films, photos, magazines, and social networking websites are saturated with sexuality of a nature far more explicit than Jeff's photo. I find much of it annoying, superfluous, adolescent, and, yes, objectifying and, in some cases, demeaning. A simple watching of a tv program like "Big Bang Theory" reveals so many sexual references per minute that it's hard to keep track of them all. Further, it gives the impression that recreational sex is the norm and perfectly acceptable. Often, the jokes involve sexual acts which, in another time, would have seemed kinky if not downright perverted. I'm neither a prude nor an old-fashioned moralist, but I find myself irritated at the constant barrage of these things. I remember watching the movie "Something About Mary". There is a scene where Ben Stiller masturbates, then does not know that he ejaculated into his hair. Carmen Diaz sees it, mistakes it for hair gel and puts it in her own hair. Oh hardy har har. I wasn't disgusted by the scene because it offended me, I was disgusted by it because it seemed so stupid and adolescent. Will our collective sense of humor never rise above fart jokes, sex, and bodily excretions?</p>

<p>As for the objectification of women (and men), I don't see how that will ever end. We are sexual beings. If it sells, if it attracts, then it will continue to exist. We cannot enact puritanical legislation forbidding prurient images. About all we can do is attempt to educate and perhaps enlighten. But, at what point does education become politically correct propaganda? All interesting points to discuss, but I don't think this particular thread is the place in which to do it. </p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Symbols can be tricky.</p>

<p><em>"Homo sapiens is the species that invents symbols in which to invest passion and authority, then forgets that symbols are inventions."</em> --Joyce Carol Oates</p>

<p><em>"When quick results are imperative, the manipulation of the masses through symbols may be the only quick way of having a critical thing done."</em> --John Grierson</p>

<p>How a photo <strong>uses</strong> symbols may actually be more relevant than the meaning of the symbols themselves in determining how the subject is being portrayed and ultimately being experienced.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Women may take possession of their sexuality in moments of authentic expression before a camera. Yet it is the case that men are in possession of women's sexuality already. One example of men's possession of female sexuality are the cultural images that Steve references, male derived, where visual and active aspects prevail.</p>

<p>If women were in possession culturally of the images of sexual expression, we instead might be flooded with totally different types of imagery. Then men, when expressing their sexuality in a culture where women possess the imagery, might feel it a misfit with their own sexuality. We men would always be looking at those not quite apt images and wonder "Is <em>that</em> what they want?"</p>

<p>I'm not sure what imagery a culture of female derived sexual imagery would contain. Perhaps those from prehistory, pre-patriarchy, of the Venus.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure what imagery a culture of female derived sexual imagery would contain. Perhaps those from prehistory, pre-patriarchy, of the Venus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No need to reach that far back, Charles. A more current example might be found <a href="http://www.vogue.com/?us_site=y">here.</a></p>

[charleswood]

<p>Your current example is far from what I had in mind. Those are the images of women adorned as men would have them adorned in our present time, where women, again, aren't the one's who control the imagery of woman. I'm suggesting that when women under matriarchy had more say, the images of women's sexuality wasn't what we've accustomed to? A Venus shows women's sexuality in context: fecundity, perpetuation. Another representation in image might be a female dog lactating, each breast full, the carrier of life and all that life means. Or a female bear, known as a ferocious protectress of her cubs. Again, sexuality in context.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>(Note that I mean 'background' as everything that is not what one sees as the 'player(s)' in the picture; this will include stuff at any distance)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Another reaction to Julie's question as to what constitutes background. This can be several hours in the process of thinking and composing an image, or on the computer in post treatment, or in the silver image producing darkroom. They are not always directly apparent from the final image, but part of what made the image, "stuff at a distance." </p><div></div>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>Your current example is far from what I had in mind. Those are the images of women adorned as men would have them adorned in our present time, where women, again, aren't the one's who control the imagery of woman.</blockquote>

<p>I thought you might say something that. I can assure you that Anna Wintour controls every aspect of female imagery in Vogue magazine. But that's invalid because she's a byproduct of centuries of patriarchal domination? I'm not saying you're entirely incorrect in some of your opinions regarding female expressions of sexuality, but it's as if you invalidate any possibility of a contemporary woman being capable of expressing what is sexual to her. Yet you, a man, somehow have the capability of tapping into some ancient matriarchal truths. Seems a bit...questionable.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Steve - "But that's invalid because she's a byproduct of centuries of patriarchal domination?"</p>

<p>Invalid and valid simultaneously. Because Vogue imagery represents something essential about women, but does not in a full range of images come anywhere close to capturing the essence of 'woman'. Same can be said of our culture's largely commerce driven image set, including the problem of women portrayed as role models who are unrepresentatively thin.</p>

<p>I'm suggesting that a more complete image set can be constructed by looking to other times and places. I'm not tapping into ancient matriarchal truth: I'm suggesting we look at the history of Western art, Eastern art, etc. to compile a more complete set of images of 'woman'. We would in that process know more about our own times and culture by comparison.</p>

<p>And most importantly, to look to prehistory for representations of women from a time that predates patriarchy. The hope would be of finding images that a woman would from her own heart use to represent herself <em>to other women first</em>, but secondarily to men. Because in our culture, with men dominant, a woman must represent herself <em>first</em> to men. That mis-ordering of representation is what I mean when I say that men 'possess' women's sexuality in our culture.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The relaxed and casual nature of the Italian people is belied by the geometric precision and rigorousness of their architecture.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Photo related to the 8:12 post</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Probably our beliefs are the most influential background for what we see and find.</p>

<p>________________________________________</p>

<p>In the background of each photo is a body of work. Kiki and Andy, and every other subject of every portrait, needs not only be seen against the background of their individual photos but against the background of the body of work of the photographer who brings them to us.</p>

<p>We've often talked about the importance of what's NOT in the frame. Well, my claim here would be that all the pictures in my portfolio and in Jeff's portfolio that are NOT of Kiki and Andy could give some great clues as to how Kiki and Andy are being presented.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, my claim here would be that all the pictures in my portfolio and in Jeff's portfolio that are NOT of Kiki and Andy could give some great clues as to how Kiki and Andy are being presented.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well that's an excellent point. I have a portfolio and most of the photos I present are part of that. (The portrait of Tony is a job.) Looking at my photos (and Fred's) gives a vision beyond individual photos, much broader than just the one or two photos presented in a thread.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>That is an excellent point, Fred. One could say that a photographer's body of work is the background that helps give us more background to their backgrounds. ;-)</p>

<p>Arthur -- Interesting point also. I am not well-versed in a history of architecture. Would you date that background structure as, roughly, Renaissance time period? I am somewhat familiar with the history and culture of the ancient Roman empire. Their roads, walls, and aqueducts tend to reflect a single-minded dominance in the sense that they tended to impose their will on topographical obstacles. Just as they imposed (or attempted to impose) their will on tribes and civilizations in the areas they conquered. I wonder -- Were the people who inhabited the Italian peninsula in 200 BC, or 1500 AD, as relaxed and casual as we intrepret the contemporary inhabitants to be? Regardless, your photo, seen in the light of what you said (relaxed and casual people, rigorously formal background) gives an interesting depth and contrast to the juxtaposition of the two.</p>

 

[charleswood]

<p>Steve - "Their roads, walls, and aqueducts tend to reflect a single-minded dominance in the sense that they tended to impose their will on topographical obstacles. "</p>

<p>Topographical obstacles are 'the feminine'. If we look at the cave paintings we see the world of the hunter. When we look at the Venus statuary from that period, we see the gatherers. The gatherers domesticated plants and animals to improve a hunter's life and the lives of their children, the women much more connected to mother earth.</p>

<p>What have we done with those gifts to us from 'the feminine'? The trend shown in recorded history has been of almost single-minded dominance over nature, women, and each other. In both the West and in the East.</p>

<p>One of the best illustration in film of 'masculine'/'feminine' orientations is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Weeping_Camel">The Story of the Weeping Camel</a>. The men's approach to a mother Camel's abandonment of its baby is to push mother and child together physically. But it had been a difficult birth, too painful for the mother to not see her baby as but more pain. So forcing the baby on the mother doesn't work. The woman in the film knows it won't work, but waits patiently for the men to exhaust themselves.</p>

<p>The approach that works to unite camel mother and camel baby turns out to be music: the playing on an instrument mournful music to the mother camel. The mother camel weeps, releases her pain, and reunites with her child. The film illustrates that the men in the community won't resort to feminine approaches until all other options have failed. Partly because they don't want to pay for a musician when if they could just force the baby on its camel mother, that expense could be avoided. It is folly, the feminine woman knows it, and she has to wait for the men to catch up. That is the essence of recorded history in a nutshell. That men won't weep until it is the last thing. If they weep only for themselves, the tears are wasted. If the tears fall on mother earth, all is renewed and life can begin again.</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>Fred - "The second photo is, in fact, a homage to Scandinavian photographer Rineke Dijkstra, with my own and Andy's own twist."</p>

<p>Now I get it! I wondered what that photo was about. Bravo!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Steve, the contrast is really of one of the relaxed and informal contemporary Italians (although there may be some foreign tourists as well relaxing in the afternoon October sun of my photo) to the Medieval architecture (the facade was completed n 1204) that is very ordered and precise and precursor to later architecture of the Rennaisance.</p>

<p>I don't know too much about the Italians (those people of the penninsula, as Italy was only defined politically in the 19th century) of the 12th and 13th century, but they were lovers of art and social life and quite concerned about good versus bad government (An ancient painting in the Sienna civic building shows this dichotomy). Modern Italians are very proud of their heritage.</p>

<p>The Etruscans (Lucca is an Etruscan-founded city), earlier Italians, buried their women in vaults with varied personal worldly possessions in the same manner as the burying of the males, denoting a quite liberated social system some 2500 years ago. The contemporary Romans also valued social leasures, although, as you say, they did impose their government and buildings (many Greek inspired) on other civilisations and insisted on straight roads. My encounters with contemporary Italians confirmed a relaxed and family oriented society. </p>

<p>Thanks for noting the gambit of contrast between background and foreground. Because part of the foreground is often the key subject it can be highlighted, or brought into question or tension, with a contrary background. Colors and forms can be contrasted in similar manner. </p>

<p>In fact, the background serves I think as an additional and important "frame" to the subject and image,more so than a simple wooden or metal frame which simply "confines and does not define."</p>

<p>Somewhat different background use, but this shot (later the same day) makes me think about the close stone and clay architecture of narrow Italian streets having a biological counterpoint in the geometrical assembly of Italians in conversation (the color image is perhaps better). </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>Original photo</p><div></div>