Afterglow V

"it is possible that this is one of those photographs that might be clearer without a title"

The more I look at images the less I'm inclined to believe they are ever necessary.

I see the cast aside doll. Mostly that is all I see. Sure glad you all recognize Pris in Blade Runner. That image comes to my mind as well, but just couldn't put my finger on it until reminded of the part. As far as the title goes, for this and many other POWs, they often escape me. Perhaps the photographer(s) are better photographers than writers. This title means nothing to me. The photo is great, however--a real eye catcher!

The title of a work of Art is only a label or construct which we invent to homogenize our

viewing experience. Our entire experience with the world around us is experienced

through titles and labels of what we are looking at. This of course shortcuts the visual

experience and can actually prevent us from "seeing' what is actually there. Forinstance we

can say " could I have a cup, please". Perhaps there were 10 cups on the shelf, each unique

in size, color, shape etc. There will be no thought as to those distictions when a cup is

given to you. You did not visually express yourself to make any distinctions. As an

expierience, try to spend a day not using titles, names or labels. Try refering to everything

you see by their physical, visual properties. The world comes to life when we 'see' the

individuality of all things. The focus of this discussion seems to be a little bogged down in

the title. Forget the title, it is preventing us from having a visual connection of our own

with the picture for what it actually is. The interpretations we each have are always going

to be different. It is the difference that will make this discussion interesting. How does this

picture make YOU feel ,as a human being?

I am surprised there is so much positive feedback about the image.

Technically, it's a solid photo but not that unusual or interesting.

I suppose it's the content, and not so much the technical prowess, that landed this as photo of the week. In terms of contents, I donﾒt find the photo particularly multi-layered or ambiguous. I admit to looking at this photo in the context of the other 3 pictures that are similar. They all seem like depictions of some creepy fantasy about women as objects. Just creepy, and not in a very creative way either.

M Berman, I assume you have never seen any of Hans Bellmer's stuff.

Eugene:

 

I am familiar with Hans Bellmar's work. Yes, this photo is vaguely in that genre. First, I am not a fan of Hans Bellmar -- I think the content is also creepy and misogynistic (despite critical view points that argue the opposite.) However, Bellmar's aesthetics (color and use of settings) are very strong.

The reference to Bellmer is ok in that he made dolls, usually sexually inspired and with some

sort of victimization in mind. But they were ...dolls. Artificial constructions. What we have in

this picture is either a human who has become a doll (negative impulse) or a doll who has

somehow become a human.( positive impulse). Is she being forced into the corner, helpless

or is she getting up about to rise from her doll existance. Is the cup half empty or half full?

But they were ...dolls. Artificial constructions. What we have in this picture is either a human who has become a doll (negative impulse) or a doll who has somehow become a human.( positive impulse).

Actually the subject is not that clear as you would suppose. Consider Cindy Sherman photographs. In them, she uses herself as a doll or a mannequin. That is to show that the preconceptions we have of women were to a great extent reinforced by the film industry.

Making a simple value judgment (positive vs negative impulse) doesn't get you far once you consider that the doll-like may not be a goal in-itself but could instead refer to something outside the photograph, as is the case with Sherman's photos.

This image freakin rocks. Artistic in nature, scarey in visual and really really disturbing to look at. Everything I like in photography. This is art IMO. Great work... Dave

Sorry, didn't finish with Sherman. I meant to say that the doll-like look a lot of her photographs have was intended to convey the artificiality of preconceptions of women that were/are reinforced by the entertainment industry. The prodigiousness and diversity of her work was a message in itself, mirroring the great variety of these preconceptions and directing the viewer's attention towards the source from where the seemingly archetypal images were drawn.

Back to this photo. What surprises me that a lot of viewers take this photograph at a face value. This is exemplified by the message I quoted above. We have a picture of a woman after sex. But she doesn't at all feel happy about it, and in fact the ambiance is very cold. The woman looks like a doll, lifeless. A (correct) conclusion: There is something here concerning the sexual exploitation of women. A very wrong conclusion: This photo is exploitative and inhuman. There is no reason whatsoever to ascribe what you see in the photograph to the photograph itself. This makes as basic a fault as anything I have known. I don't know how to stress this: The fact that you may not like what is depicted in the photograph is not a reason to dislike the photograph. The photograph could very well condemn what it depicts.

The photograph, like all works of Art is whatever the particular person viewing it percieves it

to be. There is no correct or incorrect anything here. Only interpretation. Each of us comes

with our own baggage to this image. References to other Artists only contributes to the

conditioned response of resisting the image for what IT is, as this Artist intended our

perceptions to take off from. I like to try to let go of everything when I engage a piece of Art.

It makes the experience fresher and less burdened. This image is remarkable mainly for the

ambiguity it presents. The subject is appropriate as regards women and men. This is not a

gender shot, but rather a valid questioning of the human condition.

There is no correct or incorrect anything here. Only interpretation.

Yes, that is exactly why the conclusion that this photograph is exploitative is *wrong* and why the conclusion that this photograph concerns exploitation is *correct*.

Striking and provocative.

Very provocative and compelling photo. Excellent photo of the presumed dancer which portays many potential emotions.

 

Technical aspects of the image including grain and distorted size of her feet (shoes) detracts a very small amount. But I very much like the photo.

Grown-up Balthus model?

Somewhat derivative; There was a series of photos taken of actual dancers in similar poses

from the 70's/80's can't recall the photographer... which had far more impact

 

This image tries too hard in its attempt to provoke; the title, pose, expression, etc. etc.

comes across as self-conscious and technical, with no inner depth - perfect for fashion

 

This discussion is more interesting than the photo - I just see a party girl who got too

drunk and fell on her ass in a corner....

hola antonella!

its a beautiful photo, i love the idea of a girl sitting in a corner with her legs widely spread. this nnarrow almost claustrophobic feeling in a corner and the oposite with her, the girl and her widely spread legs, and those two elements in one photo, very nice!!!!

congratulations!

"This image tries too hard in its attempt to provoke; the title, pose, expression, etc." - James R.

 

Probably a very respectable opinion, even thoughI disagree, but the question that came to mmind, James, was: what would you say about David Lachapelle's work ? The same thing, or not ?

 

I feel there some kind of David Lachapelle feel to this picture, and even more so with other pictures in the author's folders.

Ok, David lachapelle's work is generally a lot "wilder" than this POW - so the above comparison might have its limits... but...

Marc G said -

 

"what would you say about David Lachapelle's work ? The same thing, or not ?"

 

Not

 

context vs expectation

 

My somewhat dismissive reaction was based upon initial expectations raised by the image,

and what the phototgrapher delivered for me; casually glanced at thumbnail for a few

days, without actually viewing it

 

Thought the subject was already telling a story without my having to investigate more

closely - "ahh yes, the woman-as-ragdoll theme"

 

after checking the photographer's other work, I viewed this one full size and felt let down:

I was looking for something other than the photographer's vision - that's my fault, not

hers -

got a love/hate thing for fashion photog

 

the shoes are great; similar to a photo from C Berlingeri - in fact, the shoes make the

image

 

Fashion/editorial portraits are a minefield of interpretration (as some threads here reveal)

 

It's very good; as are her other ones: Technical control and lots of promise from a

relatively young talent

Kind of creepy. I sit here waiting for her head to spin around. I think that is why I like it.

Marc, I am glad you somewhat pulled back from the David LaChappelle comparison, as I

was having a bit of difficulty with that one. More just comparison of style than

anything else. I can read a few thin connections in her use of expression and such tho.

 

I do think that these last comments kind of brought something into focus for me on this

person's portfolio, and actually something that John Kelly brought up very early in this

thread. Looking at the work as a body, one might have to wonder if there is a transition in

the work occurring. Much of the work is rather predictable, I think John mentioned the

sunset thing as an example, but there is also a lot of other work that feels more

experimental and maybe the genesis of something new. For me this image, although

some may see it as a done before theme, is a bit more complete as an individual

expression than some of the others. Even after 30 years, I hope my work is still evolving

and I think here we may be seeing a transitional piece in a transitional portfolio. We

should all strive to keep that alive in our own endeavors.

Mona, you are right about this picture being different from others in her portfolio and afterglow file. It doesnt seem transitional though. I mean there really isnt much continuity to her porfolio. Probably each time she goes to shoot ,a new increase in perceptable ability will be revealed. My daughter does the same thing. Its all new and so of course it is always "transitional". The image of the girl with the pigs mask is for me the one that goes deepest into the way so many young girls percieve themseves in response to the presures of growing up within the expectations of society. It will be interesting to see if she follows this direction or gives it up at the next transition.

Are you all nuts? This photograph is absolutely stunning. I've come back to this picture at least five times in the last three days, because I can't get enough of it.

 

Yeah, I've looked at her other photos, and many of them are just as good, but this picture is by far my favorite simply because of the non-traditional female pose of legs-wide-open - it's very uncommon. Simply beautiful shot. Amazing.

I have viewed this photo in context with others in Antonella's portfolio. I am, no doubt, an amateur at photography, but I don't think that you need to be a pro in order to view, enjoy, and learn from an image. To me, this artist has a very distinct style and creates aesthetic and memorable images overall. I have seen some fine photography in fashion mags (and some really shoddy work as well); I have to say that the photo looks like fashion to me, in a good way, mainly due to the indifference toward the woman as a person. This is not necessarily a statement about the evils of society, because fashion photography serves an entirely different purpose than portraiture. There are some aspects of this shot that I would have seen a little differently, but then I doubt that I would have been able to pull it off half as gracefully!

Also, I amcurious: What is a "technical flaw" anyway? As this forum thread shows, we all have different tastes and styles. For example, I prefer a little breathing room for my subject, while many others insist on a tight crop, and God forbid that the subject be centered! Who writes these rules? And where can I get a copy, so I can burn them?