nudes Woman Wrapped in American Flag

You should license this to the US Army for a recruiting poster! The pose is non-controversial; inclusion of the flag is, of course, controversial, but you won't get argument from me. Nice.

I really like the arrangement and the tones in this shot

I feel that this shot is perhaps attempting to making a statement regarding the pride of America covering its vulnerability.

 

However the decapitation of the model removes a great deal of emotion that could be resolved by the facial expression. I would like to see the shot with the head intact.

I'd say that's quite patriotic and original!

It's shots such as this that me think an anti-flag burning/desecration amendment might not be such a bad idea after all. That's what the low originality score is all about.

 

Which is too bad because this is a really well set up and executed shot. Composition is there, your model can pose very well, you do wonders with skintone.

Who is this fascist Kelly Perl??? Wonderful shot.

This really caught my eye! Lighting and composition are stunning. K.P.'s comments about desecration are, sadly, probably shared by many in your land. It's always puzzled me why explicitly rendered decapitations, etc. are considered fit for viewing in American mass media and nudity is not.

First, thank you all for your comments. I was not sure what the response would be...I am a happy to read the variety of notes--including Ms. Perl's. My reasoning for the decapitation was simple (in my mind)--it was not meant to be a portrait. Putting the person's head in, to me, gave a more individual feel and I was looking beyond the woman's face. I have corresponded with Perl and she feels it is a disrespectful to the flag to use it as a type of clothing--(she has expressed to me to learn the rules of the use of the flag on the American Legion website.). I looked at it as more of a shield of sorts. Anyway, thank you again for commenting. I look forward to others!

~Jenn

The flag is power. The woman is beautiful. Can't figure out why it doesn't jive for me. High org, though.

I found good link about flag respect. It's part of Federal law. You can find it in U.S.C. 36 Section 176. This links to the respect/disrespect, but the entire code is worth a once over. The main site is usflag.org.

Flag respect is not a matter of what "I feel." It's not a matter of being a fascist. It's laid out in the code.

Anyone who makes an artistic statement better be damn sure they know exactly what they're saying, especially when it comes to national and religious symbols. What if our model were wrapped in a China flag with a Taiwan flag lining? What if she used a Communion chalice, nude, to shower herself with holy water, showing she was cleansed of sin? Wrapped her head in a Torah scroll to show enlightenment? Place Korans over her breasts and genitalia to illustrate modesty?

All these are extraordinarily provacative statements, of course, and involve desecration of national or religious symbols and objects. The photographer of the China/Taiwan shot is making a very powerful statement about China/Taiwan relations. I would support such an artistic statement only if I'm convinced the photographer knows what they're doing and cannot make their statement any other way. As for the religious statements, I'd add the condition that the person have an intimate connection to the religion, e.g. a member. I understand such statements should only be made a few times at most in an artist's lifetime, and quite possibly never.

Jenn, your photo doesn't make my national symbol test. You haven't convinced me you can't make your point any other way. It's also sad that you didn't even think that it might not be kosher to use the flag like this before you did your shoot.

Bottom line: we should all know what we're doing in our photography. There's never any excuse for carelessness or sloppiness, especially in the use of national symbols.

The flag is only a symbol. Powerful? Of course. It deserves our respect. Even someone that burns the flag in protest declares their respect for it as a symbol of their anger.

 

Beyond that, this shouldn't be a topic of this forum.

 

This artist has chosen for some reason to use the flag as a symbol in her photograph. I'm not at all sure what she is trying to say; however as an artist, I could probably "read into this" a variety of statements.

 

This sort of thing is hardly original. I've seen it many, many times, making a variety of statements.

 

Ms. Perl refers to the US Code, and I suppose it could be argued that paragraph 'd' applies to this photograph.

 

However, the flag in the situation is certainly not clothing, drapery, etc. It would be if for example, this woman were going to a fraternity party dressed in such a manner.

 

Only a symbol.

 

Furthermore, paragraph 'i' of the Code cited is certainly being violated these days, isn't it?

 

Despite the idea being a cliché, the attempt deserves some merit. The anonymity of the subject works to strengthen the use of the flag as a symbol. Faceless in this manner, the body becomes a symbol as well.

 

One writer seemed concerned about the stars interfering in the design. I feel that the stars are necessary to solidify the symbolic aspect of the flag, and have been placed as carefully as the arm has been positioned to allow only a hint of sexuality.

 

Nice attempt, despite the cliché subject.

 

 

Ms. Perl is entitled to her opinions regarding appropriate symbolism. However I consider my service (as a Navy Hospital Corpsman stationed with the Marines) as an action dedicated in part to the defense of free speech, which Jennifer has exercised appropriately here.

 

Patriotism is not a religion and its symbols and observances are not sacraments. Promoting it as such misses the point. Ironically when President Roosevelt commissioned the sculptor Augustus St. Gaudens to design the gold coin now commonly known as the double eagle, widely regarded as the most beautiful American coin ever minted, he ordered that the usual text "In God We Trust" be omitted, believing it was sacrilegious to associate the Diety with filthy lucre, however lovely the lucre.

 

So comparing this photo of a woman draped in a flag to a hypothetical image of a nude with genitalia covered by overtly religious symbols is simply wrong. It is as wrong as, say, objecting to penny loafers because the coins are symbols of America and bear the word "God".

 

Not to say I condone ignorant and overtly disrespectful treatment of the flag. I seethe at the sight of American athletes at the Olympics using our flags as towels to wipe their sweaty bodies and capes as they prance around after a victory. I'm unable to share in their enjoyment, seeing such willful ignorance that could easily be remedied by simple instructions from the Olympic Committee.

 

But that is my pet peeve and my standards are, quite obviously, relative. And regardless of how officious the codification for flag handling by the American Legion, bless their pointy heads, or any other organization, their standards are not my standards. Why? Because this is America. If I need explain further I suspect it will be a waste of space.

 

Regarding the image, I find it beautiful and beautifully executed. It stirs my patriotic soul, just as those delicately rendered images of Liberty, proudly marching forward, breasts visible through her gown (the French usually preferred to portray Lady Liberty with bared breasts, but you know those French...), a symbol of bounty and peace, not of mere sexuality.

 

Ms. Perl, if you feel a need to correct those who deviate from your standards, I'm afraid you'll have to take your personal inquisition back a couple of centuries.

And I don't think I've ever been as proud to be a fascist.

 

 

 

 

There is something more important than respect for the flag, and that is freedom of speech. This is a beautiful and powerful image, and even if it were disrespectful (which it is not... in fact, I would argue that it is patriotic...) I would still support the photographer's right to take the pic. (And this is coming from a gay guy who isn't drawn into the beauty of the female body.)

As I'm not a member of Congress or a member of law enforcement, I cannot in reality deny or abridge anybody's free speech.

 

I was being sarcastic in my first post and perhaps poorly understoo. I'm not for the flag amendment. Thus my second post lays out my point. Use your national symbols with care, because they can be desecrated.

 

Everybody says to me "freedom of speech" and if you read both my posts you can see I respect freedom of speech. Moreover, I have not gone down to shut down Jenn's studio, nor have I advocated shutting her down. I have said under what circumstances I would respect desecration of national symbols--and those conditions do exist. But I will not say what Jenn is doing is not a desecration of the flag, or if you prefer, a disrespectful action toward the flag.

 

As I am the only one on this thread who advocates these views, it somehow is OK to excoriate my views, and me, in the name of freedom of speech or perhaps just for fun. Let me remind you that I also have just as much freedom of speech as you folks do. I'm not stopping Jenn or y'all. I'm exercising my freedom of speech, disagreeing strongly as to what Jenn is doing with the flag. If you object to my tone, allright, we can talk, but all I've seen are content objections so far.

 

I'd love to talk more, but I'm late for goosestepping practice.

The shot is nicely done. Strong visually and well composed.

 

Nice job!

Nice composition. My personal interpretation is something along the lines of privacy is protected by freedom. I would have scored the originality higher except I think that I remember Madonna doing something like this a few years back.

this is amazing. i love it. i read in a comment about about it not being acceptable to use the flag as clothing. WHAT about the millions of t shirts and hats and hand bags and shoes, etc. that are covered in the american flag? Most importantly i just want to let the photographer know I think she took a great photograph.