Her Illicit Sanctuary

I like pictures that raise questions. This one has very good concept. I see it as a youg woman giving her mask off in the place where no one can see her (in her illicit sanctuary).

It is nice picture, but not so well done. As I look at it more I can see that it was shot against window and the veil is actually the curtain. It could be done technically better. Still one of the better POWs.

Regards,

I think the discussion generated is proof of the photo's artistic merit. It's more than just a picture whose technical merits can be dissected.

"I like pictures that raise questions. This one has very good concept. I see it as a youg woman giving her mask off in the place where no one can see her (in her illicit sanctuary)." - Robert Pastierovic.

 

I agree. This is also how I understand the title and the picture. As for Robert's comment about the curatin, I can't see itthe same way on my monitor - the dark areas being dark enough, I can really tell what's going on in the background, and that suits me just fine.

 

More importanly:

 

1) I find the concept interesting, although I can see how some people may see a cliche in the usage of a mask in this context, and how some may find this a little overdone. But then again, it's ok, I think, because a self-portrait is someone indulging into his own self for a moment.

 

2) I really LOVE the pose, and the amazing grace I see in these arms and neck enhanced by the perspective distortion. I'd be curious to know the exact focal length of the lens, for this one. I think it's quite impressive to manage such a good usage of perspective in a self portrait - especially so at 23 years of age.

 

Only one minor criticism in terms of aesthetics: I find the red a bit strong on the neck, although I like the colors overall. And I agree with somebody above, who suggested this would also make for a good Black and white.

 

Congrats, keep it up...

Congratulations Sue! I love the concept! The fact that this is a self protrait has made it even more special.

- steve

I think this is a very nice photo, I just don't understand what she is trying to say. Her hands are covering the mouth on the mask....

 

Congrats on POW.

Purely formally, this is very, very interesting photograph. I myself don't really care for it, though I have difficulty articulating the reasons. (I guess I feel too many cliches are in play.) But -- a big but! -- I think that Anna's self-portraits really need to be viewed together, as an interrelated body of work. Approached in that way, this and her other images are just fantastically creative, provocative, and often humorous. Technically well executed, too. Can't wait to see more from her in the future.

Subject: My illicit answer

 

Once again, I'm reading all the comment and I'm having a lot of fun. I feel like watching a tv show where sport has been are debating on professionnal athlete. Must be funny, because I keep reading it.

To me, this is a wonderful picture because many interpretations can be done. Even if this not seems to be the feeling share by many other people here, I still believe that a good picture let a lot of place for interpretation, that it should not be just like: here is the title, here is what you should understand.

 

When I look at that picture, I kind of see a girl, the model (and the photograph by the way), who knows exactly what she is doing and accepted it. Maybe she cheated on her husband, maybe it was something else, but deep inside, she's ok with that. But, what she did is not necessarly accepted by other people, so that is why she is having this mask with sad eyes, by wearing it, she could protect her self from other people judgment, by showing to them what they wanted to see. Funny no... its a bit like Sue Anna reading our comments and being protected by a polite mask showing sad eyes because of some people telling her: the title is wrong and bla bla bla... But I truely hope that this is just a mask, and that deep inside, she knows that she took a great picture.

 

It's also funny how a good picture can make our imagination work. Of course, maybe this is not what the photograph was trying to achieve when she took that picture, but whatever, this picture made me happy, and I thank her for having posted it here.

Perhaps it doesn't matter if she is putting the mask on or taking it off...what the 'Illicit Sanctuary' represents is the moment when the mask is off. The meaning I ascribe to that is that the artist sees that it is 'illicit' to not wear a 'mask' in society. We have to play roles; otherwise people are not happy kind of thing. This moment with just her and the mask shows a moment of duality and of internal struggle to me and the fragility of identity and her identity is her sanctuary.

 

At first I was also a little put off by the seemingly 'stretched-out' neck but after looking at it longer, I think it adds an element of power to the mask, like if it's drawing the woman in. Her neutral expression conveys a feeling of resignation to me.

 

Someone also mentioned that the mask looks masculine. Perhaps there is a gender statement here? Perhaps this image shows the struggle of living with the expectations of being a perfect woman in a society largely dominated by males and to be otherwise than the perceived model is illicit i.e. when the mask is off.

 

I think it's a wonderful self-portrait considering the technical challenges involved and the consumer equipment. The only thing that distracts me is the veil, I wonder if the image would be stronger without it.

 

Peace.

This is one of those POWs where I wish the image had been offered without a title because I'm not at all convinced that the maker wants us to be tied down to a literal interpretation. I would prefer a discussion of the image and its potential without the focus on word choice.

 

The broader theme of our inner and outer selves is presented clearly, and the following suggestions aren't predicated on a narrow interpretation. I agree with an earlier comment that her eyes don't appear to be focused on the mask as I think she intended. I also don't see the benefit in covering up the mask's mouth. Other minor compositional nits (which pros deal with routinely, but never mind) - the merge with the veil and her eye, and position of two fingers relative to the mask's nostrils.

Many interpretations and symbolisms in both image and title!

Aesthetically wise, I see another alternative, cropping the left arm, but then she looks less fragile...

Impressive collection of autoportraits in HER portfolio. Congratulations Sue!

An early and irrelevant initial response of mine was that Sue Anna was Navajo, because Joe is a common Navajo last name ... she looks like some of the fashionable young Dine'(Navajo)women, who not incidentally have the most gorgeous black hair I've ever seen. Maybe they should meet: I think they share some images and feelings.

I love Carl's crop.

Robert, it's not Carl's crop... I already mentionned this confusing image positionning in comment to feedback forum last week ... :(

Me too . . . except it belongs to Jacques. :-)

argh . . . . timing is everything.

argh ... timing Carl!:o))

The concept of people showing the world different faces is very well illustrated in this excellent piece of art. We are who ever we want to be in different situations (our masks). The title just punches the idea home a little more forcefully.

 

I absolutely hate her neck and arms and shoulders in this photo. She looks positively alien. But that might just be part of the genius of Sue Anna's creations. She is showing us how the real person may seem entirely different and strange to someone; oh, say, at work, where she appears to be just another regular, intelligent, quiet lady.

 

Go girl! You have a great talent. Listen to your own heartbeat.

 

Congrats on this, your first of what will probably be many awards for the recognition of your talent.

I think Jacques' crop is even better than Carl's. His title is still pretty bad though. ;o)

Unfortunately whoevers crop insults the integrity of the Artist. Sue's version is better because

it is her inspiration that we are dicussing. Your crop ruins the composition, The arm is

necessary to keep you in the picture and acts as a stabilizing weight for the head. She was

wise to see that. Why do some photographers feel the need to crop everything. Lets hear your

interpretation , as a viewer, Jacque.

Wondering who made it?

I agree with Alan about the crop. If you crop any of it, it puts the frame into the wrong ratio. Cropping it in any way takes away some of the 'angst' that is so much a part of this story of a 1000 or 5000 words. To crop it is partially turning her into just another pretty face, when she is much much more than that.

really a good strong emotional capture!!

 

I love this shot

 

 

 

best wishes

annie

As for Robert's comment about the curatin, I can't see itthe same way on my monitor - the dark areas being dark enough, I can really tell what's going on in the background, and that suits me just fine. Marc G.

 

It is visible in the upper right corner. I didn't notice it first time, but after looking at the larger version. This is only minor problem that could easily be fixed.

"Unfortunately whoevers crop insults the integrity of the Artist. Sue's version is better because it is her inspiration that we are dicussing."

 

Hi Alan - I disagree with this, and will explain why. It's very easy to say it, and sound very "right on", but it is not logical. You may not agree with the crop and I accept that, as usual in photo.net, someone has made a crop without specifically asking the permission of the "artist". This is however an image that has been uploaded for critique, with the comment "Please tell me what you think", so I think we must assume that there is tacit permission in that request. Effectively you are saying that even if a crop was an improvement then it would still be inferior because it was not Sue Anna's specific inspiration ? That is patently nonsensical. Editing can often be an important part of the artistic process. Often the maker of an image, or piece of writing, or whatever, is too close to it to see how a small change could improve something.

 

As to the actual image rather than the absract idea of editing/integrity, you go on to say that the composition is ruined. Again I disagree. Maybe i just like square photos (see "Square Format" in Philosophy forum just now) but I think the arm distracts and contrary to your opinion, makes teh picture out of balance with too much flesh. I didn't spot it myself, but somehow didn't really like the picture at firts, then on seeing the crop I thought it was a whole lot stronger. I find my eye trapped withing the square and that the new composition balances perfectly.

 

I have seen crops being disagreed with before, but never with such an impassioned defence of an artist's personal integrity, and as far as MMs comment about ruining the angst of this "1000 or 5000 word story" ?! Which is it ? 1000 or 5000 ? And what is a "wrong ratio" for a frame ?

 

Maybe Sue Anna likes the crop ?

 

robert

"Your crop ruins the composition, The arm is necessary to keep you in the picture and acts as a stabilizing weight for the head. She was wise to see that." - Alan Katz.

 

I agree: the arm is necessary, and to me, it adds tremendously to the composition, not just for balance, but because this arm is very beautiful, slim andgracious - "fragile" as Jacques said.

 

I'm also a bit surprised about a commentI read earlier: she's notlooking into the mask, but why would this be a problem ?! Just in terms of semantics, her true self, her inner world (symbolized by her real face and expression), is here obviously opposed to her "outer appearence", the way others see her (symbolized by the mask).

 

Asking her to be looking into the mask is like asking her to wear it again. As I see her expression, she is really busy with her inner world here, and precisely, turning AWAY from the mask. Makes sense to me. As for her hands and fingers on the mask's lips, let's not get mistaken here: this isn't an ad for the mask, and therefore it isn't very important. What was important was that the hands remain gracious, and they are.