Her Illicit Sanctuary

Robert, Icarus is the tale of saying yes or no to youself, to your true nature. If by saying yes it

means burning up ,then so be it, because the adventure of life is in being true to yourself,

saying YES to your heart. Icarus flew towards the sun, only to crash, blinded but experienced

by the adventure of folly and triumphant over the seduction of going the easy way. The sun

can sybolize that what rises also sets, but in the between brings illumination.

Thinking about all that has transpired here and some of the comments, I thought I would

spend some time to "really" go through your portfolio. You mention a couple of other

photos that you like better and I have to agree. The one Marc G. brought up, the shower

shot, is probably the most complete, in my opinion.

 

So, as I went through your work, it is apparent that you are thinking conceptually, a good

thing if you are going to be a graphic designer as well! The work seems to vary from

executions that feel like a very retail sensibility (pleasing the client) to others that seem to

have more substance and sophistication (personal expression). The interesting thing, to

me, was that the ones that seemed more rich as photos were also a bit darker as to

content (not

tonality). Almost like there was permission in these to let go and not control things as

much as I felt was happening in this photo. (by the way, I do like the way the neck is

stretched in this and the angle of the head here) Sure, these were also set up, but they

just feel more organic and expressive.

 

This all made me think in terms of how building a visual vocabulary is so important so we

can have a basis to know, as you said, when things have gone too far or when we are

being trite or

heavy handed in our work. Some people that came to mind that I thought you might find

of interest were Sarah Moon and Sheila Metzner, both incredible fasion and fine art

photographers. Cindy Sherman, not just her theatrical/costume work but also the

"untitled Film Stills" series. You might also enjoy Guy Bourdin's work, a 1970's fashion

photographer that laid the ground work for so much of the "in your face" work in the

genre. Generally, look at everything you can from master's to the current hot artists. Even

the stuff you don't like teaches you much.

 

Although I still don't connect to this photo, I do think you have potential and I

think, as with all things, your development is in your hands.

Apologies once again. I thought I was on my account. Previous Albany was Alan.

Alan, I think that if the Daedalus and Icarus myth has any relevance at all for Sue Anna (and it probably doesn't) it is in the point that good advice is good advice. I don't really think that Icarus felt particularly triumphant in his foolish death. Maybe I should go read it again though, as perhaps I am misremembering it.

 

Leaving that aside, you defintely have talent Sue Anna. The picture that to me perhaps reveals your real potential, I think, is the underwater photo of blowing bubbles. You have taken a problem and solved it beautifully and your love of cameras is evident from this shot.

 

r x

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and interpretations. That is what makes this

forum worth participating in. Myths, photos and all meaningful life informing Art are

meant to inspire us to understand ourselves better. If that myth does not have a message

for you then move on. To me it speaks a powerful truth about creative liberation and the

price we must be willing to pay if we do not take the safe road. I believe when someone shows insight and daring we should encourage the high road

fist. The commercial road is for those who resist going deeper for the real treasure. Myths

are never meant to be taken literally. They are meant to touch the Art spirit that we all

possess if we can only let go of the" thou shalt not " dragon that is continually trying to

take us off track. Your defense of silly crops, and other personal inventions by insensitive

contributors who think they know better is unfortunate. It is important that the

young ,talented artists on this site understand the integrity issues discussed here. They

will resist croping or altering other Artists work only if they understand the damage done

by altering others work that way. Perhaps though a new forum could be created to address

the student=mentor potential on this site. There by anyone of us could ask another Artist

for more in depth attention to our work , as a mentor, enabling a format where croping or

whatever could be exceptable in a more private setting for educational purposes. Lastly,

Sue Ann, Two things you really don't need to ever worry about are style and knowing when

a picture is finnished. Style is who you are, not something you learn.(If you had to learn it

you probably don't have it). Your instinct is your most trusted gift. Listen and you will tell

your self when you are finnished. It will always be different from what others think. In the

end it will define your work.

Beautiful shot, excellent title! The mask is a sanctuary, but it can only be illicit as it hides the true self. Great work, congratulations!

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion and interpretations." This is hard to reconcile with what

followed this quote. And I guess I am baffled as to where I promoted the "safe" road within

this discussion.

"Myths are never meant to be taken literally. They are meant to touch the Art spirit that we all possess if we can only let go of the" thou shalt not " dragon that is continually trying to take us off track."

I'm sorry Alan, but this is just wrong. Greek myths were part of the Greek system and were about The Gods and were of religious significance at the time. The Daedalus and Icarus myth is almost universally agreed to have been a warning to mortals to not aspire to godhead - Daedalus being punished through the death of his son. I really cannot see how anyone can interpret non-heroic actions that end in death as being about the joy of creative liberation. I think it is just pure tragedy, in the greek literary sense of the word. "Icarus fell, but first he flew!" is best applied to Keith Moon, and is still sad.

To try to stop this sounding like a fight over this point, I must say that I agree almost 100% in principle with the point you are making with the Icarus story ["take the high road"] - but I just can't, in my stubborness, allow you to simply take this story and ignore the quite important simple fact of the matter that Icarus died, or say that this was not a tragic consequence.

"Your defense of silly crops, and other personal inventions by insensitive contributors who think they know better is unfortunate."

Nothing you can say, however, will make me admit that that crop was "silly". It was just a crop. And I still prefer it. I also don't think it is at all fair to dismiss what I wrote in such an offhand manner. It seems like you haven't really paid much attention to what I said after noticing the fact that I disagreed with you.

Why do we need a "mentor" forum when we already have the critique forum ? Surely, if someone wants to individually ask for the opinion of someone they respect, they simply need to ask for that person's email. Or are you perhaps suggesting a "mentor forum" where only selected photo.netters would be allowed access to comment - and if so, who would define their status ?

RX

Finally a person who is portraying something new.....a lot of visual symbology in your photos.

These pictures really communicate a lot......

Impressive.

powerfull impact

..the inclination of the neck - !

Why "Illicit Sanctuary"? Some try to load their work with additional layers of meaning by the use of ambiguous titles, unleashing second-rate, sub-academic critiques. ?Bad? becomes ?Good? because some post-structuralist attaches intellectual legitimacy to that which is intellectually barren. What would be the reaction of a simple title, "Girl with Mask"? Does a shot rise or fall by virtue of its title.? Does it hell. Better no titles at all.

 

To quote David Fuller (above):

?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?m sorry, David I don?t agree. Discussion was generated (and then degenerated) by virtue of being selected as Photo of the Week by the Elves. These diverse flights of fancy add nothing to the understanding of the shot

 

I think we are sub-consciously repressing the sub-text and the meta-sublimation, here at the expense of the irony of over-statement. But is this involuntary, or compulsory, as per Aristotle?s Eudemian and Nichomachean Ethics? definitions? Is it, that which is, or, that which is to be? Indeed, are these incommensurable? The extended metaphors of the prosopoeia , and the opening of Lycidas , complement and parallel faint implications of the artist. Does the mask and the artist?s face represent a dichotomy of identity; an ethical/societal conumdrum (cf Michelangelo?s Last Judgement in its original depiction with the present); in transitory states of consciousness?

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Grant.

Grant, There is another expression worth remembering.."Everything comes to the waiter". I

am sure if you wait long enough ...you will GET IT . Hopefully you are not too old, because it

may take some time.

Agree to some extent with Grant here...Really disagree with all the responses of "originality." My first thought when I saw this image was "Oh no not another cliche of someone holding the mask and gazing at it." The pose, the title, just alittle too pretenious. Didn't feel the soul stirring or any deep movement because it seemed too contrived not real, very staged. The photographer shooting her self portrait is really beautiful and I can see that she is a good photographer even tho I do not like the cliche-ness of the shot and title.

I actually thought the waiter brought it to you, if not, I am going to stop tipping!

Dear Alan,

 

What I am I waiting for? I'd really like to know. Do I lack profound insight? Are you familiar with the parable of the Cave and its criminals and shadows?

 

I've looked at other works by the photographer on this site and deviantart, and some are excellent, if not brilliant.

 

If I may venture criticism:

 

Repetition/monotony of a theme.

 

Seemingly indiscriminate selection the photographer has to be the first judge of his/her work (its not a question of, I dont like this, but others may).

 

If one shot is excellent, it doesn't follow variations will be.

 

Too much self-indulgence to reiterate my point of the artist as victim, this is blatant in the majority of works;

 

A final thought: how much of the self-portrait is actually that? Composition, clarity (or sharpness) of image, depth-of-field, is too precise; theres too much control and fine-tuning for one to flit back and forth from behind to the front of the camera. Is Sue the actual photographer and subject?

 

Thank you for the support, Jamie.

 

Regards,

 

Grant.

Sue, I like many of your self portraits that you have on deviantart.com, but this isn't one of them. I think it's FAR too processed and over air'brushed in my opinion. I also like the more experimental images you do when you turn your camera away from your self.

Grant, I agree that Sue Anna's method is one that requires extreme planning. This I believe

is part of the self portraits message. She chose to play both roles without using mirrors. Is

Sue Anna the photographer revealing herself through her subject matter, or is she the

model cast as victim confronting her illicit self. The mask probably appealed to her

because subconsciously she feels the split within . It is true that the Artist as victim is

wearing thin, but it is also true that she is attempting to face the light , leave the cave and

attain a better understanding of self. I reward her, or anyone else, for taking that road.

Actually it is the road less traveled as most "artists" do not posess that kind of courage.

Although I wished she had not informed us as to the meaning of her play, I would like to

hear how she accomplishes the clarity without being behind the camera. Its been said that

repitition is style. Sue Anna may very well be her favorite subject and over time this self

exploration may define her work. The list is long of great Artists who have done this.

There is nothing which speaks of the power of the individual, as self portraits. Try to

imagine baring your inners, Grant. What would it look like. Could you survive being

picked apart for a week as Sue Anna has?

This Photo doesn't need to be analized to death, it is simply a great shot, quality texture, and pleasing to the eye. The Title could read "Sanctuary" and that alone is a great discription. I expect to see this one hanging in a Gallery someday if not already there. Love it.

As this person said earlier, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion and

interpretations."

 

Sue Anna is "23" not "3" and we have seen that she is perfectly capable of holding her own.

i personally enjoy the comments about the photo and Sue Anna's work, regardless of

whether I agree or not.

I think the waiter has served us all our individual orders. Personally, I'm going for the combo special, though Grant's dish looks to have some delicious ingredients.

Dear Alan,

 

I do go along with most of what you say but there is self-obsession, here. This has got to be counter-productive. The talent is acknowledged, but it needs to be expanded. If strictly portraiture, why not of others?

 

I would suggest Sue?s work has been praised sufficiently (including myself) to counter any negative remarks. Personally, it is not the work which is questionable but the motives, and the why?s and wherefore?s. If this was absent, I would have no problems with this or any other work. I have problems with artists - or commentators - imposing additional layers of meaning on their work over and above that which is apparent. For what purpose? To give artistic/ intellectual legitimacy? Why? To compensate for an inadequacy; where is it?

 

Are professional photographers asked for their motives when commissioned (maybe on the West Coast of the US)? A school of method-photographers, perhaps

 

A good shot is a good shot. It shouldn?t need expanding.

 

Could I survive being picked apart for a week? This is par for criticism. There?s a choice to submit work or not.

 

Regards,

 

Grant.

Grant, you made the comment "Personally, it is not the work which is questionable but the

motives, and the why?s and wherefore?s." and I wonder if we can really evaluate that here. I

assume, as you go on, you are referring to the title being manipulative. Unfortunately, it

seems that this is promoted by camera club/PPA type organizations. I hate it and so I try to

ignore it. When we create visual art, we should let it be visual and allow the viewer to enjoy

it.

 

There is a lot of wonderful work done in self portrait and maybe there is underlying things we

do or don't want to know, but I think I will just enjoy, or not, the work as presented.

Yea Mona! Thats it exactly!

Just few thoughts to that title:

When I first looked at the photo it grabed my attantion as a visually and compositionally interesting picture but I couldn't understand why there is a girl with a mask and what's going on. It raised some questions for me so I went to the title but didn't understood it much better, so again back to the image and ponder.

Is this a bad thing what the image has to offer? The title should not be all clarifying in order to preserve the magic and draw the viewer back.

Photos have titles and Sue Anna has chosen a good one IMHO. The bad title (or no title) can kill the photo, this is not the case.

The truly remarkable thing is that this photographer makes beautiful photos with a camera like hers. She is proof that it's not the equipment, it's the photographer. Congratulations!