Source unknown – Elle (201X)

These images were harvested from a Tumblr called I Can Resist Everything Except (Temptation)–a reference to a quote from Oscar Wilde.

‘Temptation’ is presented parenthetically due to the fact that it’s not part of the URL but features prominently in the page header.

Also, since the blog takes a sort of Lou Bega Mambo #5 approach–the implicit notion being that temptation can be used interchangeable with the names of the nubile young women the curator favors. (For example: these images have no information about where they originated; all that’s included (sometimes) is the name of the model. In the case of the above–Elle.)

…

A both prominent (and cynical) Tumblr rejoined is: but is it art?!?!??

Personally, I find it annoying simply because most of the time it’s deployed, it’s rhetorical.

I’m not about to suggest these images of Elle are art. And although I’m probably alone in thinking it, why they aren’t art and how the context within which they are presented impacts that conclusion are much more interesting to me.

…

There are two huge problems with these six image. They are archetypal examples of compositionally illogical, #skinnyframebullshit. But an even bigger problem is the inexcusability of the over-the-top male gaze-y-ness they suggest.

Elle’s acknowledgement of the camera contributes a self-consciously, coy vamping quality to the proceedings. I straight up don’t know a woman who is going to Donald Duck in a crisp pink blouse on a nice couch with her saucer and tea cup–undies and a sweater? Check, yep and yep. Sounds cozy as fuck.

Even if Elle were ostensibly snapping sexy photos to share with a romantic partner–there’s a way in which the images as they appear strain the credulity of the images. These are very specifically staged in a fashion to suggest that the images themselves represent a record of calculated flirtation, if not straight up seduction–where the image maker encourages the audience to view him as a cooperative surrogate.

…

Cishet dudes love to castigate me every time I mention the art historical male gaze. They opine about how documenting the wonder of the naked body of a woman is somehow beyond reproach within certain parameters to which they–of course–adhere rigidly.

And I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with close-ups of erogenous zones of the human body. In fact, given the time and motivation to do it, I’m pretty sure I could come up with a top 10 of art historical instances of the intersections of porn and art.

What frustrates me is the way art is used as a key to access situations you might not normally be granted entrance. The sort of I know how to use a camera, so let me take pictures of you naked. And then the subsequent built in audience–since a great many folks love seeing other people naked, the endless demand justifies the continued supply and we just lazily call the whole thing art and wonder why there are so many gross predators in this ‘community’.

…

Let’s return here to the question of context. My thought is that in a century give or take a decade or two, a great deal of the work I’ve featured here and the work that the community around which this project hovers will be forgotten. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.

That of it which stands the test of time will most likely be work made in good faith between the author, subject and audience and/or will be work that was made without any pretext to artistry but instead sought to convey an immediate and overwhelming passion to be truly seen. (Basically, I’m of the opinion that there’s probably better selfie sexts floating around in the cloud than 90% of the stuff that gets posted to art ‘facilitating’ sites like Tumblr or Flickr.

…

Anyway, once again I’m all over the place. Back to Elle and I Can Resist Everything Except…

ICREE is super male gaze-y. But there is something interesting about it if you dig through the archives. A surprisingly consistent aesthetic–I’d term it a fetishization of quality. (Or, to be more fiercely specific: the blog runner favors a more even illumination provided by strobes more reminiscent of late 80s haute couture mixed with digital age-ready tone mapping; it screams QUALITY in your ear with a megaphone at full blast standing right next to you.)

More accurately it’s an approximation of quality. The above images of Elle aren’t intended to be contemplated for long stretches. For example, note that distracting something or other in the upper left corner of the right topmost image, The shadow case by her right arm in the image on the lower left. The inconsistency between the illumination on the background wall behind Elle but the more or less consistent exposure to optimize her skin tone.

(It’s clear the image maker is chasing–but never really catching up with a look not unlike this image by Australian image maker Andrew Harewood.)

…

A lot of hay gets made over Duchamp’s signing of a urinal. And I’ll admit that there are glaring holes in my art history knowledge when it comes to the latter half of the 20th Century.

I’ve straight up never understood the popularity of Andy Warhol. But it just seems like an application of Duchamp’s ready made to pop culture appropriation. Commerical art–transformed back into art by transmutation by art celebrity authorship.

I’m not going to give anyone a pass on misogyny. Ever. Still, I think that overlooking the massive lack of any sort of citation and the fact that the material ICREE posts appears to come from copyrighted sites posted without permission, there is a surprisingly astute eye governing to cohesion of what gets posted over there.

And although it’s arguable that it succeeds, I do think there is something like a Warholian effort to reappropriate the work in a way that diminishes content and emphasizes the broader context of the images presented in relationship to one another.