Özlem Altin – Untitled (Opression) from Glow in the dark installation (2014)

One thing folks who interact with me AFK know about me is that I’m rarely at a loss to explain my impression of something and to explain in excruciating detail why I had such a response.

I suspect this is something by which frequent readers will be less than surprised… however, the truth is while I generally do know whether I dig something or not, I’m not always correct in my initial classifications (for example: last year’s stand out funeral doom release Bell Witch’s Mirror Reaper was something I didn’t like until I suddenly did and then I was total enamored with it) and I’m not always able to offer as definitive of an explanation as to why I like something than I would prefer (that’s one of the reasons I’ve kept up this project–to force myself to do something that isn’t always easy or comfortable).

I like this. A lot. I’m not exactly sure how to explain that reaction though…

The harsh flash is definitely suited to this sort of scene. If you’ve got a good TTL setup that’ll do the flash math for you so you don’t have to think about it working in low/limited/difficult lighting situations in monochrome will generally always look appealing. (There is the fact that the flash is properly metered off of the subjects back instead of the floor–which makes the floor look even more dingy.)

I’m typically not fond of the inclusion of distracting detritus in a the frame either (the boxes in the upper portion of the frame and the chair leg protruding into the upper right corner are a touch distracting).

I think it’s the gloves resting on the subject’s shoulder that are what I keep tripping over. They seem flat–almost like patches or bandages. Then there’s the discoloration: you might think it’s some kind of pattern except that it doesn’t match between the gloves; suggesting the gloves are wet or otherwise soiled.

There’s also the configuration. It could be that there are two right hands pressing into her shoulder–two folks comforting? Or: two folks holding/trying to push her down?

Also: it could be one person–left hand palm up resting knuckles down on the skin while the right hand is palm down. (A configuration which suggests both intimacy and control–which feels to be especially in keeping with the duality of the specific absence of a title and a parenthetical contextual addendum.)

I’m not sure I know how to connect all the dots between this impression and what commentator Lieneke Hulshof has written about Altin’s work:

The installations of Özlem Altin are based on her extensive photographic
archives. She presents her own photographs alongside those of other
artists, her own drawings alongside objects she has found and her own
videos alongside photocopied pages. The collection exposes her
fascination for representations of the human body. ‘In fact I am always
searching for the moment at which a sort of transformation or change
takes place, for instance, when a body no longer represents an
individual, but has become more abstract, almost object-like.’ These are
images of people who cannot be recognised, who are hiding behind
something: an averted gaze, a body that has almost dissolved into its
environment or become one with its shadow. Altin’s work emphasises how
our perspective is never permanent, but always fluid, reproduced by
means of constantly repeated re-interpretations of past events. She
shows how all of us constantly re-interpret our own memories.

But it does feel like the mix of intimacy and oppression is actually very much what this piece is interrogating.

Giangiacomo PepeUntitled (2013)

(PART I)

Back in 1999, Garrison Keillor suggested a broader conceptualization of what sex entails.

Sex is not a mechanical act that fails for lack of technique, and it is not a performance by the male for the audience of the female; it is a continuum of attraction that extends from the simplest conversation and the most innocent touching through the act of coitus.

A dear friend had posted it on her Facebook. It was literally the first thing I saw–all bleary-eyed–this morning.

It was one of those Oh shit moments where someone else somehow manages to express something you’ve been stumbling over for half a decade with a spare elegance.

For me, my experience of photography belongs to Keillor’s sexual spectrum. I mean, what but beauty causes anyone to lift a camera and sight a shot?

My reaction to beauty is unswervingly reliable: it overwhelms me, somersaults my tummy; makes me a blushing, shoe-tip-staring, dirt-kicking, boy-crazy teenage girl wanting from lips that won’t wet to shuddering knees.

***

Soon after the Keillor quote, Willow reblogged this from Sex Positive Activism

I was like what the fuck? A second Oh shit moment in the same day?

Okay, confession time: other than masturbation, I have been celibate for four-and-a-half-years. This is less a personal imperative than the fact that I am too irrevocably fucked for anyone to ever reciprocate the wanting I feel for them.

People always tell me that I need to have confidence. I think that’s bullshit. I don’t lack confidence. I lack a sense of entitlement.

When I was a film student, everyone worked with was invariably asked to do something either outrageous or obscene. No one took issue. Well, mostly. (In hindsight, I realize that I unintentionally created some very fucked up situations for people about whom I claimed to care a great deal.)

A number of things happened to shift this but one in particular stands out. For a group project, I had envisioned a scene with a bleeding, naked man smeared with mud running down a forest track. The actor who was supposed to play the part was a no-call/no-show and so I had to stand in. I was completely unnerved–I have always had a lot of body issues, they just haven’t always been the same–by the prospect of being naked in front of the small crew. I insisted on doing the scene wearing boxer shorts.

Watching the first and only (long story) screening, besides how my refusal to go nude ruined the scene, it hit me how fucked it was that I expected someone else to do the scene nude but I was unwilling to disrobe once I was in front of the camera.

***

As a result of these experiences, I abide by three etched-in-stone rules for photographing others:

  1. The photographer will under no circumstances touch the person(s) being photographed.
  2. The photographer will never ask anyone to enact anything the photographer would be unwilling to enact were the roles reversed.
  3. The photographer will never ask the person(s) being photographed to do anything the person(s) being photographed would not mutually desire the photographer to perform were the roles reversed.

***

The above image is not without flaws but between the mirror and the way she is reaching back to pull aside the crotch of her undergarment to reveal her vulva and anus, it is pornographic and capital fucking-A artful.

This is the type of work I want to make–conveying anger-verging-on-vaguely-self-destructive-arousal. I hardly expect Pepe to abide by my rules but the edge between consent and coercion is ambiguous enough on a good day that I worry about what goes on behind the scenes at his shoots.

I just don’t know how one ethically gets so many people to allow themselves to be vulnerable enough to pose in such a fashion. So many photographers seem to photograph their friends. That would be my preference. But the people in my life–who are fucking awesome and I wouldn’t trade for all the most-getting naked-est friends in the world–all have hang ups about nudity. It’s not that they aren’t sex-positive. (I just can’t do sex negativity. Not even a little.)

I worry that my own sexual frustration and realization that no one will ever ache for me the way I ache for them has tainted or will taing my work. It seems like if I could just find someone with whom I could share this sort of experimental openness in my work it would solve my problems.

The depressing truth is–there is no one who feels in kind toward me.

rawpix:

May21s†♥mirror/†he…mind(Daniel Schaefer)★

Roulé

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Garamond”,”serif”;}

This interior—with its Spartan-with-Bohemian-pretenses—is reminiscent of my shitty, first-post college apartment in NYC.

What’s more startling is the resemblance of the young woman to the lover with whom I shared much of my time in that apartment. She, who in the pauses between our lovemaking, would crawl kneel o check the message on her phone she’d leave charging on the floor just like this.

The composition has an imprecise, snapshot immediacy which would almost certainly have appeared stale and uninspired were it not for the mirror’s reflection adding some much needed depth. Yet, what this image nails is presenting an ideal scale for everything the image contains.

Although she is kneeling, the frame is only slightly taller than she would be if she were standing. If she stood, the frame would have to move in order to contain her. In other words, she is the frame’s anchor—not vice versa; she agency in inhabit a space with implicit instead of merely appearing as an ancillary decoration.