RE-POST Scary shit in Arizona is spreading..

Don't - Joshua Tree National Park

RE- POST  Originally posted on May 5, 2010

First they passed a law in the name of immigration reform allowing police to legally harass you for being brown.  Now non-white groups lost their right to learn about their history and culture in public schools.   I am sure the liberal arts will be next.

 CNN Conversation on Arizona's ethnic studies law (Basically two pundits blasting each other)


So many are making a poison in our country.  This poison pits cultures, races, beliefs, religions, art and educational systems against each other.  This poison of divisiveness is tearing a hole in our country.

I was too young to develop memories of the turmoil of the 60's and 70's.  My only memories are vague unease and stronger memories of the malaise President Carter commented about. Maybe it is time for another cultural revolution.   I fear though it may not be a peaceful one.


As I wrote on April 16th:

I look to the four compass points
and am starting to see
the division lines for battles
scratched in varying grounds.

Some are for ideals
some are for religion
some are for freedom for some
some are for closing others in

We are heading to our own chosen lines
we scratch with a sharp, jagged stick
to stand behind and look across to the adversary
then slowly turn our backs to
so we no longer acknowledge
they may be more like us than not.

New frontiers

Valya -  010611

Do you remember that precise moment in your life when you realized, acknowledged and knew, "I am in love."?  What about the first time you flew to another country and got off the airplane... and all the signs were different? 

I remember the moment when my dog, Paloma, took her last breath and died.  At that moment of transition I felt so suddenly alone, sad, and raw.  My favorite place in Montana is driving east along Highway 200 between Missoula and Great Falls and getting to that magic moment where the Rocky Mountains suddenly end and the Great Plains hits you with its great expanse.

Rocky Mountain Front/Great Plains outside of Browning, MT - 010611

I am fleshing out an idea for a photo series.  It is still very abstract and nebulous to me.  The theme is "Borders, Boundaries, and Tipping Points".    As a psychology and education graduate, I've always been both perplexed and fascinated by that moment, location, feeling, event, etc., that signals the change or demarcation of what was and what is and will be.  We can see what came before and maybe even predict what comes after it, but what is special about that place, time, and experience that turns us around, points us in a into new direction, puts us in another country, or makes us realize we are in love or the love is gone.

Valya - 010611

Courtney - 010611

Even though these areas have always subconsciously interested me all my life, I never thought to formally explore them.  I stumbled upon this idea of trying to capture it after showing an artist/photographer friend these photos of Valya and Courtney.  He said, "Karl - these two photos are important.  They are threshold moments.  What is about to happen right now in each changes everything."


Where is that line in SF between the high-end Union Square area and its rough and dirty neighbor, the Tenderloin?  What is going through the mind of the beautiful woman at the moment where "yes" becomes the answer?  When is the point in time where an era ends and another one replaces it?  Where is that point when one more RPM destroys the engine?  At what point does that person in from of you become "one of us" or "one of them"? 

 Right now I am exploring the meaning for words like decision, boundary, border, etc., to find that gossamer of a moment where we pivot, retreat, or march ahead and all changes.  I need to figure out where these locations are in the world and in our minds.  The challenge will then be to figure out how to capture that moment. 

I encourage everyone to share moments of when everything changed, what made that instant powerful, and what did that exact moment mean to you.  You can share them in the comments section or send me an email at sidebphotography@gmail.com.

Damn it. He is straying into politics again.

Joshua Tree National Park - 2009

I've been reading the news, blogs of friends, observing life and am getting a bit depressed by the culture wars, government intrusions, war, greed, environmental destruction, and other issue.  It feels like we are headed to a boiling point.

I've tried to keep politics out of this blog since I reinvented it unless the issues related to art and photography.  Today I make an exception... or not.  All this world drama will affect every aspect of life, including art.  I wonder where it is all leading to.

The fundamentalist Christians may think we are heading into the end times.  The liberals are worried that the Tea Party will set back the social institutions to an equivalent of Afghanistan under the Taliban, but with a corporate Christian domination.  The libertarians are up in arms about airport scans.  The  moderates are feeling left behind by all sides.

Last night I was talking about the last Star Trek movie with a friend and mentioned a few things about how San Francisco changes between now and the 23rd century.  My friend asked, "Will they be watching Star Trek at that time?"  My answer was, yes, but it will be called the news.  The earth in Star Trek is a pretty great place when Romulans or Klingons aren't causing problems.  All of the world is a happy globe.

I then thought about history.  I bet there is no time in history when drama was not happening and will probably be the same in the 23rd century as well.   It just feels more intense right now.

I also looked back at the history from 1930-1990.  I came to an interesting conclusion.  All of the stuff happening in the 1950s and early 1960s lead to the tumultuous late 1960s and through the era of malaise in the end of the 1970s.  The country had the New Deal Democrats in the 1930s and 1940s. We then had the McCarthy/Eisenhower era of the 1950s that lead to the Goldwater conservatives of the early 1960s.  We then had Camelot cut short and went to the moon and Vietnam.  The country went up in smoke as the baby boomers boomed.  They changed our world for better and for worse (more for the better, but not all was good).  The dark events of the McCarthy era, the Vietnam War, civil rights, gender equity, and many other issues were building to boiling points and that generation acted out.   The country needed a catalyst to get to that time where cultural rebellion sprung up from all areas.

I think we are in that time again, but it is going to be harder than the 1970s.  The traditional American culture was not ready for the youth rebellion during those years.  They were not able to defend the status quo and so the impact of those movements still live today.  The problem we face now is that the opposition learns from prior failures and evolves (or intelligently designs) into a different entity. 

Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Paul Rand, and many younger conservatives are succeeding at whipping up a fury of energy for their cause that the 1960s and 1970s status quo couldn't.  I think they are ahead of the progressives at this moment in creating a movement.  The conservatives are brilliant at building up their empire while the progressives are complacent.  Reagan and the GOP were brilliant at this and after coming into power in 1980, they were able to sweep aside so much of the liberal agenda.  Clinton tried to make a few changes, but the strong GOP made him a moderate president overall.  Bush 2 was headed toward a similar fate.  He was a mentally week president that could not muster up support for the GOP agenda... until September 11th.  On that date, the GOP gained enough political clout to ram their agenda though again.  They didn't use protests.  They used corporate power backed by government to do their bidding. 

Once President Obama* came into office, the GOP saw they needed to squelch the new "progressives".  The "progressives" that brought Obama into the Oval Office were only concerned with electing him, and not what he or the true progressives wanted to achieve**.  Once he got there, his star faded and celebrity washed away.  The "progressives" that elected him were content in getting him there and grew complacent and the Tea Party came into being.  They stirred up the fear and hate base with the simple message of "No Obama".  They have nothing on their agenda except that, but that is enough to keep their base fired up and to put Palin in contention for 2012.  They have all age groups and are slowly growing their ethnic bases.  I believe we may be seeing their equivalent of the liberal uprisings of the 1960s and 1970s.

I also believe the progressives are much better at stirring this type of energy faster and broader than the conservatives.   The next two to four years will be the tipping point for whether we will be free or corporate Christian America will be reigning over us.

We are building up for another culture war in our country.  It is going to be harder, dirtier, and worse than the 1930s, 1960s-1970s, and Reagans 1980s.  Both sides are media savvy, smart, idyllic, and unwilling to compromise.   We might think we are on the correct side of the war, but they think they are too. 

*I voted for Clinton in the 2008 primaries and I voted for Obama in the general election.  He is a brilliant man, cares for our country, and does not make rash decisions.  He was also hesitant to make the hard decisions and follow through on tough issues while he had control of the two houses and the White House, like Bush did.  I know the Tea Party would have risen up against Clinton if she had won, but I think she would be better at fighting back.  We need a smart, scrappy President, not a contemplative, thoughtful one.  That is a sad statement, but a true one in my opinion.

** It is obvious that many of Obama's supporters wanted him in office, but were not true progressives, at least in California.  How could we elect him and still pass Prop 8, banning gay marriage?  Many Americans supporting Obama didn't care about what he and the party wanted to accomplish.  The "supporters" wanted a handsome celebrity minority president and to finally pat itself on the back for being post-racial.  Sadly, this became evident in these midterm elections when his broad 2008 base ignored him by not voting and didn't support the important changes he, and the Democrats needed to make.  They may have doomed him to being a one term president by focusing on him rather than what he believes in and could do with true support.

Post Fine Art Nude - A self-serving post

Sail on silver girl, sail on by

Sail on Silver Girl,
Sail on by
Your time has come to shine
All your dreams are on their way - Paul Simon

When I think of the original photography masters of the fine art nude I can come up with a list of the iconic legends.  I know I am missing a few big ones, but here are the ones I thought of first.

• Edward Weston
• Brett Weston
• Ruth Bernhard
• Imogen Cunningham

Likewise, it is not hard to list a few contemporary fine art nude photographers.

• Stephen Haynes
• Kim Weston
• David Swanson
• Carrie Leigh

Most of the names listed in the first group were key artists in the modern art movement of the first two thirds of the 20th century.  The modern art photographers' work emphasized the following key elements:

• The technically perfect print
• Aesthetic beauty
• Accenting texture, curve, line, shadow and contrast.
• Or as Wikipedia says, ...Modern artists experimented with new ways of seeing and with fresh ideas about the nature of materials and functions of art. A tendency toward abstraction is characteristic of much modern art."

There are many other key elements and I am undervaluing their work by not mentioning them.  Their work, combined with non-nude photographers like Ansel Adams, defined the look of the artistic black and white print.  This value and aesthetic still grips art today and can be seen in the works of the second group I mentioned, even if their outputs are in color.

Starting in the late 1950's, some say with  Robert Frank either ending it, bridging the divide, or starting the postmodern movement, the modern art movement began to be pushed aside.   According to Wikipedia:

Postmodern art is a term used to describe an art movement which was thought to be in contradiction to some aspect of modernism, or to have emerged or developed in its aftermath. In general, movements such as Intermedia, Installation art, Conceptual Art and Multimedia, particularly involving video are described as postmodern. The traits associated with the use of the term postmodern in art include bricolage, use of words prominently as the central artistic element, collage, simplification, appropriation, depiction of consumer or popular culture and Performance art.

A part of this movement I am finding important in my continued artistic growth is the growing away from the absolute aesthetic perfection of the fine print and moving toward works that have deeper conceptual meaning and purpose for me.  Maybe I am starting to grow up into my art, and not another artist's.

Over the years I went through my photography phases where I tried to take photos like those I admired.  Some of these phases were the National Geographic phase, the Ansel Adams phase (I have a photo of a sunrise on the Grand Tetons over looking the Snake River that I took in the same spot as Adams did hanging in my bathroom),  and the Edward Weston phase.  I took a few private classes with Kim Weston and learned so much about the aesthetic of the fine art print and the hard work to create it.  I photographed my first nude model during the first session.  One of those prints is hanging in my home office right behind me.  I truly appreciate what I learned during those phases.  It is now time to move on.

When I photographed Leila, I unknowingly wanted to go beyond the classic fine art nude.  I created a few fine art nudes with her, but also some images that had a deeper meaning to me.  Those early attempts were crude, at best.

I really felt the change when I worked with Candace.  I shot many images that fit the classic fine art nude and were beautiful, but I also experimented with projected imagery.  I found some of them were very good and believe that was the moment I wanted to get away from creating images of pure aesthetic beauty celebrating the lines, curves, shapes and shadows of the feminine form.  I wanted more from my photos.

Since then I've been trying to avoid creating my versions of the modern movements classics.  I love and respect those styles, but they are not my cup of tea to create anymore (although one or two on the side are fun).  While I still find beauty in them, I feel my art needs more to it than that style offers me.

Much of the work I created in New York is getting closer to what I want.  Both Moon and Valya blessed me with their artistic beauty to help me with it.  The city itself blessed me with sharing its little and large treasures.  I am excited about this push away from my prior "pretty pictures" to making things that have a bit more narrative and personal purpose in them.  Not all my stuff is good, but is better for me.

Who is right? Get your documentation in order.

Who took this??

I came across this little photo rights story and realized I need to go through all my model releases and get them in order.  With how many images I create I need to have them protected from wrongful use and also ensure I protect myself for how I choose to use them.

Here is a quick summary of the story. 

• The band Vampire Weekend bought the rights to use the photo above for $5000 from photographer Tod Brody for their CD cover.  The photo was taken in 1983.
• The model in the photo, Ann Kirsten Kennis, states the photo was taken by her mother (who may have sold the image), not Brody, and she had not signed any model releases for using the photo.  She is suing the band, record label, and photographer for using the photo without her permission for $2,000,000.
• Tod Brody claims he took the photo and has a model release for the image.

Please read the whole story to get more details.

Here is my non-legal-expertise-based thoughts.

1.  If the mother sold the photo she took, then Ms. Kennis may have little ground to stand on.   Technically, shouldn't the mother have had to gather model releases before she sold the photos? Who owns the rights to unclaimed/unattributed photos?  How responsible is a commercial user in determining this? 
2.  The photographer's credibility is in question.  His misspelling of the model's name is odd.  There are other awkward parts to his story.  Supposedly he has the model release forms and I assume he either showed them to the record label or has them available.  If that is true, then at least the record company should be released from liability.  It should not be up to them to have go and dig through the whole back story of the photo.  If the photographer did anything wrong (i.e., stole the photo, did not have a model's release, forged papers, etc.) then he is liable.  If his papers are legitimate and he is the photographer, he is free of liability. 
3.  If he bought the image and yet claims to be the original photographer, that seems dirty.  He should have known better than to claim it as his.  I am not sure if he is liable for selling it to record label, but may be for stating he took the image.
4.    I would expect any company that deals in the sales and distribution of artistic property (music) to have a smart legal staff to ensure artistic property rights are taken care of in agreements.  Sadly though, the record company is a larger target with deeper pockets than the photographer, so they will have to pay through legal fees and maybe fines.
5. In my humble opinion,  I don't consider this image damaging to the model's character.  The band and label did not intend to malign her by using it.
6.  This photo was taken with a Polaroid camera, the fastest image and printing system of the day.  With the speed and proliferation of digital cameras and the instant availability of the images, we (models and photographers) need to be very careful in how we use the photos.  If we intend to use them for any potential money-making purposes, we need to get everything down in writing.  Don't assume a handshake will protect you.  I took the photo below with my iPhone camera before I wrote the first sentence of this paragraph and uploaded to here before writing this sentence. 

Instant Me

Here is a Vampire Weekend video.   I'm not a big fan, but it is light and pleasant.

Work Cited

WTF?

I  had an experience in the last week that feels like the burning pain of bleach going through my veins(hyperbole practice).  Somebody took something of mine manipulated it, and grew it into something more.  Usually I am happy about that as it is part of creating for the world and the evolution of thought.  We want our creations to grow beyond what we initially planned, with one caveat - citation or credit.

In my life as a scientist/teacher/student, I've written the most boring, dry articles about important stuff.  One key point my fourth grade teacher, Mrs. Romaine, taught us during book reports was writing the bibliography of my sources.  In college, Dr. Haddad drilled into our heads (appropriate for a behaviorist professor) the APA Style for citing sources.  Twenty-two years later, I still know where to place every period and comma.  It came in handy when I wrote my master's thesis.

It is crucial to cite sources and material in art and criticism as well.  If I am writing a critique on Diane Arbus and read an article on how her depression affected her subject matter, I had better cite that source.   I believe the same is true when art is appropriated for new purposes.

Some of Shepard Fairey's troubles for his famous Hope image of President Obama stem from appropriating an AP image as the basis of his this piece without citing the source of the original image.  He went on to selling the image on merchandise and making lots of money from it.

There

I am a big fan of appropriating art and growing it past the original piece.  In 2004, my friend Scott Tellington over at photosig.com took the image of Leila and Hana above and a few others and told me he wanted to play with them.  As long he didn't do anything to malign the image and gave me credit, I was happy to let him do it.   He made the combined image below.  Even though he went in a direction I would not have gone, I am happy with his work and the credit for the source image.

The Petals of the Passion Flower

In yesterday's post, I uploaded a video featuring a song I appropriated by Lucinda Williams, Just in Time.  This song has a very sensual erotic sound and lyrics that I felt matched the photos I paired with it.  At the end of the song, I cited her as the source of the music.  Since I do not plan to make money from that video I feel it is fair to use it in that way.  If Ms. Williams, or her representatives, don't like it, I will work with them to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.  That is just being respectful to another artist.

Another time I appropriated another artist's work are my photos of the projection of Salvador Dali's Dream Inspired By A Bee Flying Around A Pomegranate A Second Before Waking Up on art model, Candace Nirvana.  Whenever I display this image, I mention Dali's title or provide a link to my blog post introducing this series to give him credit for his role in my piece.  I hope Dali would approve of my appropriation of his beautiful piece.


I admit to not always citing my sources in this blog, especially for images I posted in the beginning of it.  I tried to put "source unknown" if I could not find the photographer/artist/author/creator's information.  In hindsight, I am going to review this policy to see if I should err on the side of caution and remove them until I can find the source.Dali and Nirvana 4

Now, back to why am I feeling like a victim of theft.  To the artist who appropriated something of mine, knowing it was mine, and evolved/refined it much further,  I am not upset by your appropriation and use.  It is actually a very good piece of work.  Just give me credit for the seed that bloomed for you.

And the Cause Has Been Joined

 Don't

Joshua Tree National Park

I look to the four compass points
and am starting to see
the division lines for battles
scratched in varying grounds.

Some are for ideals
some are for religion
some are for freedom for some
some are for closing others in

We are heading toour own chosen lines
we scratch with a sharp, ragged stick
to stand behind and look across to the adversary
then slowly turn our backs to
so we no longer acknowledge
they may be more like us than not.


Quotes about choosing sides, enemies, and art I chose randomly by blindly clicking.  Some I agree with, some I chuckle at.

All sides in a trial want to hide at least some of the truth - Alan Dershowitz

Be truthful, nature only sides with truth - Adolf Loos

Cause and effect are two sides of one fact - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. - Jerry Garcia

An artist must be free to choose what he does, certainly, but he must also never be afraid to do what he might choose. - Langston Hughes

When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before. - Mae West

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious. - Sun Tzu

In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.  The Dalai Lama

Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. - John F. Kennedy

Boundaries, Definitions, Intersections...

 Leila and Hana

Over the weekend I watched a movie that pushed the boundaries of erotica, pornography, and definition titled, 9 Songs.  It is a short movie about a young couple in England and their sex life through their relationship and over the course of 9 songs.   Both the sex scenes and the icy Antarctic landscape are beautifully filmed.

The scenes grow increasingly erotic, graphic, and by one point shows full penetration and male ejaculation.  Is it pornographic, hardcore, erotica, art?  Can it be all of these?  Can art be pornographic or pornography be art?

This is not the first time these questions have been asked. Bob Guccione's Caligula and John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus pushed these same issues to the question.  Can graphic, actual sex captured through various media rise up to be art? 

Dr. L recently wrote in her blog:

Anyone who has watched porn films, even classics like "Behind the Green Door," will notice the complete lack of authentic emotion. So, for me, high emotion vs. the lack of convincing emotion separates erotica from pornography.

The balancing act, the success or failure to stop just short of going too far, determines whether it is erotica or pornography.

In a comment to her post, I wrote:

That goes back to the classic line that I am going to poorly paraphrase, "I can't define what pornography is, but I know it when I see it." I think this boundary between erotica and pornography varies from person to person and between cultures.

I like your concept of needing real emotion between the people in the photo/video to help make it erotica. I hadn't thought of that, but I think that hits the nail on the head.

When I saw Mr. and Mrs. Smith, staring the ever sexy Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, I could tell there was a real passion between them. Even though it was a tongue-in-cheek movie, their emotions and desire for each other made it white-hot for me. It was real.

After seeing 9 Songs, I've decided that it is (for me) pornography, erotica and it maybe even has artistic merit.  The characters have a complex, caring relationship and their sex is not the usual cliche crap you find in standard commercial porn.  It feels like you are watching two people connect physically and emotionally. 

For me it is the intent of the piece that makes it erotic, pornographic, artistic or all of these and more.  If the creator's intent is to go beyond just shock, awe, and titillation, and to try to put an artistic statement on it, then it is difficult to dismiss as just porn.  I don't see all pornography as being without merit or purposes other than  masturbatory eye candy.  It can be art and erotica.

Since seeing my first Playboys, Penthouses and occasional Hustlers, through the porn videos of the 90's and the boom of porn on the internet, I've seen lots of porn.  During all those experiences, I've seen some pornography that I feel is art.  I believe some of the images I captured of Leila and Hana are pornographic.  I also consider them artistic and erotic.  One of the reasons I feel they are more than porn was my, and their, intent.  I wanted to capture graphic moments that when seen together in a series shows not only the tender and caring relationship of these two women, but also the intense physical way they celebrated it.

Some believe, including me, that subtlety and leaving things to the imagination can be more erotic than explicit depictions.  I also believe  sometimes we need to see the "whole monty."  This is true whether it is sex, war, poverty, domestic violence, and other real life issues.  If we did not see the bodies of victims killed in the name civil rights, fascism, communism, genocide, crime, drugs and other atrocities, we would not have been moved to act.  The same goes for poverty and other tough topics.  They pushed our comfort and made us think of how to react.

All of this makes me believe that what most, including myself, consider pornography can also be acceptable art and important to be created. Is sex that taboo and should we only be limited to accepting violent graphic imagery as art?

Nudophobia - another story

 The Quiet Times

I read an interesting article over at What We Saw Today about the conservative fear of nude art aptly named by Dr. L as "nudophobia."   It made me think of my own experiences exhibiting nude photos.


As I've mentioned in past articles, I had a business.  It was half high-end hair salon and half art gallery.  I was in charge of the art gallery, one of my partners who was a stylist managed the salon, and her boyfriend/other partner managed the business end.

Every month we would switch out the art and have an artist's reception.  In February, we decided to have a mixed media show (paintings, sculptures, glass work and photos) of nudes to coincide with Valentine's day.  None were explicit, some were erotic and all were good art.

I posted three of my nudes and sold one and traded one.  A number of the other artists sold pieces as well.  It was the second best money making exhibit for our little gallery.  The customers liked it, the stylists liked it and I never heard a complaint.  We decided we would do the same thing next year.

A few months later, the local artists community organization sponsored their annual event called "open studios."  Every participating artist put one piece up at the organization's gallery as a token of their work and then held a show at their own studio.  My business offered to host three artists plus myself since we did not have studios to exhibit in.  Two of us had nude works along with non-nudes to show.  I was in charge of hanging all the work which took seven hours.

Lines to Her Heart

The next day I came in and all the nude works were down and a few pieces were haphazardly shifted so that the whole flow of the exhibit was ruined.  I was fucking furious.  I went to my partners and asked,"What the fuck did you do?"

The stylist partner said a couple of the other stylists complained about the nudes and she felt they were not appropriate pieces.  I countered with the fact that the nudes were less risque than the ones we had at the Valentine's exhibit and they had no problems with them.  She then said, "Yeah, but that was a special Valentine's show.  This show is supposed to be about the local art community.  We don't want to offend our staff and customers."  I asked who complained and she would not tell me.

I was so mad at her for undoing my area of ownership and responsibility  at her whim.  I never told her how to run the salon,  how dare she change my work without consulting with me first.  I told her all that.  She said  she had to work there all day and did not want to have to deal with comments.  What comments?  At that moment, I knew the partnership was mortally wounded.  I told her that I relinquished all artistic choice for future shows and would only hang work and sell art.  She said that wasn't fair.

Just typing all this makes me mad about it again.  This time though it makes me mad that the belief by her and others was nude art is only acceptable around a holiday that celebrates erotic love.  Once again, nudity equals sex.

Look at the photo I posted of Candace Nirvana yesterday titled Holding the Moment.  Candace is beautiful.  She is nude.  That photo is not erotic.  It is actually tough for me to look at and I love it for that.  I feel pain when I see it.

Dali and Nirvana 4

With all that bitching out now, I have to share a glimmer of hope.  I've talked about the photography classes I took at the local public community college.  In the studio course, a number of photographers experimented working with nude models.  I had the honor of having the photo of Candace below titled Dali and Nirvana 4 hung in the department's gallery and then in the college library's gallery, where it is currently exhibited.  I am proud to have my name and the title on a little card stuck under it.  I am proud of that little college and its acceptance of nudity and art.


Photo note - I feel this photo from the Dali and Nirvana series is erotic and is art.  I doubt my former partner would have wanted that one hanging in our business either.  The nude photos I wanted to exhibit, but were removed, are the two above - Lines to Her Heart, and The Quiet Times.

The Nature of the Beast

 Menage a...

Last night I wrote a long post about the rights of the models and the subjects of photos.  I was in a pretty defensive mood and felt undervalued as a photographer when I wrote it.  This morning I was very enthused to see Dr. L had left two great comments.  Both were very enlightening.

When I look at glamor and celebrity (not paparazzi) photography, I know the purposes of the images are about the person and/or what they are wearing.  The photographer is usually the silent partner in the final image and is rarely given credit to the photographer.  The reader of the magazine turns the page or the driver passes the billboard never knowing, needing to know, or caring about who took that photo.  Any photographer in that line of work knows their name will not be known outside the industry, but will be known inside by the media companies, models, and other photographers.  That is the nature of the beast of glam/fashion/celebrity photography. 

On rare occasions, media companies will hire big named photographers like Annie Leibovitz, Richard Avedon  or Dan Winters to create fashion and/or celebrity images.  In those instances, it is the media company's desire to leverage the names of the products, celebrities and photographer.  If they can hire all that talent, it would be foolish not to use all the names.  It is the nature of that beast.

When art models work with photographers, the balance is very complicated.  I've been blessed to work with Candace Nirvana and Leila Swan.  They are two very different models.  Candace's work celebrates the beauty and subtle eroticism of the female form.  Leila's work has a much more explicit erotic touch.  It is what makes them unique in their industry.

Both Candace and Leila have much bigger names in the industry than I do and I felt honored by their modeling for me.  In both cases I payed them a fair fee which I was happy to do.  I knew I was working with professionals that would work hard with me to create the best we could together.  They both also had more to lose if I took lousy images of them.  As you can guess, I do have a few bad images of them.  The lighting and composition was poor, they were just about to sneeze and their eyes were half closed, or a range of other mishaps occurred in that moment.  I deleted them because it would hurt all of our reputations if I let them out.  Since they are better known and searched for more often, they have more to lose.  Along those lines, I always give the models I work with digital copies of our work for their own promotional needs.  Since I am a small fish, their name helps build my reputation.

If my last name was Weston and I came from that great lineage, I would probably have the recognized name.  I would need to make sure every image I put out in my name was as good or better than my previous work.  So much of my business and reputation relies on keeping the name, the brand, and the quality up.  I am sure many models would want to work for me due to these high standards and to help beef up their resumes and portfolios.  In those cases  I would allow them to use the images for self-promotion, but would need to keep a tight control on other uses of the image.  It is already too easy to steal others' work on the internet.

This balance of model and photographer name value needs to be considered to protect both parties.  Even though I am a artistic nude neophyte, I need to protect my reputation.  I hope the models I work with will respect that and also protect theirs as well.  That is why I would never sleep with a model or break comfort boundaries when working with them.  We may want to push the boundaries a little to see what edge we can create, but in a safe environment.  I admit that I can get aroused during a session, but I also get deeply engrossed in the moment, the light and the image.  It all has to balance out for the art.

Sadly though too many amateur photographers out there are GWCs, guys with cameras.  They are there to get "hot pics of smokin' babes."  I admit that I like the voyeuristic feel of being behind a camera, but my intent goes a bit further.  Too bad though so many gwc's are fucking it up for us decent amateur photographers, but I guess that is the nature of the beast.

While reading Dr. L and Alex's post I was trying to find another professional relationship to compare it to.  One I can think of is the relationship of the chef and the wait staff.  The chef is the artist creating the culinary marvels.  The challenge though is to create the marvels the customers want and that they feel they want to make.  The wait staff is the special liason between the customers and the chef.  The customers do not get to see the chef or talk to her since that is the job of the waiter.  The waiter though must be skilled in knowing the food, what to suggest for the varying palettes, pairing everything with the right wine, and ensuring the flow of the kitchen to the table is paced perfectly.  Both are crucial to making the dinner perfect through a deep symbiotic relationship.  The chef gets the notoriety and the waiter gets the tips.  Neither really expect to receive the others' rewards.    It is the nature of that beast.

I am not sure if the photographer is the waiter or the chef as with the model.  Maybe they are not completely analogous, but I like the example since it shows the true symbiotic relationship for success.  The rewards for both are very different, but that is nature of the beast.

I have not had the privilege to be requested by an art model to photograph their concept and then work with them directing the session.  I was asked by one model to photograph her nude while she held animal entrails.  She wanted to make a statement about pornography and being a piece of meat.  Sadly though she had a family tragedy that took her out of the area and we never got past the concept stage.

In that type of relationship between model and photographer, I would probably download my images to her computer, sign a contract, take my fee and hope she sends me some samples of our work.  In my mind she would own the copyright to those images.  Sadly though, this is a beast that has no nature because I doubt I will have that opportunity again.

In the end, all of these relationships have been defined by the nature of the beasts we work with.  Usually one of the participants, the photographer, model or agency, has the power and leverage.  While we may try to protect ourselves and our name, we can't control it all.  The best we can hope for is that all parties communicate their needs and desires up front and then respect each other after the moment is over.


PS - Tomorrow we are in for a special treat as a surprise guest to this blog answers the questionnaire.  I feel it is a major coup to introduce this fine person...

Part 1 - The Rights of the Model Part 2 - The Rights of Subjects?

 My Little Lady

Very interesting series of posts written by Dr. L and Alex over at What We Saw Today concerning the rights of the model and the acknowledgment they deserve.  While I think both parties need to be fairly acknowledged, will this push move beyond models?

Part 1 

Without the hard work and gifts of the models I've worked with, my photos would be nothing.  I greatly appreciate them and give them the credit I can.  Along with paying their modeling fees, I also send them a cd with the images I find good enough for their own promotional use.  If I ever make a great amount of money off of an image, I will share a fair portion with the model since we made the art

As I wrote in my comments to one of the posts, 

"While sharing the credit for the contributions of both the model and photographer to the final piece is crucial, it must also be decided upon before the art is created. Both sides need to stop making assumptions on where the credit of the creativity belongs. It is important to decide these issues in the planning discussions before the first click of the camera shutter."

Two of the models I've worked with have specified in writing in the model release they want to know where I will exhibit, post or publish any images of the images they appear in.  Neither stated they would limit the usage of the images, just wanted awareness of their placement.  I've always honored their requests because it was the right thing to do and was in the contract.  One thing I suggest to all models and photographers is to make these decisions before the shoot, not after.  To be honest, I would be upset if a model wanted to add restricting or additional rights sharing clauses after the photo shoot.  That is why I will from now on send future models I work with my model release before the session so we can negotiate language changes.

Alex made an interesting comment about painting versus photographing a model.

Let's go back to the world of photography. Most nude photographers regard themselves as artists, and indeed they are, but photography is a very different art form from painting or sculpting. It really relies heavily on the active participation of another person, the model - unless of course the photographer only shoots landscapes or objects or is a street photographer, shooting subjects rather than models.

The input of the model is much more significantly tangible in an art photograph than it is in a painting. The photographic model has every right to be acknowledged, i.e., named. And yes, s/he should be entitled to share the copyright of the image and have rights to its reproduction. All sorts of restrictions can be put in place, of course, so that the image is not further processed or manipulated by anyone else once it is finalised, but share of copyright simply means that the authorship is shared.

There is a part of this I agree with concerning the art model's role in creating the image.  To paraphrase my statement above, my photographs with models would be empty without them and have no meaning or purpose.  They added crucial and very necessary contributions to the shared creation of those pieces

I am not sure how I feel about some of the subtle subtext in this statement that I am reading into it. This statement makes me think that Alex has a different opinion on the artistic contribution, creativity and role of the photographer in creating an image compared to a painter or sculptor.  I could photograph a nude and make a beautiful print of it or I could create a painting from the image, yet it feels like I am judged more as an artist by picking up the brush, not loading the image into the enlarger.  Maybe I am being defensive, but I feel the battle for recognition of photographer as artist is still not over.  Is it because of the ultra-realism of photography? 

I have a question about the rights of models who work with painters and sculptors.  What if a painter created a piece that was nothing like the model posed for, but was a graphic sexually explicit crotch shot painting with the model's face clearly visible and identifiable.  Does the model have a right to recourse?  I think the painter broke the trust of the relationship, but since the artist created a visual moment that did not exist, what can the model do?


Part 2

"... It really relies heavily on the active participation of another person, the model - unless of course the photographer only shoots landscapes or objects or is a street photographer, shooting subjects rather than models."  Alex from What We Saw Today

With the recent technology enabling everybody to take photos, people are taking more snaps of everything, everywhere, at all times.  Will subjects (or the owners of) soon be demanding profits and rights for the images?

I found this page at the National Park Service website about photography permits for professional photographers.  I can understand wanting a permit system if the park will have to provide extra personnel and/or will need to clean up or fix things after a photo shoot.  I am troubled that I  need to get the permit even if I am not requiring any more park resources compared to amateur photographers.  What is interesting that painters do not need these permits.

The most disturbing line (to me) at the website is:

In addition, the National Park Service has been directed by Congress to collect a fee to provide a fair return to the United States for the use of park lands.

I may be getting paranoid and probably will need to move back to Montana and live in the middle of nowhere worrying about black helicopters, but I am starting to think everybody is going to want a cut on anything produced by anybody.  Will there be a time when I will either have to pay a fee to San Francisco for photographing the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz, or Coit Tower because I may make money with them?  Will I have to pay Yosemite National Park royalties on images of Half Dome that I sell?

At this point I have to ask, will painters, poets, sculptors, musicians, mixed media artists have to go through the same hoops?

The Sleep Dealer

 Sleep Dealer Poster

We went to see the independent movie Sleep Dealer sponsored by the Spanish Department at UC Davis.  Alex Rivera, the director, was there to field questions after the movie.  I've never been to a movie where the director was present so this was a rare treat.

Alex Rivera usually makes documentaries, but had thought of the premise for this movie over ten years ago.  According to Rivera, Sleep Dealer is the first science fiction movie filmed, set in, and from the point of view of a Latin American country.

Sleep Dealer takes place in the near future in Mexico.  The protagonist, Memo (played by Luis Fernando Peña), is a young man wanting to expand his digital life, but is stuck on his dad's traditional corn and bean farm (milpa).  After he innocently causes an incident leading to the destruction of the family farm, he heads to Tijuana for work.  This is really when the sci-fi part kicks in.

In this near future, people can choose to have nodes, small round data ports, installed into various parts of their bodies.  These nodes can be connected via cables to computers and links the brain and nervous system directly to the network.  People can experience different sensations, download memories, and directly control robots and other mechanical items remotely.  This movie may sound like the movies Avatar or Surrogates, but actually came out before them.

Memo meets a beautiful woman, Luz, who helps him get nodes so he can find work.  In this future, the United States has closed the US/Mexican border, but still needs migrant labor.  The Mexicans provide the menial labor remotely from big computer/cable hubs and do all the work we use migrant labor today, but by controlling robots from across the border.  Memo gets a construction job on a San Diego high rise.

 

Luz "Writing" a Story

I wont go into the main story more than this since it has many messages about migrant labor, wealth distribution, government/business collusion, and other meaty topics.  I want to talk about Luz, played by the talented and beautiful Leonor Varela.  In the story, Luz describes herself as a "writer."  What is unique is that writers in her future don't actually type or write words to record language.  They tell a story through their memories and narrate it, almost like an experiential diary.  The images of her memories are transferred through the nodes to a server and match up to the narrated story she tells.  After she finishes telling the story, it is then put out on the net and story buyers can hook in through their nodes and connect to the story she shared.  She mentions she writes to connect people to others through her memories and stories.

Trailer 1


While watching the movie I thought a bit about this definition of "writer."  Luz no longer uses words symbolized by letters to "write"her stories, yet she is called a "writer."  I found this an interesting perceived evolution of communication.

After the movie I asked Rivera, "With Youtube, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and other online social networks and media, we can communicate anything instantly through video and writing.  You have captured that sense of instant information, but now your characters don't even have to write, they just share the information directly from their brains.  What made you think to change how we define "writers" to this new definition?"

Rivera shared that he wanted Luz to believe her writing serves as a personal connection between the characters in her memories and the "readers", which is the goal of all writers.  With that in mind, he believes that our world is getting more visual and it will be natural that the mass culture would rather experience these things directly like this than through reading.

I grappled with his answer as I drove home.  According to studies, people are reading many more words today than they did twenty years ago due to the internet.  Like you are doing right now, people are absorbing the internet mostly through written words.  Now though, due in part to better technologies, it is easier to post video and animation online to tell a story.  Two examples of this are the success of hulu.com and youtube.  Both provide pure video content.  I usually include at least one or two youtube videos per week in my blog.  Maybe we are heading toward Luz's definition of a "writer."

I also considered the source of this idea of a "writer."  Rivera is a movie maker.  He wrote the story, but we do not read the script.  We watch and experience the story through moving pictures and audio he created.  Luz's job as a "writer" is not too much different than his as a screen writer, hers just requires fewer steps.

I highly recommend watching this movie.  It is not the deepest political movie or most profound, but it will make you think.  I found it interesting that I watched it with American eyes and expectation and had predictions on plot lines which were very wrong.  It is funny how my cultural and cinematic bias on how a story should unfold was a new discovery of my own American perceptions of stories.   That is one of many reasons to watch the DVD.

Trailer 2

x

A New(s) Cause

Photographer Unknown

America is in a shouting match and now there is a new screaming cheerleader. From the New York Times.

Sarah Palin to Contribute to Fox News.
Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

This is not a post to rant about Ms. Palin or Fox News. This is a free country and as much as their views go against mine, they have a right to spew them. This post is about my supporting the news outlets I find of value.

The conservatives have Fox, Rush Limbaugh and many other broadcast or cable outlets. They also have numerous print and online offerings as well. Through these outlets, they are able to effectively get out their core message through simplistic sound bytes and yelling to their core audience and those sitting on the fence on many issues. By being the loudest and most entertaining, many viewers absorb and believe what they say. They come to believe that these are credible news outlets. As Ms. Palin said:

“I am thrilled to be joining the great talent and management team at Fox News. It’s wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balanced news,”

The progressives have the small radio group of Air America, which can be as vitriolic as Limbaugh and crowd. They like to do the shout down as well. I guess MSNBC also has a left lean and is an interesting sparring partner for FOX News. There are many left-leaning online and print outlets that are potential resources.

The problem though is that so many of these outlets take the issues the conservatives are raging on and fight back. That may be of value, but so much news is getting neglected by both sides.

Our country is getting too distracted by all the yelling and losing sight of the facts. The conservatives are the best at finding one little point and then blowing it out of proportion as a major speaking point. If someone disagrees, they are yelled down and labeled as "unpatriotic." I can also say the same things about the yelling liberal media as well, except the label is probably, "fascist." Why are we allowing ourselves to be distracted by the grain of sand issue at the cost of ignoring the whole damn beach?

Personally, I try to avoid these sources for that reason. I need more news, less viewpoints from pundits. Online, I like to read SLATE. It, and its sister sites, cover everything from news, culture, science, entertainment and politics. I also get a chance to read Doonesbury as well. They have a good news aggregator that collects the headlines to other news sources with links to the stories. My main source of news though is National Public Radio.

My local station is the San Francisco flagship KQED which provides both PBS (television) and NPR, radio. Through listening to NPR during my commute, I feel I am getting a liberally slanted news source that cares about the news. They do offer some analysis and opinions, but mainly news. I also appreciate how they also broadcast the BBC news so I can get a little bit more of a global view.

I am a pretty smart guy. I know I don't know everything, but I do know I need to learn more before forming my own opinions about things. Too many people listen to the pundits as news, not the news then the pundits, as their information resources. We need to learn the facts and sadly we aren't.

"..."

Many may feel that this ignorance of issues does not affect them. It does. While so many are happy to watch Simon Cowel anoint the next idol we must worship, things are getting done by those who follow the news and use our distraction against us. So much of the sick stuff in the Patriot Act is buried in the language. The same goes for 2257 and other forms of censorship. Look at other personal rights issues and you can see so much happened "under the radar", but hey, Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga are singing next.

This is why I just became a financial supporter of KQED. If I don't support what I ... err... support, then my words are meaningless. I just read Dr. L's post about the need for print media and how Carrie Leigh's Nude magazine is succeeding. I plan to subscribe to that as well. Information is not always free, I am proud to support it through work or money where I can. I suggest you do the same. If you find content that feeds your needs for information, support it so it does not disappear under all the yelling from the mainstream.

What is too far and or too soon? Part 2

Iteration 7
Photo by Karl

In a previous post I asked how does society and culture define when a subject is too far "over the line" or is "too soon" after a major event. In these two posts, I am not giving an answer since I am an individual, not the society. I could tell you what I think is too far or too soon, but you can disagree.

I wrote this lengthy post the same day I wrote part 1 from this series. David from Speaking Truth gave a response the next day that applies to both days' posts. Dave wrote:

Your question: "What is too far, or too soon?" is as vague a question as, What is art and what is porn?, or What is art and what is crap?
Each of us has a set idea in our heads.
One must go back to the basics. If it is created by someone to spark an interest, be that a good or bad interest, it becomes art. I don't seperate art from porn. I have my own ideas about what I consider porn, but is also art. So I take things, whether I like them or not as being art. But there is poor art as well. Art does not cease to be because it was done poorly, it just makes it bad art. And as an artist I feel that other artists have the right to create anything they want. There should be no limits set on what is too far as long as others are not hurt in the process. If you want to create an image of a woman being raped (and she is not actually being raped) go for it. It is not hurting anyone. If some person thinks it is terrible, they don't have to look at it.
Too soon?
Well, you can't hurt Michael Jackson's reputation so I say there can't be too soon with that one. That may have been a poor example, but once again the creator of a joke is somewhat of an artist also and why should that person be put under restrictions. There were more jokes around my hometown about Michael Jackson years before he was dead than there is now, so why should we have a moment of silence just because he died?
If you are going to say it is too soon, or too far, you are putting a restriction on something based on what someone else thinks is too soon or too far and that makes no sense to me. If you want to put a self restriction on your work as the artist based on your own feelings, then pick what is comfortable for you.
And to hell with what others think.

Some groups would say my photo of Candace is too extreme because of the nudity. They may also say the photo of Leila and Hana kissing is wrong because it shows homosexual content. We wont even go into what they may think of the more graphic photos of Leila and Hana.

Leila and Hana - The Kiss
Photos by Karl

Others may find these photos no where near any line and not edgy at all. This other group may even think it is tame, cliche and boring. They may think that the edge of erotic art is what most consider porn and/or BDSM and other "extreme" activities.

Getting There
Photo by Karl
(Note, photo take in May, 2004, well before March, 2009)

Which of these two groups are right? From where you stand, you don't think you are "in the extreme." You may know you stand away from the crowd, but you feel your beliefs are correct. Most groups believe the others are the ones that are over the line or are wrong.

Almost There
Photo by Karl
(Note, photo take in May, 2004, well before March, 2009)

I've shown my erotic nudes and artistic nudes to various people. I've been praised by many for both and have been looked down upon by a few as well. I wont get into what each group believed about my photos or their motivation for their beliefs. That alone could take pages of analysis. What is important is both groups believe they are right.

There
Photo by Karl
(Note, photo take in May, 2004, well before March, 2009)

Now, how do we, as a society decide what is right or wrong. I know that overall, most citizens of the world will agree on the same boundaries. Murder, rape, child abuse, starvation, genocide, and child slavery are easy examples. What is difficult is defining an overall consensus for everyone as a group. In my opinion, that overall consensus on gray issues is impossible.

I work and live in the San Francisco area. In my office, there are three gays and lesbians that are married to their partners. There are many other openly gay employees. While I can't speak for everyone in the 100+ group of employees, most people are supportive and are happy or don't really think about it. How would those same couples be viewed in an office in Bakersfield, CA? How about Billings, MT, New York City or Tallahassee, Fl?

I used to hunt when I was a teenager. Even though I haven't hunted in almost twenty years, I do believe in the environmental need for it and understand how it is a part of the culture I grew up in. The few times I've shared these views with the people around here, they seem to feel uncomfortable and awkward at the least and upset in more extreme cases. I guess the reason they feel that way may be due to the lack of exposure to the culture I grew up in. If they grew up where it is common to be a hunter, they may be more comfortable with it due to a familiarity with it.

Just Two
Does it stop being porn if it is in black and white?
Photo by Karl

This familiarity maybe a key to my question, how do we define too far or too soon? The SF area may be more accepting about gay/lesbian culture because we are exposed to it regularly and it is becoming an accepted part of our geographical culture. The same is true about hunting and my Montana upbringing, familiarity helps things become normal.

Ok, that is just peachy. Through building familiarity we can build tolerance. What if we build a tolerance to pollution or racism or other social ills because it is part of our culture and is familiar, is that wrong? Yes. Through this, you can see how both the supporters and opposition to nude photos and other "edgy" art can feel their way of life is threatened. I am not saying it is right, just that you may be able to see why they feel threatened.

I feel threatened by the heavy hand of 2257, the Patriot Act, and many other scary laws. I feel those are threatening what I am familiar with and feel is acceptable. To the supporters of those views, they feel the opposite threat.

Now for the final question for this series? What is either one of the purposes or the purpose of art? Part of the post modern art movement emphasizes that the content is more important than the artistic or technical qualities of the art. With this belief, Robert Frank showed us the alienation and loneliness of the USA through his book, The Americans. Andy Warhol created art that made us look at the everyday mundane things like a soup can and by twisting our perception of it, change how we view these things. Diane Arbus, definitely not one of my favorites, showed us that portraits of people did not have to be pretty. She made us feel awkward looking at her photos. Her art evoked emotions from us by emphasizing the subject and the message, not how beautiful the print is. I could write about the beautiful and agonizing work of Salgado, the inflaming works by Mappelthorpe and Andres Serrano, but you get the point. Isn't one of the main purposes of art to push our boundaries?

"When People look at my pictures I want them to feel the way they do when they want to read a line of a poem twice." - Robert Frank

So, to come back full circle, what is too far or too soon? If I am an artist and I want to push the viewer's boundaries, how far can I go? I guess I can always find some niche group that will accept my photos and praise them (or despise them), but to make a big change, I have to be willing to take heat and derisive comments when showing my photos beyond the culture I am familiar with. As David said:

If you want to put a self restriction on your work as the artist based on your own feelings, then pick what is comfortable for you.
And to hell with what others think.

So, I am starting to think about where I want my art to go. In the future, not all of them will be pretty or easy to look at. Maybe I am feeling a post modern need to get messages out rather than beauty.

I like it when somebody looks at my art and it makes them think. I bet most artists like that.