Pinups, not porn!

I recently shot some pinup work with a friend and fellow photographer as the model.  Our goals were pretty simple. She needed a break from life's stresses and just wanted to do something creative to relax.  I have a lot of people ask whether I shoot pinup-style portraits, and I just wanted to experiment with the style without any pressure to deliver for a client.  We both like the style and the history, and we both wanted to have some fun.

Some turned out better than others, but overall I think we're both pretty pleased with them.  I posted some of the best on Facebook and asked for feedback.  Most people liked them, but one person - there always has to be one - said they look like soft core porn.  My first thought was "you need to ask someone to show you some real porn," but truly I found the comment more offensive than you might think.

 This isn't the first time someone has called my work porn.  There's a huge sector of America, not to mention Interior Alaska, that subscribes to a fundamentalist conservative worldview in which there is no distinction between nudity and pornography.  They won't be educated, persuaded, or enlightened to any other worldview, for they cannot conceive of any possible merit in something they don't understand, and they see no good reason for tolerance of anything beyond the boundaries of their provincial comfort zone.  Since most of my work includes nudity, I hear from them fairly regularly (for some reason they seem to be avid viewers and reviewers of nude artwork, despite the fact that they find it so objectionable), and calling my work pornography these days usually gets about as much of a rise out of me as telling me there's a golf match on TV (oh boy!).  But jeez, if you want to attack my work, at least choose something that includes nudity.  I can respect someone who's advocating for something they truly believe in, even if I adamantly disagree with them, but labeling this innocent, playful work as porn makes me think you're just making up a reason to pick a fight, and I have no respect for that at all.  

Anyway, pinups ... they're a long-standing art form that has been admired throughout America and the world for nearly a century.  There's plenty of room for variation of styles in the genre, from grainy cartoonish pinpus of the 20's and 30's, to the classics of Gil Elvgren and Alberto Vargas, to WWII noseart, to poodle skirts and sweaters, to Marilyn Monroe cheesecake, to Betty Page fetish to polished modern glossy photography.  Still, there are expected characteristics of pinup imagery that put pretty firm boundaries on what fits and what doesn't.  If it's not a little playful, a little sexy, and doesn't have a simple story to it, it's not a pinup.

My vision for these shots was something more painterly than a sharp photograph but more photorealistic than a painting, very minimal on the props, and with a hint of an antique patina.  Several people have asked about how I processed them, and I'll post a detailed blog entry on that soon.  For now, I'd like to focus on the aesthetics rather than the technical details.  You can click any photo to enlarge it.  Do they say "pinup" to you?  Is the antiquing enough, or too much?  Do they have a painterly feeling to them?  Did we do the genre justice?  Good or bad, let me know what you think.  Just don't tell me they're porn!

And finally, thanks very much to my friend and model.  I had a great time shooting these with you.

The sensual side of the line

A fairly well-known fine art photographer and curator recently did me the favor of reviewing my body of work.  He pointed out some good things in my work, but his view of my work as a whole was that it's old fashioned.  His opinion is that anonymous figure and form photography is a thing of the past that is no longer interesting to the art world.  While there's certainly ample evidence to the contrary, he did give me an interesting perspective to consider.  His suggestions for improving my work were to photograph figure and form in a way that also incorporates personality and sensuality.


The following week I shot a model who had incredibly beautiful form and produced some great classical figure and bodyscape work, but with whom I had a very difficult time keeping the personality and sensuality out.  When I finished processing that session I sent my critic some of the shots (the ones you see here) and asked for just a bit more of his time to comment on them.  His only response was "You understood.  Now build on it."  

I've been contemplating that session for a few weeks now.  I'm certain his comments influenced the output of that session, but every model brings a different energy to a session and a different influence to my vision.  There was an undeniable sensual air to this model, and I wonder if the results with her might not have been similar even if I'd never had that critique.

There is a broad, fuzzy line between sensual and erotic. I do shoot some erotica, and when I set out to shoot erotic work, I'm very cognizant of that line because straying too far from it on the erotic side leads to another realm where the artistic value of a piece gets overpowered by other factors.  When I set out to shoot non-erotic work, though, I generally don't think much about it, and if I do it's generally just to ensure that I stay pretty far short of it.  In that respect, my critique was very valid.  I probably miss a lot of the potential sensuality that could be included in an image without getting onto the erotic side of the line. 

Much of the work from this session fills that gap.  There is a sensuality to these images that is short of erotic.  Line, figure, and form are still dominant aspects of the composition, but there is a feeling of personality, emotion, and life as well.  Why?  I'm not sure.  Perhaps I was thinking about my critic's comments as we shot, but it was not deliberate.  My awareness was on her beautiful figure and form.  Also, I can't capture sensuality if it's not there, so I have to give some of the credit to the model.  

One of the things I love about expressive photography is that it transcends the technical.  I can follow a formula and produce image after image with the same technical characteristics, but the feeling and energy can't be scripted.  That comes from a synergy between my mood, the model's mood, how the model's physical traits influence my vision, and how we connect emotionally.  I've decided that the explanation for these images must consider all of those factors - my subconscious thoughts about my critique, the way this particular model influenced my vision, and her innate sensuality that came through in the energy and mood of her poses and expressions.

And ultimately the important question isn't why or how, but whether I can produce images with similar feelings again.  I'm really excited about these images and the prospect of exploring imagery at this volume of sensuality.  I think I understood.  Now I'll try to build on it.

 

A step forward

I realized a while ago that, in order for me to grow artistically, I need to make an effort to work multiple times with the few outstanding models I encounter, rather than just working a couple times with lots of different models. The images here represent one of my first steps in that journey. I've worked more times with this model than any other, save one. We had been planning an outdoor shoot, but the weather didn't cooperate, and we ended up in the studio with some general ideas, but not a solid plan. I had a few specific ideas to try, but I was aware that this was a model with rare beauty, so I essentially decided to do an exploratory shoot and just see how many unique aspects of her beauty I could capture. Though I don't always have sketches and I don't like to leave out room for inspiration, I almost never shoot without some sort of plan, so this was a bit worrisome for me. I feared that I might very well let the model down, have her give her all and produce only mediocre imagery. My fears were largely allayed once I processed the images, but I've still been through this set a couple dozen times, second guessing my work, asking if I would have done better if I had planned it out, essentially trying to talk myself into not liking them. I'm sufficiently convinced now that I did justice to this model, that the quality of my work is on par with her beauty, with the courage she showed, and with the trust she placed in me. So, I've decided I'm ready to share the images. I think this set is unique for a couple of reasons. First, all female figures contain some piece of unique and wonderful beauty, some angle or point of view from which an exquisite treasure is revealed. In most it's concealed among many pretty but average points of view, and one of the skills required to produce fine art nude photography is the ability to see and capture those one or two outstanding treasures. Once in a while, though, you find a veritable treasure chest of beauty, a model who reveals outstanding beauty from every angle and point of view. This model is definitely one of those rare treasure chests of beauty and I think this set, largely because it was exploratory and unplanned, shows that. Just finding a model like that is only half the battle, though. This model was very creatively open and trusting the first time we worked together, but modeling for and photographing such beauty in an exploratory mode, while not sexual, is definitely an intimate experience. Getting a model to drop their guard and allow their beauty to show without reservation requires a rapport and two-way trust that takes time to build. The second reason this set is unique is because we had worked together enough to begin to build that kind of rapport, and it represents a step into a new level of creative interaction with a model for me. Does that show from a viewer's perspective? I don't know. I do know that, from an artist's perspective, it's significant. Anyway, ponder all that as you enjoy the images, and keep in mind the contribution of the model, both in terms of her uniquely amazing beauty and her courage and openness in sharing it with my camera. Many people seem to have the idea that models just look pretty and follow directions. For many that's not far from the truth, but creating imagery such as this is truly a collaborative artistic effort. Please take time to view each of these images at full size and let me know your thoughts on them, either in comments here or in a private e-mail if you prefer. As I said, this is a significant step artistically, and feedback would certainly be helpful.

And reality be damned!

The object matter of the world does not determine the subject matter of a photograph. ~ Joel Snyder Someone told me this morning that they don't see photography as an art because they believe that what they see in a photograph is exactly what the photographer saw in front of him - an image that has lots of shadows was simply shot in a dark room; pleasing light is simply discovered by accident; what is seen in the image was obviously plainly visible in reality. Actually, that couldn't be further from the truth. This is one of the first bodyscapes that I considered a complete success. What you see here is pretty much the exact image I had in mind when I set out to produce it. It’s recognizable as a human form, but I let the details fade into the shadows and focused on form and mood. I think it’s evocative of a landscape of rolling hills at sunset and draws an analogy between the human form and natural forms. Tonal range, ambiguity, visual energy, and aesthetic emotion were all planned factors. I shot from a low perspective and framed a bodyscape that rises from left to right to give a sense of energy and depth, and let the light fall off in the upper right to give a sense of fading into the distance. I used a diffused strobe to overpower the ambient light and feathered it across the model give a gradual transition of tones and capture the form of the torso. Once I had that all set up, I told the model it was time to add the energy, and she would arch her back a bit, lift her feet off the floor and spread her knees apart to add tension to her abdominal muscles and let her temporary lack of balance give a rolling feeling to the "landscape." It took 7 or 8 meter readings and light adjustments to get this just what I wanted it. By the time I got the "keeper" shot I think the model was getting a bit frustrated with me, but she stuck with it and did a great job, and I'm grateful to her for that. Did I just capture reality? Hardly. A person standing in the camera’s position for this shot would have seen the model in a relatively bright studio in front of a green muslin background, her toes curled and arms reaching for the floor as she tried to balance on a narrow bench, trying not to laugh while she tried to concentrate on the directions I was giving her. 99.9% of non-photographers standing in the studio would never have envisioned this photograph when looking at the scene before them. What artistic decisions went into it? I've already said, but I'll list them again:

• I shot from a low perspective and framed a bodyscape that rises from left to right to give a sense of energy and depth
• I let the light fall off in the upper right to give a sense of fading into the distance
• I used a diffused strobe to overpower the ambient light
• I feathered it across the model give a gradual transition of tones and capture the form of the torso
• I took 7 or 8 meter readings and light adjustments to get this just what I wanted it
• I told the model it was time to add the energy, and she would arch her back a bit, lift her feet off the floor and spread her knees apart to add tension to her abdominal muscles and let her temporary lack of balance give a rolling feeling to the "landscape."

As Mr. Snyder to aptly observed, the object matter of the world does not determine the subject matter of a photograph. Documentary photography is about recording [events, truth, reality]. Expressive photography is about exposing [feelings, beauty, surprises] and exploring [possibilities, complexities, subtleties]. I have little talent for documentary photography. My camera has the ability to censor and the ability to embellish, and my vision is not limited by the boundaries of reality. I leave out things that you might notice and I capture things that wouldn’t be apparent if you were standing next to me when I tripped the shutter. As an expressive photographer, I create images with light, lenses, and the cooperation of talented models, and reality be damned. Perhaps it was best stated by Bob Randall, an amazing photographer who has an equally amazing way with words:

I'll make you look the way I need you to look, and I'll get the reaction from you I need to get. I'll make you a corporate vice president, or an 18 year old hooker or the girl next door. I'll make you light and airy and innocent or dark as night and nasty as a mother fucker. When I'm done with you, you'll forget all about every loser asshole that said he couldn't work with you because you don't have the right stuff. I'm a photographer, I'll make you into whatever I want to make you.

Remember that the next time you think that photographers just push buttons to capture images they've accidentally discovered.