photoGrant

Newton apparently found most professional models pretty dull. He didn’t want to get to know them. He just wanted to use them as graphic elements in his photographs. They were no more important than the shoes, gloves and so on.

This quote fascinates me. Helmut Newton fascinates me. Can it be, that the most prominent objects in his photographs are practically the things he cares the least about? Surely if Newton found the models ‘dull’ he would be shooting something entirely different? I think Newton had a passion for the taboo, and a drive to conquer it, and that endeavor included and involved the objectification of women in a sense that strips them of their identity and wraps them into nothing more than pristine bodies and big breasts. But this wasn’t quite the case.

Newton had a drive to convey his models into a very prominent, and almost masculine role. He would build up a characteristic in each scene, and strip them of their dignity by exposing them at their most personal. Nude, taking part in fantasies, questioning themselves, fetishism and so on – Newton shot these scenes in a harsh, hands on, reportage style which conveyed a much more convincing sense of realism, and in turn put him at the forefront of fashion photography in the late 70s.

Newton broke boundaries, and suceeded indefinitely. He acclaimed himself as one of the highest earning photographers, ever – which was probably right. He worked for French Vogue, Elle, Marie Claire, Queen, Nova, Playboy, Stern,US and Italian Vogue.

Helmut employed a rich juxtaposition in his photography which almost stretched too far. American publications would only publish the ’safer’ material Newton shot, whilst the European market was more forthcoming to the risque and kinky side of his work.

I find Newton analysed and targeted the taboos of society and exploited them in his photography. Ironically enough, this style Newton followed has surely enough eradicated these taboos and society today has become far more accepting to these explicit images. What is it that causes this to happen? Does the power of the mass media numb us to otherwise unacceptable imagery? We are aware that once, a lady showing any skin above the ankle was considered taboo, and now we’re all the way up to the arse and still rising, so where does it stop. Does it stop? Can we ever reach a point where nothing is too sacred to be mentioned?

{0 Comments}

John Berger is an inspirational man, with so many radical ideologies that it’s hard to keep up. One that really stood out for me, however – was the idea that Art was produced for people to show off their possessions whilst Photography has been used to make people Aspire to these possessions. Is that really as black and white as he made out?

In terms of commercial photography, sure. I mean, the intention is merely to construct a narrative that would make you want the product they’re displaying. Whether it’s the lifestyle that comes with owning an iPod, or the health benefits of drinking Evian Water over Volvic Water (intential choice of water here). Photography isn’t the only place we see these types of commercial advertising ploys taking place.

Cinema is slowly adapting to ways of giving products a little air time, whether they’re fully integrated into movie scripts ala James Bond and his Aston Martin (or his Laptop, or even his Phone). We see product integration into a movie that not only allows viewers to witness the biggest, baddest Government Agent using them, but also using them well. Rarely do we see these products break, or bend under pressure – no, in fact quite the opposite. These products are scripted to show just how well they work, and in such diverse conditions.

Other examples include ‘product placement’ where the product is placed quite literally, as an advertisement itself, or as being used by the actors, or as a prop, etc. These sorts of advertisements are commonly noticed, and commonly mocked too, as in the case of Wayne’s World’s ‘Pepsi Product Placement’

Wayne’s World’s Pepsi Product Placement

So what do we take from this? Commercial photography uses baiting tactics, dirty economical and psychological loopholes that make us, at times, subconciously want a product that we might not necessarily need. Dan Ariely, author of Predictably / Irrational conducted many experiments in terms of economical irrationality – and how consumerism is driven by zero common sense, and a need for the latest and greatest, the better coffee, the more expensive phone, etc. – all based on wants and not necessarily needs. Commercial photographers latch onto this, I believe, and exploit the wants and the envy of consumers, to demand more from them – they should own more products, higher priced goods, bigger houses.

But I love commercial photography! Albiet not for the reasons show above. Commercial photography is an art within itself, I love the concepts, the play on words, the ability to create worlds, ideas, comments, thoughts, political disrupt, with an image and a piece of text – that is open entirely to the public in many different contexts. Billboards, Magazines, Newspapers, Websites, the list goes on.

“Fire and Theft won’t scare you anymore”

The argument people put across is that commercial photography isn’t an art, where as I think it is. I think the concepts thought up are ingenious and wildly underplayed. I think there is more concepts and ideas brought into the advertising world, than most art galleries combined. A radical argument, I know. Maybe it’s the ease of access to these commercial photographers that make us bias towards them, or maybe it’s the inherent disregard to the general public most art cliques have? Whatever the case may be, I think I personally would attain more satisfaction in having my work displayed in magazines and billboards, than in a gallery of any sorts.

{0 Comments}

There are seldom few photographs that we as human beings can instantly recognise. The few that we do, however – are rarely questioned or toyed with in a sense that designifies their importance or adherence to cultural or political aspects of the time they were shot.

In keeping with the previous couple of posts I’ve made, I’ve stumbled upon some more ‘influenced’ photographs that take and replenish pre-existing photographs, albeit in a way that raises questions of morality and taboo.

“Murder of a Vietcong by Saigon Police Chief.” Vietnam, 1968.

Without delving into too much detail, this photograph was the first harrowing photograph that portrayed the savagery that occured in the Vietnam War by the Vietnamese Police Chiefs, one which sparked world-wide upset, as the true contents of the war had never been so forcefully pushed into peoples eye-sockets before – one which captures something the film never did – the doubtless act of violence coupled with the most upsettingly helpless look by the prisoner. The image would capture the relationship of two entirely different people in such a timeless way, that it’s almost too unbearable to comprehend. What people aren’t inherentley aware of, is that the picture was shot almost as instantaneous as the Police Chief shot too. Analyists have found that you can just see the bullet leaving the top-right of the skull upon much closer inspection.

Iconic Moments of the 20th Century

What is this photograph supposed to represent? After reading the blurb that Henry 8th (creator) supplies with the photographs, you could percieve their innocence as nothing more than an attempt to re-create the iconic moments that these people had witnessed in their lifetimes. But the question that arises for me, is why? What does the re-enactment of already horrifying imagery do? The purpose on the surface seems like a playful portrait of disdain and taboo. Are these men happy to be play acting the parts of the Police Chief and Prisoner? Did they take anything from this experience that allowed them to understand or maybe at least try to comprehend the thought processes of the real people? Or is this just a photographer with an eye on the limelight whom happened to know a bunch of bored people in an elderly home that might play along with his creation?

Whatever the case may be, I am delighted to see that taboos are broken, barriers are destroyed and things are questioned. I am glad that I am sat here debating whether or not taboos should be broken, or barriers destroyed – because discussion of art, discussion of photography – and the discussion of taboos are all of a real interest to me. It is fascinating to see that with time, the taboos have been broken, and society can converse, discuss and play with otherwise frowned upon subjects and topics. Why shouldn’t we? Why can’t we? Why can’t I say fuck? Or photograph a vagina? Or talk about sex or drugs? What is it that flips the switch in peoples minds that makes them know ‘right from wrong’ – all areas and subjects I hope to discuss in more detail through-out this blog.

{0 Comments}