My idea for the Object project is fragmented identity in feminist point of view. At first I wanted to take photographs of dolls or faces, but after doing my research on fragmentation I decided I wanted to use a mask made of bits of a broken mirror as my object. This way the object would be gender neutral, which is what I want my statement as a fragmented identity to stand for; the fragmentation of identity is not only within female or men, but within everyone, regardless of their sex.
Because at first my interest was in the gaze of women my research was set more on artists such as Laurel Nakedate and Simone Beauvoir, but after I shifted from that idea to a more universal one, I did a little more research and this time about identity by reading article on exhibition "Idenity: Eight rooms nine lives". The exhibition is made of eight rooms where each of the rooms focus on an individual or individuals whose lives or achievements have influenced our thinking about identity. The idea of putting identities into different rooms, these boxes, was very interesting and in a way something what I had been thinking about with the fragmentation. But then in my opinion if one puts something into a box it always has a negative connotation; something that is there will be there, and that won't change. When thinking about identity as fragmented and ever changing, these pieces in the boxes together create this kind of fragmentation that I want to speak about. That is what I did with my bits of a broken mirror; the mirror that shows the face and the soul, yet is always distorted and not what someone else looking at the person sees in the person that is looked at. Because the mirror is on the face it's always untouchable to the person who has this mirror skin; everything the person sees, he/she is - the face of a person is always a reflection of others.
I also read an article about surrealism's women by Germaine Greer, where she talks about feminine and a real man and how in the time of surrealism the photographing and painting a woman has reflected the way we look ourselves in the mirror; the real men don't look in mirrors. This notion interest me and got along with my idea of a mirror faced person as a neutral gendered in contraction what I was thinking, and thus made my idea more complex and showed me the difference between different generations.
For my visual reference I wanted to shoot the face as distorted as possible using a shallow depth of field. My first photograph with a large format camera was more abstract than the second one, but because the second one had more interesting focus point I decided to use that one. I'm not that interested in photographing objects nor photographing still-lifes, which relates my issues on coming up with an object to shoot, and when shooting the object I wasn't too interest about the outcome, other than taking a photograph of the named object. This is why I wanted to make my idea as personal yet universal as possible and not to think about other artists' still-life photographs. I feel that my object speaks about the issue of fragmented identity and it's really hard to not to understand what I am trying to say. Usually I am not a one to use obvious within my work, but with this subject it feels like it's necessary.
I had a bit difficulties with my shooting production due to the fact that I didn't have a partner to work with until the last minute, and even then I worked alone. I didn't have any difficulties working alone, because I knew what I wanted to do in the studio. I got a bit help from Jonathan and Steve which eased my stress and my final image turned out to be what I wanted.
Because at first my interest was in the gaze of women my research was set more on artists such as Laurel Nakedate and Simone Beauvoir, but after I shifted from that idea to a more universal one, I did a little more research and this time about identity by reading article on exhibition "Idenity: Eight rooms nine lives". The exhibition is made of eight rooms where each of the rooms focus on an individual or individuals whose lives or achievements have influenced our thinking about identity. The idea of putting identities into different rooms, these boxes, was very interesting and in a way something what I had been thinking about with the fragmentation. But then in my opinion if one puts something into a box it always has a negative connotation; something that is there will be there, and that won't change. When thinking about identity as fragmented and ever changing, these pieces in the boxes together create this kind of fragmentation that I want to speak about. That is what I did with my bits of a broken mirror; the mirror that shows the face and the soul, yet is always distorted and not what someone else looking at the person sees in the person that is looked at. Because the mirror is on the face it's always untouchable to the person who has this mirror skin; everything the person sees, he/she is - the face of a person is always a reflection of others.
I also read an article about surrealism's women by Germaine Greer, where she talks about feminine and a real man and how in the time of surrealism the photographing and painting a woman has reflected the way we look ourselves in the mirror; the real men don't look in mirrors. This notion interest me and got along with my idea of a mirror faced person as a neutral gendered in contraction what I was thinking, and thus made my idea more complex and showed me the difference between different generations.
For my visual reference I wanted to shoot the face as distorted as possible using a shallow depth of field. My first photograph with a large format camera was more abstract than the second one, but because the second one had more interesting focus point I decided to use that one. I'm not that interested in photographing objects nor photographing still-lifes, which relates my issues on coming up with an object to shoot, and when shooting the object I wasn't too interest about the outcome, other than taking a photograph of the named object. This is why I wanted to make my idea as personal yet universal as possible and not to think about other artists' still-life photographs. I feel that my object speaks about the issue of fragmented identity and it's really hard to not to understand what I am trying to say. Usually I am not a one to use obvious within my work, but with this subject it feels like it's necessary.
I had a bit difficulties with my shooting production due to the fact that I didn't have a partner to work with until the last minute, and even then I worked alone. I didn't have any difficulties working alone, because I knew what I wanted to do in the studio. I got a bit help from Jonathan and Steve which eased my stress and my final image turned out to be what I wanted.
Dear Emilia,
ReplyDeleteA quick few words at this stage only to thank you for your very positive response to my previous comments. You have no idea how nervous I felt! Also to apologise for not keeping in touch with your blog. I came down with a very nasty cold at the same time preparing the top floor of my house for a lodger for the first time. My world became very small and I'm only now starting to re-emerge - I still feel very tired. Anyway, I plan to catch up with your post this afternoon after some work at my darkroom but I wanted to say those mask images of yours look absolutely enticing and I can't wait to examine them more closely and read your words. Speak to you soon! Chris
Emilia,
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in your broken-mirror masks. In an earlier post you commented about your concern that a face is not an object (I think that is what you said). Was it because of something Tom Slevin said? If he had I might have been tempted to quote back to him the photographer Wolfgang Tillmans (I'm rather keen on Tillmans at the moment.
"For me the photograph is first of all an object in space. It is primarily not a depiction but a picture."
My argument would be that the face became an object as soon as I printed the photograph. This transformation might intrigue you because you've raised the concept of 'fragmented identities'. The identity of the face takes on another identity - that of the photograph you've made. You make another print and another identity is created or transformed ... does this any kind of sense to you? The idea of the mirror interests me because it is integral to the camera. Think of the SLR or the Bronica - the subject is viewed via a mirror. Your smashing of the mirror (have you smashed the mirror?) could relate to what is going on in the camera. Let's try and think it through: you (the operator) views the subject via a mirror, you depress the shutter, the mirror is lifted and the light goes direct to the film, the mirror was a diversion seen by the operator, not the camera. The film has another view of the subject. The operator and the camera see different things. A print is made, reflected on a sheet of paper on the enlarger board - another view (another way of looking, anther transformation, another identity) of the subject. All of these views are fragments of the original subject. I'm not sure I'm making sense but I'll be interested whether it is something that you've considered or find it interesting and can run with it and see where it takes you. Another thought something different is going on with the large format studio camera, the operator views the image on a ground glass screen (not via a mirror) the same view as the film that is inserted in the dark slide.
I think you should experiment with different ways of photographing your object. I like what your doing but try thinking outside your self imposed box (by the way I disagree with you about boxed but I'll come back to that later). Have you tried varying the background, white as opposed to black, different positions of the lights (putting them in a position so that the camera is dazzled?) - etc etc. If so what were the results and what was your analysis? If not, why not? Shallow depth of field does add mystery and ambiguity. You images made me think of Julia Cameron (e.g. http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soubor:My_niece_Julia_full_face,_by_Julia_Margaret_Cameron.jpg). The distortions in her images were imposed on her by the camera and lenses she was using - but she liked the effects and used the distortions to augment her interpretations (or the different identities she imposed on her subject). Her technique was the subject of criticism by male contemporaries because she was a woman. You might find it useful to research her approach.
ReplyDeleteDid you consider the reflections on your mirror mask? I notice in the test images that the all show a black background. I wondered, what if they showed multiple reflections of a face? Or a camera?
ReplyDeleteI'm really glad that you were interested to research the Eight Rooms, Nine Lives exhibition. I don't agree that the box contains things which are preserved and do not change. Objects can be taken out and replaced, added to or even moved to a different box - I feel it is quite a powerful metaphor. By the way, considering your thoughts about the feminine identity and the feminine gaze, what did you think of April Ashley born a man who eventually was officially recognised as a woman, whose image as a fashionable model got into the pages of Vogue during the 1960s?
ReplyDeleteSorry about all the typos in my comments - hope it still makes sense to you.
ReplyDelete