Guardian: Female Gaze

Yum, most I already knew and still they brought a Smile to my face a twinkle in my Eye...
So DIVINE !

Thanks for posting ~
 
Some wonderful work here! Interesting to consider that these are images of people reacting to (or at least being shot by) a woman. Might there be a commonality to their response, based on the cultural perception that women are "less threatening" and that a woman photographer isn't likely to be a "professional"? I've often wondered what part of my experience shooting strangers is a result of being a man, and how that might differ if I weren't. A controlled experiment isn't really an option, since my bushy moustache would be a dead give-away, but I'm wondering if our (too few) female RFF members have any thoughts on this. Let's examine Diane Arbus as a "thought experiment": to what extent do you think her work specifically reflects both a female sensibility and/or access to subjects that might have been much less willing to reveal themselves to a man? We're tippy-toeing around gender issues and gender stereotypes here, so let's be respectful!
 
I agree entirely that a female photographer will be perceived as less threatening than a male photographer and more likely to be regarded as a trivial amateur. After all, they're all housewives, right? This is a telling comment on our society but on the other hand it allows female photographers greater latitude. I hope it is exploited to the maximum. And I am a big fan of the photographer of the everyday people, Vivian Maier. And I believe that I am not the only one who daydreams of being "discovered" even if only posthumously. It's a fabulous closet fantasy.
 
Excellent! Thank you for the article link. Some names I have never heard of: Ester Bubley, Rebecca Lepkof, Frances McLaughlin-Gill, and Barbara Morgan.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
Some wonderful work here! Interesting to consider that these are images of people reacting to (or at least being shot by) a woman. Might there be a commonality to their response, based on the cultural perception that women are "less threatening" and that a woman photographer isn't likely to be a "professional”..
Click to expand...
Less “threatening” definitely. Also, there’s a perception that they’re less likely to be a professional. However, I perceive women photographers as more discerning and artistic. Some people may be flattered to discover a woman is taking their photo.
 
Let's think about this: I think it's safe to say that Arbus gained the confidence of her subjects, but often violated their trust with the images she chose to make public. A perfect example is the picture of the boy with a hand grenade. Her contacts mostly show multiple pictures of a sweet little boy mugging for the camera. But the one she printed for public viewing was the one image where he looked possessed.
Was Arbus able to gain his confidence because she was a diminutive, "unthreatening" woman? Or was it at least easier for her to do so? As boojum points out, being female might give a photographer greater latitude that can be exploited. I agree, but that greater freedom doesn't absolve a photographer from ethical responsibilities.
My hope is that, as more women continue to enter the medium as artists, they will use their experience of women's continued marginalization to offer a broader, better rounded, and more compassionate view of the human condition. I say this not from the position of viewing women as the stereotypical nurturing, compassionate caregivers. I hope that anyone who is marginalized by our society can make their perspective more visible, both as critique and as a vision of a way forward to a more compassionate and inclusive world.
 
I recall Joan Didion saying she thought she was a successful reporter because she was small of stature, never intruded or asked too many questions but she just stood around and listened a lot. The best news reporter I worked with--a male, by the way--seldom took notes but he listened attentively to what the interviewee was saying and paid close attention. Women are certainly better equipped than men at being less intimidating in most instances. And I believe women usually pay better attention than men.

I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "female gaze"--that's a little newspeak for me. But I love the photos and have the utmost respect for the photographers.

Arbus's photo of the kid with the grenade is one of my favorites of hers. As she told it, it was an instance of the child being exasperated with her because he wanted to play with his friends and she wanted to take more pictures. The photo may not have been a perfect representation of the child personally but it was a great representation of his exasperation at that moment. After all, who really wants to see another cute picture of a cute child doing cute things. Cute is overdone in portraying children, IMO. Children aren't always cute. Sometimes they're just little monsters capable to tossing a grenade in you face.
 
I've always been ambivalent about Arbus' work. It's certainly powerful, but does raise ethical questions that I think are fundamental to the medium, and perhaps are impossible to answer or resolve. I think she may have been a monster on occasion, and incredibly compassionate on others. She's gone, and the work remains; the work and the artist are not the same thing.
And yeah, I love that picture of the kid with the grenade, too. Let it never be said that Arbus defaulted to cheap sentimentality!
 
Interesting ideas ramify with the thread topic. There's a recent NYT or Instagram project of female nudes by a female photographer. Gaze is a term that ports a lot of meanings in photography.

As Pái_K says above, a woman with a camera possibly has more credentials as obviously serious and possibly professional and much less likely to be seen as a perv etc.

Susan Meiselas has a lovely quote about carrying a camera: "The camera is an excuse to be someplace you otherwise don’t belong. It gives me both a point of connection and a point of separation.”
 
Retro-Grouch said:
Let's think about this: I think it's safe to say that Arbus gained the confidence of her subjects, but often violated their trust with the images she chose to make public. A perfect example is the picture of the boy with a hand grenade. Her contacts mostly show multiple pictures of a sweet little boy mugging for the camera. But the one she printed for public viewing was the one image where he looked possessed.
Was Arbus able to gain his confidence because she was a diminutive, "unthreatening" woman? Or was it at least easier for her to do so? As boojum points out, being female might give a photographer greater latitude that can be exploited. I agree, but that greater freedom doesn't absolve a photographer from ethical responsibilities.
My hope is that, as more women continue to enter the medium as artists, they will use their experience of women's continued marginalization to offer a broader, better rounded, and more compassionate view of the human condition. I say this not from the position of viewing women as the stereotypical nurturing, compassionate caregivers. I hope that anyone who is marginalized by our society can make their perspective more visible, both as critique and as a vision of a way forward to a more compassionate and inclusive world.
Click to expand...

If anyone was looking at the contact sheet of this child's photos what one would grab their attention? The common "cute kid" or the single "'f' you!" photo? You betcha, the hand grenade. It grabs your attention because it is unique. How many of us have seen a Po'ed kid with a hand grenade and how many have seen photos of cute kids smiling? Arbus paid the rent by selling photos. The hand grenade kid would sell. There is a sea of cute kid photos to choose from. Just one hand grenade. That one is the "Wow!" shot. If a photographer wants to be known that person has to chase the eyeballs.

A classic example of this is Vivian Meir who was never known in her lifetime. The random, chance purchase by John Maloof changed all of that. And what got the ball rolling for Meier/Maloof? He rented space to display what he thought were the best of Meier's work that he had seen and invited the public in to see it. And the public had a visceral connection with her work. She only needed to be seen. It is a Cinderella story but Meier has garnered lots of fame, and shamed a lot of critics along the way. For that I doff my hat to her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom