Sex on a Stalk
I’m a huge fan of vegetables. Some of you might get off on motorbikes, some on booze and birds, some on chickens (yes it‘s true, for one guy I know, chickens are his life’s work)…but for me it’s vegetables. They rock my world. Anyone else who does my weird life-extending diet will get this completely. Most of you will think I’m crazy (you’re certainly right.)
Of course I’m deeply into veggie porn. I can’t pass a farmer’s market without stopping, pausing spellbound and eyeing up the gorgeous array of plump, succulent, colourful shaped fruits and veggies. Ah the erotic curve of the red bell pepper, the way it blushes and deepens to a horny maroon at the base. The symmetry and beauty of a perfect pear. And don’t even get me started on a romanesco. That’s a type of cruciferous veggie - the lime green one with the amazing fractals. Breathtaking. Absolute perfection. I could drool for hours. Plus they’re remarkably tasty too.
So you’ll understand that artistic portrayals of veggies get my juices going. For my Christmas present, I’ve asked my artistic oldest son to draw me a perfect luscious cabbage. I am going to frame it and hang it on my wall.
“But Mum, it’s not art! It’s a cabbage! Vegetables aren’t art.”
Well, I have two things to say about still life art, and vegetables in particular. Firstly, thank God that art is subjective, because, as I explained to my son, absolutely anything can be art, if you think it is.
Secondly, I showed him Edward Weston’s vegetable photography. For those few that haven’t seen them, they are pure glossy veggie porn. Impeccably lit. Elegant, beautiful, sexual. Even my son had to admit that they were “something else” (although he’s not really sure what.)
My question to you: Is this art? If so why?
What was Weston trying to communicate with this image, and did he succeed?
It’s a bell pepper. But it’s a extraordinary bell pepper. It is surrealist art, and it’s utterly brilliant. But that’s just my opinion.
Here’s another famous one by Weston, of an aubergine (that’s “eggplant” to you Yanks). This one doesn’t do it for my son. He just thinks it’s an aubergine on a plate. So there’s no message, and no connection with the viewer.
So what’s the difference between the two? Why does one move us and the other not?
Well, the first one is sexual -it looks almost muscular and human is shape. It looks suggestive - almost like one of Weston’s nudes because it‘s shot in a studio in the same way as a naked woman. But there’s something else - it conveys a unique beauty in an everyday object. It makes you think. It has a certain “magic.” With the second aubergine shot, I just don’t see the meaning there. Good picture, but no soul. Is it the plate? Is the subject matter not unusual or mutant enough? Is the angle wrong? Ah it’s so frustrating! What the hell am I missing??? Or is there no meaning at all, and I’m really just a crazy old veggie-pornographer?
My apologies folks, I really suck at critiquing art. Maybe one of you more talented artists will be able to better explain why some still life art works, and why some just leaves the viewer thinking “why bother?”
Anyhoo, in an Weston-ese experiment, I asked Rich to shoot my cutie miniature pumpkin, before I stuff it and eat it. I call it Squash #4, as #1-3 he shot with a mask and pearls (Pearls? Masks? What on earth was he THINKING?!)
For those who are into china, the plate is by Denby, of course. (Welcome to the world of yummy-mummy china fetish.) I do think my cutie pumpkin is gorgeous, although IMO it would have been better with selective colour to show the pretty orangy tones of the pumpkin. But then it wouldn't have been very Weston-ese, and apparently selective colour is tacky anyway (I usually have to bully him into it.)
“So is it art?” I asked Rich.
“Nope,” he said.
“Why not?” I asked.
“Because it hasn’t got boobies,” came the reply.
I give up.
I’m living in a cultural wasteland.
Of course I’m deeply into veggie porn. I can’t pass a farmer’s market without stopping, pausing spellbound and eyeing up the gorgeous array of plump, succulent, colourful shaped fruits and veggies. Ah the erotic curve of the red bell pepper, the way it blushes and deepens to a horny maroon at the base. The symmetry and beauty of a perfect pear. And don’t even get me started on a romanesco. That’s a type of cruciferous veggie - the lime green one with the amazing fractals. Breathtaking. Absolute perfection. I could drool for hours. Plus they’re remarkably tasty too.
So you’ll understand that artistic portrayals of veggies get my juices going. For my Christmas present, I’ve asked my artistic oldest son to draw me a perfect luscious cabbage. I am going to frame it and hang it on my wall.
“But Mum, it’s not art! It’s a cabbage! Vegetables aren’t art.”
Well, I have two things to say about still life art, and vegetables in particular. Firstly, thank God that art is subjective, because, as I explained to my son, absolutely anything can be art, if you think it is.
Secondly, I showed him Edward Weston’s vegetable photography. For those few that haven’t seen them, they are pure glossy veggie porn. Impeccably lit. Elegant, beautiful, sexual. Even my son had to admit that they were “something else” (although he’s not really sure what.)
My question to you: Is this art? If so why?
What was Weston trying to communicate with this image, and did he succeed?
It’s a bell pepper. But it’s a extraordinary bell pepper. It is surrealist art, and it’s utterly brilliant. But that’s just my opinion.
Here’s another famous one by Weston, of an aubergine (that’s “eggplant” to you Yanks). This one doesn’t do it for my son. He just thinks it’s an aubergine on a plate. So there’s no message, and no connection with the viewer.
So what’s the difference between the two? Why does one move us and the other not?
Well, the first one is sexual -it looks almost muscular and human is shape. It looks suggestive - almost like one of Weston’s nudes because it‘s shot in a studio in the same way as a naked woman. But there’s something else - it conveys a unique beauty in an everyday object. It makes you think. It has a certain “magic.” With the second aubergine shot, I just don’t see the meaning there. Good picture, but no soul. Is it the plate? Is the subject matter not unusual or mutant enough? Is the angle wrong? Ah it’s so frustrating! What the hell am I missing??? Or is there no meaning at all, and I’m really just a crazy old veggie-pornographer?
My apologies folks, I really suck at critiquing art. Maybe one of you more talented artists will be able to better explain why some still life art works, and why some just leaves the viewer thinking “why bother?”
Anyhoo, in an Weston-ese experiment, I asked Rich to shoot my cutie miniature pumpkin, before I stuff it and eat it. I call it Squash #4, as #1-3 he shot with a mask and pearls (Pearls? Masks? What on earth was he THINKING?!)
For those who are into china, the plate is by Denby, of course. (Welcome to the world of yummy-mummy china fetish.) I do think my cutie pumpkin is gorgeous, although IMO it would have been better with selective colour to show the pretty orangy tones of the pumpkin. But then it wouldn't have been very Weston-ese, and apparently selective colour is tacky anyway (I usually have to bully him into it.)
“So is it art?” I asked Rich.
“Nope,” he said.
“Why not?” I asked.
“Because it hasn’t got boobies,” came the reply.
I give up.
I’m living in a cultural wasteland.
posted by Lin at 2:03 PM
6 Comments:
of course, besides peppers and other veggies, weston also shot nudes.
Yea Lin!
Coming out of the closet!
I adore veggie porn.
One of my friends once said that he loves a guy who can really tell when a vegetable or fruit is ripe. If he sees a guy feeling up a melon in the grocery store, he's uncontrolably turned on. I totally identify.
For me, it's watching grown men eat huge, huge salads. That really gets me going. Luckily, I have this entertainment every morning of my life!
a
There's something about Weston's vegetable art that is indeed erotic--more so than many present-day examples of fine art nudes and erotica.
As one who long ago moved away from film, I must say that part of Weston's magic--setting aside his monumental aestheticism--is the enormous range of sensual tones and textures displayed in his work, so far not easily, or at all, reproducible by digital means.
You did ask...
The first pepper looks great because as an image it has excellent composition, it fills and makes use of the 2d space it occupies very well. There are repeated flowing lines in the shape that can suggest many things as you say. I can see a sitting nude facing away to the right with arms above his head. I can see a face with strong eyebrow ridges and a flared nose. It could be melted wax, or muscle, or sculpture. Or just a pepper. The thing is that the lighting brings out shape and form that can be read many ways. The multiple readings possible have many emotional connotations, but it *is* an emotional image. We read meaning into an image according to our own perceptions and imaginations. But the person recording the image can forsee some of the possibilities and present them to us more directly to make them more visible. This is where good composition and lighting come in, that gives emphasis to what you want to draw out.
The Second image, the aubergine, simply has less possibilities for interpretation. The best I could say for it is that the lighting brings out it's sheen and shape. But it doesn't suggest lots of other meanings. As a 2D composition it's not bad. I remember studying the rules of 2D layout and composition at art college and discovering what common patterns there are, and how you can make the same image look strong, lighter, harsher, calmer, uncomfortable - just by altering the relative position and size of nondescript elements. As an arrangement of 2d shapes, this is fine and dandy. But it's uninspiring.
The final image fails to work for me, not because of what it shows, but because it doesn't work as an exercise in 2d composition. It shows thinking in 3d, but not enough thought about 2d.
It's odd, I've followed many of the links to other photographers mentioned on your blog and tried to come up with why some work for me and many just don't. Often, it comes down to 2 principles.
Can I see with my own eyes the person to person connection that existed between the photographer and model, or subject? This is not the same as what the photographer thinks is a connection. S/he might believe that there was a great vibe on the day of the shoot. My question is can *I* as an external viewer see and relate to that connection? Without that, the shared understanding of what passed between the two is lost to me as a viewer. The performance of the moment is gone and all that is left is a sculpture, or worse still a dead shape. This is most prevalent when the model just doesn't look "present" at the scene. I am always drawn to the face and body language to see if the model seems to be actually into what s/he is doing.
Second, does the photographer have any sense of 2d space within the 3d photograph? Does s/he understand composition and the need to think in both 3d and 2d at the same time? I've seen many a picture and thought "for heavens sake, take an evening class in the theory of design and you could transform these". There is a reason why fine artists have study art theory throughout the centuries - it works. The same rules of balance and form apply to not only paintings but any form of visual layout, from magazine design, typography to - most certainly - photography. And I really think that's a vital step in the transition between amateurs and professional status - moving beyond understanding the physical technique to a mastery of aesthetic technique as well, until it become instinct. A very few people have that aesthetic understanding naturally (lucky bastards). The rest of us have to work at it.
So to answer your original question as to why the first image works and the third doesn't - it's all down to success in the composition.
I've always been drawn to Weston's photography but I don't find his vegetable images sexual or very remeniscent of his nudes. I have to agree with willt on what makes Weston's work magical.. it's his ability to capture a large range of sexual tones and textures and his monumental aestheticism.
As for art, well, it's first a verb, and then a noun. I don't remember who said this but "the artist goes through the creation process and the finished work is merely a representation of the artist's experience". Who are we to question what someone says is their "art".
Back to the pepper, I did a photo of a pepper with a Bok Choy leaf (in my blog) and I won 3rd prize in a juried show. I think it's art!!!
personally i get turned on by any porn. hey will have you ever asked any of your models to pose with veggies, that would be extremely hot. if your going to ask a model please take into consideration id like to see danielle pose with veggies. have her get more aggressive with herself.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home