The Art of Seuss

There isn’t a person reading this who won’t be familiar with the work of Dr Seuss. My kids adore him, all three of them can recite The Cat in the Hat by heart, and my daughter is completely obsessed with Green Eggs and Ham.

Theodor Seuss Geisel is famous for his children’s stories and illustrations, and arguably he has done more to fire young imaginations than any other author. During his lifetime he wrote 46 books, which sold over 200 million copies. He was also a political cartoonist, an advertising illustrator and a documentary filmmaker, but it was his amazing nonsensical children’s books for which he will always be revered. His stories are full of tongue-twisters, made-up vocabulary and word-play, as well as clever pictures.

In the serious and pretentious art world, Dr Seuss wasn’t considered to be a proper artist. This is a mistake. He was actually a highly imaginative artist, creating some amazing surrealist work during his lifetime. Combine his vivid imagination with a deep understanding of human nature, and you can see profound truths within his crazy, playful paintings. Disguised as nonsense for kids, when examined more closely they reveal a unique artistic vision. During his lifetime, he dabbled in Surrealism and Abstract Expressionism, and his images were always bold, colourful and uniquely Seuss. You simply can’t look at his art without feeling uplifted and enlightened.

Not all of his paintings were published, and not all were suitable for children. His rather odd Myopic Woman (see above) demonstrates both surrealism and cubism, and seems positively indecent if you study it closely. (Incidentally Seuss’s wife was crazy about cats, which is why they feature so extensively in his work. As everyone knows, cats are cleverer than humans.)



Gosh Do I Look As Old As That? is based on a character he invented called La Jolla Birdwoman, a “species which functions in its native habitat of luncheons, parties and charity balls.” (From this we conclude that I am, in actual fact, La Jolla Birdwoman, as Seuss clearly has my personality nailed.)



But my favourite ever Seuss character is the bird in Fooling Nobody. An astute insight into an artist’s ego, the message in the painting is clear: No matter how inflated our ego, we’re not fooling anybody. Others can see straight through the image we portray, and in the end, we are better off just being ourselves.

So does Seuss create a pot pourri of nonsense, a “phantasmagorical cocktail of inventions,” or rather does he demonstrate a witty and brilliant insight into human nature? In the end, I am left with the uneasy realisation that Seuss was forever laughing at us all.

The Law of the Jungle

Can freedom ever exist in the world of creative art?

This is not as stupid a question as it sounds. As artists, photographers and writers, we try to produce art because we love it, because something inside us compels us to create a fragment of beauty or meaning that we can give to the world. However conceited it sounds, we want to make our mark, leave part of ourselves out there, create our own legacies. This process of creation is, IMO, a vital act of freedom. We are free to interpret anything and everything from our imagination. If a photographer or writer loses that psychological sense that he is free, then his ego is injured, his work is below standard, and his creativity dries up because he cannot dream. Effectively he has lost his power, not just his mojo.

PirateMaiden 552

Freedom is synonymous with power. When you want to produce a piece of art, you crave the ability, the choice and the freedom to do it. Whether or not you actually have that freedom depends on if you exercise your power over others, or let others have power over you. There’s truth in the old adage that no-one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

I know a gifted glamour and nude photographer (let’s call him Luca) who prevents himself from producing the best work he can possibly do because he lets others tell them that he isn’t very good. Luca’s photographs are beautiful, but he won’t show his work and even though his friends try to bolster his self-esteem all the time, he still remains convinced that he is a crappy photographer and unworthy of recognition as an artist.

So as a result of listening to the opinion of other rival photographers (who have their own self-interests at heart), then those rivals have taken power over Luca’s self-esteem, resulting in loss of freedom. Luca’s mind is racked by insecurity and self-doubt and he has effectively built his own mental prison driven by his damaged ego. Trapped within his self-made cage, he has practically stopped producing new photographs because he thinks he is useless.

Luca needs to turn the tables on his opponents. He needs to take the power back and exploit the insecurities of his rivals. He should harden his heart, push back, exert his will over others instead of himself being coerced. In the glamour photography jungle, Luca’s potential success is produced not only by self-confidence, but also by toughness, by manipulating other people’s dreams and dictating to them what they should think of him. If Luca learns how to become good at power games, then it won't matter if his current rival is a better photographer than him (which he’s not), because Luca can still be more successful than his rival if he learns how to pimp himself, how to bullshit, how to schmooze and bend others to his will.

If this sounds incredibly cynical of me, then I do apologise. I’m simply calling it the way I see it after spending much too long (obviously) in this entertainment business. The glamour and nude photography world is not a pretty place. It’s a narcissistic cesspool of artistic egos and Luca needs to exploit that to his advantage. He needs to learn to play the Game, because at the moment he is losing. He has to harden his heart and learn to be the predator, not the prey.

The problem is that Luca is too nice. He is a gentleman, a professional, and he believes in mutual respect and freedom. For these reasons, he’s probably much less likely to ever be the outstandingly successful photographer he dreams of being. The Jungle does not care about Luca’s freedom or his dreams. It prefers to eat him.

The most important kind of freedom is to be what you really are. You make your own rules, you define your own reality, and you can be free but only if you give yourself permission to do so. You have to choose not to be enslaved by others. Take back your own power, believe in yourself, know that you can produce some really great art if you practice long and hard enough, trust your dreams and don’t let other people push you around.

Freedom and dreams are not a natural God-given right. You have to fight for them, every single minute of your life, or the Jungle will chew you up and spit you out.

PirateMaiden 557

All images are of Pirate Maiden

Pop Art and Tarts

My oldest son, our very own budding Salvador Dali, has just completed a highly detailed portrait of Vincent Van Gogh. He was originally instructed to reproduce a B+W sketch of the above image. Now personally I think portraits are really difficult stuff, especially for a kid. It took three weeks solid to complete and I think it is pretty darn good, although everyone reckons it looks like his Dad, rather than ol’ Vince. (Does this mean Rich looks like Van Gogh? Scary.)

Anyway, it’s a great piece of art for a kid, but his Hogwarts Art Professor has now told him that she intends to heavily crop it, and has also instructed him to haphazardly colour it in very vibrant colours a-la-Pop-Art. Kind of Vincent Van Gogh becomes Andy Warhol.

My son (who loathes Pop Art) is utterly horrified. “She can’t crop it. It’s not meant to be cropped. I didn’t draw it that way. And she can’t make me convert it to colour. That wouldn’t be art. It’s meant to be Black and White. It’s my art. She can‘t ruin it. I refuse!”

Oh dear. More art politics. That’s all I need.

Modifying a piece of art might be normal in a teaching context, but is it fair, bearing in mind how many hours (about fifty) it took to complete this portrait? Is it acceptable for an artist (even a young one) to have his creative vision cropped and the style completely changed according to the ever-changing whim of the person who commissioned the art-piece? Damned if I know the answer. All I know is that the topic of art has become horribly complicated in our house nowadays.

My son also casually mentioned tonight that one of his paintings has been exhibited in the city cathedral for the last week or so.

“Why didn’t you tell us?” I squeaked excitedly. “WOW! This is HUGE!”
He shot me that slightly embarrassed “Oh God you’re being impossible Mother” look that only teenage sons can give and said impassively, “I knew you’d react like that.”

“How am I supposed to react?” I said, confused.

“I dunno. But it’s no big deal. Really it‘s not. Anyway, I forgot.”

Hmm. I honestly wonder how overly proud mothers are supposed to cope with moody hormonal teenage sons. Jumping up and down like an over-excited rabbit on wacky-backy apparently is not acceptable behaviour for a Hogwarts mother. I must be quiet, dignified, a Lady Who Lunches. I must remain casual and cool at all times. Above all, I MUST NOT BE EMBARRESSING. Oh dear. Clearly I have blown it big-time.

Teenagers are aliens. If anyone knows how to handle them can they please let me know?

other 902

This is not Rich-a-la-Vince (who is stashed at school, awaiting death-by-cropping.)

It is a tart.

It was baked by my remarkably extrovert nine-year-old son (a complete polar opposite of his older brother) who wants to be a VERY FAMOUS T.V. CHEF when he grows up. This little lemon meringue tart took him 3 hours to prepare. Perfectionism runs in the family.

(BTW, I'm not going to eat it. It’s so darn pretty that I'm just gonna look at it.)

Understanding Abstract Photography

“There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality.”
(Picasso.)

Whilst wallowing in my bubble bath last night (that’s vanilla flavour for all you bubble-bath devotees out there) I was musing on abstract photography. I’ve always wanted to write a critique on an abstract, but the problem has always been that I just don’t understand this art form.

Abstract No 3, Fort Worden by Brooks Jensen

Now when you think of an abstract photograph, you think of something like this acclaimed image, by my beloved Mr Jensen. The problem for me is that although I find this photograph quite beautiful, I have absolutely no idea what to think when I look at it. My mind goes completely blank.

So what am I doing wrong? Well, after reading a little about it, it seems that I’m approaching abstract art the wrong way. Apparently a better question to be asking myself is, “How does this make me feel?” What the artist intended, or sees in the image, is completely irrelevant. What only matters is what the viewer “sees”. And by “seeing” I don’t just mean trying to understand what the artist was thinking (which is where I’ve been going wrong.) What I should be doing is studying this image for a longer period of time, say half an hour, drinking it in, losing myself in it, letting my imaginations and emotions run wild. Exploring the colour, the texture, wandering beyond the visible and seeing where the meditation takes me. What I will end up feeling won’t be the same as what Brooks felt, and indeed, his intentions are irrelevant. Abstract art is a mirror. When we look, we see ourselves as much as we see what is in the image.

Now at this point, I’d love to start waffling on about abstract nude photographs, such as Stephen’s intriguing image from a few weeks ago. (Please note that Stephen didn't claim this was a true abstract photograph - although I think it's an excellent example of the term.)

An Abstraction by Stephen Haynes

However this caused a bit of an argument with Rich, because it turns out that he (Rich) doesn’t think abstract nude photographs can ever exist at all. If you can remotely tell it’s a nude, then it can’t possibly be a true abstract, by its very definition. Rich reckons that abstract art is supposed to interact with the subconscious in order to see what images can be conjured up to generate meaning to the viewer. Thus abstract art works best if there are no recognisable images. The inclusion of a nude form would cause the viewer to centralise their focus on the form, and so it no longer classifies as an abstract.

Hmm. I suspect he might be right, although I am unfortunately not qualified to judge. What I do know is that I can connect with Stephen’s image because I can see it is a nude, so my mind can immediately focus on something, the object, the woman, and extrapolate accordingly, so it is easier to understand.

So…back to my dear Brooks…I gave his photograph my complete attention for a full ten minutes (and that’s a mighty long time for me.) What did I see? Did I glimpse the meaning of life? Did I discover a part of myself? Did I actually experience anything at all?

Nope.
Still nothing.
Really pretty wallpaper, but that’s all. The meaning escapes me.

Oh God, I’m obviously shallow, superficial, and clearly I have no appreciation for true Art. And I so very much wanted to understand.

Sadness

Just a quick one today.

If you haven't already done so, please do take a moment to visit Univers d'Artistes, and leave a supportive and appreciative message to Chris Saint James who closed his blog yesterday due to ill health. His excellent work will be greatly missed, and we all wish him happiness and hope he stays in touch.

“I hate art….”

…announced my oldest son last week.

“Hmm…well how come you spend so much time doing it then?” I enquired innocently. It’s true. He spends most of his available spare time buried in some sort of drawing or CGI.

“Dunno really. I always seem to end up doing it,” he replied.

He got the scholarship of course. I would have been extremely surprised if he hadn’t, considering the sheer number of hours he has put in. And of course, we reserve the right to be VERY proud parents. To put this in context, Hogwarts is one of the top five rated schools in the U.K. for art. The scholarship awards are not just for school pupils, but are awarded for art exhibitions from all parts of the country. There were two, possibly three art scholarships awarded by Hogwarts this year. Thus, as I pointed out to him, this means that he is in an extremely small minority of some of the best young artists in the country.

Suddenly it appears he does not hate art quite so much after all.

He asked me to thank you all for your encouragement and support (I read him the bloggie comments you leave for him), in particular Mr Wood for his excellent lesson in how to impress the judges (which came in very handy) and to Mr Iksodas for assisting with the assignment of drawing an “ugly old naked black guy” (my son’s words, not those of his art professor’s nor Mr Iksodas.) Elijah is of course neither old nor ugly, and the judges were exceedingly impressed with my son’s rendition of Mr Iksodas’s photograph. Alas I can’t show the finished sketch here, because it appears to have been mysteriously retained by the judges, who are (by sheer coincidence) predominantly female.

Full reports on “Le Grande Hogwarts Robing Ceremony” in due course. No I wasn’t kidding about that, although I’m not sure if the robes are black or red. He‘s hoping for black robes (a.k.a. Batman) because red robes are apparently “naff.” We also get to meet the gasp…revered Hogwarts headmistress (long flowing blue robes) at whose feet we must apparently worship over a champagne, strawberries and cream tea in the summer. And he gets listed in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Scholars, and he gets to go on future art trips to New York/Paris/Barcelona/Venice, and he goes into Gryffindor House next year and……the last time I saw him in the art room at school, he was closely surrounded by at least eight very pretty and adoring girls who were drooling over his …um…artistic ability.…

Life never changes.

All art is about the chix.

But you know that already.



This is where Le Grande Robing Ceremony will take place. I’m gonna be a pathetic weepy and embarrassing mother, I know it.

Photography in a recession

This is written with my accountant’s hat firmly bolted to my head. Try to read all of this please. No quitting. It’s important.

This will be the second recession I’ve seen in my lifetime. The first one was in the 1990’s and wound up with us having a shed-load of negative equity on our flat ("apartment" in U.S. speak) which took years to pay off. That flat was our debt pile. Rich and I were young and foolish, it was our first property, and we remortgaged and borrowed heavily to make it look like our dream home. I vividly remember our black bathroom with gold-plated bath taps. Holy crap, we had bad taste back then.

So here we all go again. Shortly we enter the “bust” part of the boom/bust cycle. Not feeling the pain yet? Don’t worry, you might have another six months of feeling flush with cash, but feel it you will. The wheel turns, and always spins back to the beginning. Nothing changes. Life just repeats itself endlessly in infinite cycles. The world will live to see another boom, but in the meantime, how do artists and photographers survive the next few years? With the rise of the internet and the rise of the cheap digital camera, the rise of freely available online photography, free software, free stock photos, even free porn, how will artists and photographers (of whatever genre) continue to make a living?

Now I’ll side with Jimmy D’s excellent article, and say they won’t. Those of us who are self-employed, and rely on photography either as our main or supplementary income, are going to suffer horribly in the next few years. There’s no chance now of Fluffytek going completely professional. Rich reckons the best he could ever manage is semi-pro. He can maybe earn a little on the side from photography via the occasional private portfolio, but he could never do this full time because the market is simply no longer there. We could sell pretty prints of course, but making your money back takes a long time. Equipment and studios cost a lot, and UK model fees have increased about 40% in the last year alone (either the inflation figures are wrong, or models have suddenly become very hungry.) TFCD models are of course the obvious solution to the latter problem, and although free art models appear to be plentiful in America, in the UK they are decidedly rare jewels. And considering the rise in the number of internet photographers, models can pick and choose, and may well (quite understandably) go where the money is, ignoring the quality of the photographer.

In the end, it all comes down to money. Everyone has to eat after all. But if the general public are economising and not able to afford your services, and collectors are hanging onto their cash because their jobs are in jeopardy and they have to feed their families, then without your photographic passion actually funding itself, you’re going to be hard-pushed to rely on your art to pay the bills, and you simply won’t have the money to pay models.

So what now? Do you give up art and become a plumber? (Always a lucrative profession in the UK as decent plumbers are very hard to come by.)

Well, I think the priority should definitely be to add more strings to your bow. It may be that your art has to take a slightly lower priority than before, but that doesn’t mean you have to give up on it.



If you do decide to stick at photography or art as a source of income, then you should formulate a series of personally tailored strategies. Here is my Ten Point Action Plan (please feel free to add or subtract from the list):

1. Practise, practise, practise. In a recession, only the very best artists survive, and even they find it tough. Your work can’t be mediocre. It has to be outstanding, it has to be unique, it must stand out from the crowd, and your reputation must be flawless.

2. Barter with models more – don’t agree to the first price they charge. Beat them down a bit (fiscally speaking.) Don’t agree to the first price they quote, and try proposing a lower “all-in” price including travelling. Approach potential TFCD models and really work at booking them. If in doubt, rely in that all important male persuasion device, “charm.”

3. When you do shoot models, plan your shoot in advance as much as you can, practise lighting (Rich and I do this all the time), take less coffee breaks during the shoot, and really push your models to get the best out of them, particularly if you are intending to sell prints from the shoot. Your models won’t mind if they are genuine professionals – they will expect to work hard for their fee. And make sure your modelling release is in order. Get it checked by a lawyer if necessary.

4. Run teaching courses – always a lucrative little money-spinner if you have the time, although this is nigh impossible if you have a day-job like us. Consider providing Photoshop courses, lecturing, teaching at schools or colleges, or small tailored courses for leisure photographers – heaven knows there are an abundance of those around nowadays.

5. Compromise your principles and consider other genres. Yes I really did say that. Now I’m not proposing that everyone takes up shooting hardcore porn, largely because I don’t believe there’s a market out there for that either (too many videos and Red Tube nowadays. All the pornographers are going bust.) But you might like to think laterally for a bit. Consider other genres and a lower profit margin, such as landscape photographs for local calendars, putting on local exhibitions, collaborating with other photographers to run special events, pimping your prints, shooting private portfolios for couples, approaching magazines, even (*shudder*) bulk topless glamour piccies for 50 quid each for the lads’ mags. Whatever it takes.

I know one of our local photographers, an outstanding portrait photographer, is now reduced to going round local yummy-mummy craft fairs and charging £10 a time for quick portraits. Desperation indeed. Yes she has abandoned both taste and principles, but it’s a tough market out there. If photography is your income, you have to earn some money somehow. (I’ve used suggestions that are relevant to our little UK rural area – please do suggest as many other money-making ideas as possible. Yes they might be offensive to some, but this is reality.)

6. Advertise. Perhaps online (via Google Ads if you can afford it), fluff up your web site, get your Google search rankings as high as possible. Advertise in the local press, offer bargain lower-price offers to lure customers in (you can charge more later for extra prints or portfolio books), follow up all leads, network, make cold-calls. Do your research – whatever works for your genre and for your local area.

7. This one’s a no-brainer. STOP SPENDING MONEY. Make do and mend. If you are making a loss from your photography, then you cannot afford to use your plastic to buy that extra light, that big A3 printer, that groovy new scanner. And most importantly, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES BORROW TO FUEL YOUR ART, no matter how much you love it. IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY.

8. If your photography is not profitable, or at least breaking even over the year, then consider taking another job. This is the route we are currently going down. If you are self-employed like us, it is advisable to have your fingers in as many pies as possible. For example, I am going to take a deep breath and compromise my principles and actually try to sell some of this inane waffle that I sprout on here. I certainly don’t want to do it, but I have no choice. Bills have to be paid. Internet journalism beckons, no matter how much I hate the idea.

9. FACE REALITY. Be honest with yourself, no matter how hard this is. Draw up a list of how much you bring in, how much you spend, how much you owe, and then formulate a budget and STICK TO IT. Figure out just how much profit you made last year. And if it’s clear that your business (whether full time or supplementary) is never going to work out, rather than run up horrendous debts, be honest and get out before it takes you down with it.

10. Devise a long term survival strategy for the recession. A Five Year Survival Plan if you like. Everyone has different skills they can sell. Take a deep breath, summon your inner muse, and take some action. Start thinking and innovate. Stop wallowing in self-pity and actually DO SOMETHING.

Lastly, please don’t think, “Mmm. Nice post Lin, quite interesting. A bit boring but some good points.” And then treat this as a mildly entertaining read and promptly forget it.

I have given up five hours of my life to write this.

Why? Because it’s IMPORTANT DAMMIT!

If you don’t formulate a plan now, and actually ACT on it, how exactly are you intending to survive the next five years?



Images are of U.S. model Clayre KcKinnen.

The Art of Bullshit

Long term readers will recall that my oldest son is studying for an art scholarship at the esteemed Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. This is only awarded if they can detect that he is “truly gifted” (whatever that means) and that he “spends the majority of his leisure time creating art.”

Please note that photography doesn’t count as art, according to the Hogwarts examiners (don’t get me started!), although <10% of his portfolio as computer graphic design is apparently acceptable. Considering he spends 90% of his free time doing graphic art, at least some of his play-time can be used. He really shines at CGI stuff, that’s where his talent lies, but he needs this scholarship to prove to himself he can do it, and he quite rightly thinks that formal art training will help him on his future quest to be the world’s greatest graphic artist. (He’s only twelve. I bet you had big aspirations at twelve, if you remember that long ago.)

Anyhoo, next week is the week it all happens. He has an exam of course, comprising drawing still-life art under time constraint, and then he has to explain and critique a random painting which is given to by the examiners. In addition, he has to present his portfolio next week to the external examination board, and after they have judged it, he has to spend fifteen minutes speaking about his own work and critiquing five of his best images. According to his art teacher, the tea-addicted-and-very-vague Professor Trelawney, whether or not he succeeds in his quest for ultimate glory depends largely on how many times he uses the word “inspired” in his speech. Big help. Thanks for that, Professor.

If he gets the scholarship, he will of course get major kudos within the school, plus a special red cloak and presentation ceremony in the magnificent city cathedral, the award of “a scholar,” adoration from practically every female in his year (chix dig the scholars, and the red cloak, AND especially they dig blond-haired-blue-eyed-teenage artists…this, I suspect, presents strong motivation in his quest for ultimate glory.) Oh and I’ve promised him a new graphics card for his computer too, if he gets it. (Bribery works wonders - we get a not-insignificant discount on his astronomical school fees if he succeeds.)

The poor lad is completely terrified, to be honest. He’s only twelve, and this is the scariest thing he’s ever done in his entire life. He’s worked his little ass off for the last six months, producing some very fine art for his age (all things considered) and I am praying he gets this, not for the money (which in the end, is unimportant), but because he wants this so badly that he can taste it. Can you remember how fragile your ego was at twelve?

His work is pretty good for his age, I think. His technique is excellent, but his oral presentation needs a miracle.

We have one solitary weekend left to prepare for the big speech on his port on Monday.

"What are you going to say?" I asked him tonight.
“Mum,” he said, “I’ve got nothing. Is it too late to quit?”

So this weekend appears to be a crash course in the Art of Artistic Bullshit. He needs to learn how to analyse his own work. They want to know why he produces the surrealist-style art he does. He hasn’t got a clue to be honest. When I’ve asked him he says, “It just spurts out of me. I don’t know why. I just sit down with a pencil, and two hours later I have a picture.”

“Well, say that then,” I said.

But according to Hogwarts, honesty will not get him the prize. He needs self-awareness, psychoanalysis, arty-speak. He needs to fake inspiration from somewhere. When asked how he feels about his art, he looks like a startled rabbit. Complete blank. No clue at all. Nada.

How do you learn how to pimp your art in a weekend? How can a twelve year-old learn to sell himself to a big, scary examination board?

Can you fake a description of inspiration? Why isn’t the truth enough? Why can’t he stand up and say “I have no idea why I draw this stuff. Judge me on my results, not what I say?”

Why does bullshit matter more than the art itself?

All advice and tips, gratefully received. We need help, folks.

Panicking, we definitely are.

It’s all about me, me, me

Thanks for yesterday's comments folks, which really got me thinking...

Why is ego so important in art nowadays?

Once upon a time, photographic art was something that was commissioned, paid for. Most of the famous painters throughout time were paid to paint, and were directed in what they produced. I guess professional glamour, portrait photography and so forth, would fall under this bracket today. Your client's needs dictate the direction in which the art goes. Effectively the art is produced to a spec, whilst allowing the artist to experiment with his art within those limits.

But what about the humble and invariably destitute art photographer? He doesn’t operate within any limits, only those of his imagination. How fabulous! But he doesn’t get paid either. Do any of you art-nude photographers make a decently monthly sustainable wage from shooting fine-art nudes? No don’t bother answering that. I can hear the cynical laughter from thousands of miles away. Nowadays such commissions are extremely rare.

In these days of the internet-focussed art world, most of today’s art produced by the ordinary average artist doesn’t result in guaranteed payment. Nowadays artists are judged by results, on how good they are. It has a strong psychological element. Artists are expected to express their soul in their art, and they are judged accordingly. Only if a photograph is outstanding not just technically, but also conveys depth, emotion, a message, only then does a photographer stand a hope making the grade of “an artist.” What does this painting of a nude say about the artists intent and motivations? What was he inspired by? What was he feeling when he painted that?

Wow. What incredible pressure. No wonder an artist is nervous about showing his work. If an art critic says that photograph is crap, then it’s not just the image that is crap, it’s like saying the whole of the photographer’s psyche is a failure too. No wonder most photographers are nervous when their work is published. It’s like putting your emotional guts on the firing line. The slightest criticism could result in the poor photographer questioning not only his art, but his worth as a human being too.

Sure, a photographer may say, “I don’t care what you think. This is my vision. I am my work. Everything you need to know about me is in my art. It’s who I am. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.” And that’s fair enough, and I admire an artist who is mentally strong enough to genuinely feel that. But all too often, it’s just words, and the artist feels crushed and twisted up inside. An artist is only human, and the ego is fragile at the best of times. And there’s the time element too. If a photographer who has spent years of dedication and passion to produce a portfolio of images, and then to have them rejected by potential galleries and slated by critics, or worse still, totally ignored, then it’s enough to make even the most passionate photographer consider quitting and taking up knitting instead.

Of course, the opposite can apply. You can have an artist who is effectively so supremely self confident about his work that it borders on narcissism. Some artists have an inordinate fascination with themselves. Their ego is so bloated that they think they are practically perfect, and derive an almost erotic gratification from admiring their own work. And that’s perfectly wonderful too, IMO. All the self-help books and shrinks in the world teach you to love yourself. And self-love can be great for your art. Make no bones about it, if you are confident that you produce outstanding work, then it is much more likely that you will be able to convince others that’s it’s fabulous too. The most effective marketing tool in the world is self-confidence.

So should we all start buying self-help books and brainwash ourselves into thinking we are all Picasso? Should you sort out your emotional self-doubts, get some therapy, and then this will make you a better artist?

Is it better to have self-love rather than no-love? Arrogance or humility?

There’s no easy answer to these questions. A photographer is not a trained shrink. He can’t be expected to psychoanalyse himself every time he makes a photo, and consider how society will judge him if he shot that nude in that particular way. He shoots an image by way of experimentation, he re-creates the vision that is in his head. If he thought about the feelings and reactions of others all the time, then he’d be so paralysed by fear that he wouldn’t shoot anything at all. Although arguably his self-doubts and fragile ego probably make him a better artist. Angst is a powerful motivator of outstanding art. Humble photographers may well produce better photographs that arrogant ones. Think of all that juicy consuming passion and angst inspiring your art, flowing through it. All that wonderful emotion captured in your work. Mmm…

However, it IS important to keep a balance between self-confidence and self-doubt. Worrying about critics or courting approval of others puts a dangerous amount of power in the hands of your viewers. As Mr Wood so eloquently said in yesterday's comment, "You have the CHOICE to let these negative things weave their way into your life or not."

Fear can paralyse your artistic development. It’s not possible to please everyone all of the time, no matter how good you are. So just be yourself. You are who you are. Forget about everybody else – don’t get distracted by the background noise.

Just get on with doing what you do. The business of creating.

“Painting is a faith, and it imposes the duty to disregard public opinion.”
Vincent van Gogh



Claire-Louisa.

Lighting Wars

Today I want to ask a question that almost certainly does not have a simple answer.

Is it ethical to copy a photographer’s lighting technique?

I propose that the answer to this is not clear cut. A lot will depend on whether the photographer says you can. And most of them do not give this permission.

Not all photographers are secretive about their lighting, of course. Jimmy D often gives free advice and bloggie-tuition about how a particular shot was set up, and the specific lighting involved. Marcus Ranum also makes no secret about how he does specific shots, and I think he even provides occasional tutorials as to how it is done. IMO, this is marvellous, and incredibly kind and generous of these artists. They are sharing their wisdom with the world, they are teaching, simply out of kindness and for the pleasure of helping amateurs who are trying to learn.

But what about other circumstances which apply to most photographers? What about for the majority of images, when a photographer spends a lot of time and effort setting up a particular shot for his own artistic purposes? Is it O.K. to copy the photographer’s lighting in that instance?

Of course, most photographers want to protect their image, protect their copyright, and their art. But just as you can’t copyright an idea or claim a specific pose as just your own, in a similar way you can’t patent or protect a specific lighting technique. Someone, somewhere will copy your lighting. It may not be ethical, but there’s bugger-all you can do to prevent it.

It makes Rich feel rather flattered when folks try to copy his lighting, but occasionally it makes him pretty mad too. “They can try, ” is the usual dry comment, when we spot a fine art nude image which has virtually the same pose, and similar lighting. I’ve no idea if this happens in the rest of the world, but I must admit this happens a lot in the UK, especially on Web-Models. Rich has taken to not posting his best work on there because he gets so annoyed about it. If he designs a new lighting idea, shoots it and uploads an image, then I can absolutely guarantee that within 3 days there will be a whole range of copycat shots pop-up on there. But the copycat images are always poor imitations because no-one can get the lighting right. I guess there’s some satisfaction in that, but Rich still gets very irritated that there is always a rush of photocopying, as everyone frantically tries to out-do him. Web-Models is becoming a kind of fine-art pissing contest, where everyone tries to prove they can do the same thing.

Those poor souls who try to rip off his lighting have no chance in hell of course. His lighting set-up is NOT simple. There are all sorts of lights absolutely everywhere. It’s like Blackpool Illuminations up in the studio sometimes.

“Turn towards the big light,” he said to me today, when I was in eight inch fetish heels, blind as a bat, unable to balance, and trussed up like a chicken (yes, I’m well enough to start suffering for my art again…finished photos will no doubt be forthcoming eventually.)

“Ummm…” The problem was that through the clingy material over my eyes, I couldn’t see a bloody thing, and they all looked like big blurry lights to the blindfolded wobbly model. (Sometimes it’s easier for him to just pick me up and move me like a Barbie doll.) His lighting appears (to me) to be very complicated, but I guess that’s why his photographs work.

Really good photographers develop their own lighting styles over a long time. They experiment, they practise, and if they are talented, they might get very good at it. Good enough to call that lighting arrangement their own, good enough to become emotionally attached to it, good enough for it to hurt when someone else steals it.

After all, in a photograph, everything is about the lighting. Illumination is THE art-form, and it reflects the uniqueness of the artist who created it.

So to all you wannabe’s out there, yes I know you become good at photography by studying the best, and by copying those photographers whose images you admire. We understand you have to practise, and part of the training is to copy lighting set-ups that are better than yours.

Just don’t go and claim the lighting as your own idea, O.K.?
Don’t then go out and call yourself a photographer and sell the images elsewhere.

It’s not nice.

It’s not polite.

And it’s certainly not YOUR art.



An image of me from a few months ago - included only because Orixx told me to:-)

Technical disclaimer: Any resemblance of the lighting arrangement in this image to that designed by any other photographer, living or dead, is purely co-incidental and was not intended by this photographer, i.e. he thought he designed this lighting set-up. Although no doubt it's been done before, and probably better too.

The Cult of the Black Madonna

A Black Madonna or Black Virgin is a statue or painting of Mary, mother of Jesus, in which she is depicted with dark or black skin.

My fascination with black Madonna statues first began when I was a teenager travelling around Europe on a school trip. As soon as I clapped eyes on the beautiful statue at Rocamadour, I was fascinated, and by the time we had travelled on to Montserrat, I was totally lost to a lifelong passion.



These statues pop up all over the world, from Spain to the UK to Tenerife to Guadalupe. All originated hundreds of years earlier (usually from mysterious or unknown artists), and were usually carved from either wood or stone, and almost always dark brown or black.

Why black? Well, perhaps because of the wood-type (ebony), but also because white is the symbol of innocence and purity, and this is not what these statues are about. They are about fertility, passion, POWER. They are amazing art. They are not mere statues, they are icons. Some of them pre-date Christianity of course, and are attributed to pagan worship of the earth goddess, mother-force, Isis, and so forth, but were subsequently adopted by Catholics so as to mould non-Christian worship to their own ends.

Many people believe these statues (and paintings) have divine or magical powers, and they queue up to pray to them and worship them. Despite the teachings of the Catholic church that “thou shalt not worship false gods,” (actually that quote might have been from Stargate, I forget) and that faith only comes from within, not from worshipping inanimate objects, nevertheless many people travel on pilgrimages from all over the world to worship these sacred icons, to ask for miracles. And sometimes their fervent prayers get answered too. Of course, the religious reason for this is that “your faith has made you whole,” rather than the statue or painting has special miraculous powers, but no-one can deny that strange unexplained miracles do occur with some frequency. The sick are healed. Infertile women suddenly get pregnant, people with dire personal problems get their problems suddenly solved, that kind of thing.

If any of you have spent any significant time in quiet contemplation with one of these statues or paintings, then my guess is you will know that these icons do exude a definite “something.“ You can feel it. A connection with the "divine feminine" perhaps? A subconscious recognition of the power of “woman?”

If you are still reading this, you are no doubt asking, “What does this have to do with photographing naked women?”

Well, it strikes me that the photography of naked women is a subconcious attempt by modern artists to tap into that same power. The artistic medium may be different, but the goals are the same.

Yes of course men like looking at young, nekkid chix. It’s hardwired into their genes. They are guys, after all. They are motivated at a basic subconscious level to reproduce, and hence they are drawn to photograph young, fertile, beautiful women.

But for the art-nude photographer in particular, it’s not just about following his balls. It’s about creating something else. He is driven to create something greater than just a snapshot of a pretty girl. Art-nude photography isn’t about that. The photographer is compelled to create something MORE. He wants to create Art, more specifically to show the power and perfection of the woman. In its truest form, art-nude photography is not about identifying with the model personally. It’s about beauty, form, perfection of the female who can be worshipped, adored and fantasised about.

Is anyone else spotting the parallels here?

Men are compelled to photograph naked women because nude photography is just another form of worship of the raw power of woman, what used to be called "the Goddess" in old religion. This applies to the painter and the sculptor too. Men don’t realise it (nor would they admit to it), but it is their way of tapping into the divine, getting closer to the feminine power, the archetypal "great mother" who presides not only over fertility, but over life and death.

Of course, as an experienced nude model, photographs of me also clearly exude the divine power of the fertile goddess (although I’m old, I do believe I have a few eggs left, so technically speaking my images still qualify - although I am most definitely not a virgin.) So if anyone wants to worship this photograph, please be aware that it is available for the performance of miracles as a highly exclusive and limited 11x14 print for $50 (plus shipping), for one week only.



(Kidding, honestly. About the prints, not the miracles. We don‘t do prints because the printer is kaput. But my ass has definitely been known to perform the odd miracle on occasion.)

Thanksgiving Fluffy

Too tired to blog these past few days. And Rich hasn’t got a rant left in him at the moment. Too much work does that to you. And I don’t feel much like ranting either. Head playing up, plus there’s all sorts of rubbishy thoughts flying around in my head. Need to pause, and think a little.

So, unusually for me, I’m not waffling on today. Instead, I’m going to make you look at one of MY favourite artists for a change. Yes, yes, I know you come for the nudes. She’s at the bottom, O.K.? But I like looking at other stuff too. It makes me feel better.

If you haven’t come across the amazing painter, Craig Mullins before, let me recommend you look at his work (Click here, and then click on Top Rated). His use of light and shadow are absolutely amazing. This is one of my favourites:



Changing the subject, of course it's Thanksgiving for all you sexy Yanks: So hope you all have a good one!

Your Thanksgiving Fluffy this year is Lou-Lou.



Rich’s images of Lou-Lou were featured on A Flower A Day on 18th Nov. Yes they renamed it, but I think it’s possibly lost its unique marketing angle as a result.
I don’t normally mention when Rich gets featured on these sites, but he needs cheering up today.

Pop!

No not the famous fashion magazine. I’m talking about the sound made by the overly pumped-up art market, which finally burst last week and farted around the room like a rapidly deflating balloon.

Art is just another bubble. Prices in the art market have shot up much higher in recent years, in a similar way to yours and my favourite asset class – the housing market. The Financial Times has estimated that the Mei Moses All Art Index has risen 15.5% a year on average for the last ten years. As I reported a few months ago, we have seen some truly spectacular prices achieved for art. This is partially due to the humongous bonuses awarded to rich bankers and hedge-fund managers. Indeed it’s not just foreign billionaires who have viewed art as a valid method of investment. Up until now, it didn’t even matter if you liked the work of art you were purchasing - this was completely irrelevant. As long as it was by somebody famous, or even better, someone who MIGHT be famous one day, then it was snapped up at exorbitant prices by practically anyone. Art collecting has always been a valid investment method, until now.

The rot set in last week, when a highly publicised New York art auction went horribly wrong. The sale earned $270m, far below the pre-sale estimate of $401m. Poor ol’ Vince (van Gogh) failed to sell his wonderful landscape “Wheat Fields” for the required price tag of $35m. In fact the poor (dead) chap couldn’t sell it at all. Even the late Pablo Picasso couldn’t sell four of his paintings. Twenty of the seventy-six lots didn’t sell at all. And as for Sotheby's, well I am wincing in sympathy for them as they had to pay the owners a fixed guarantee on the lots (even if they didn’t sell), which was estimated to cost them around $240m. So their shares promptly fell for two days running, wiping a third off their value. Despite Sotheby's putting a brave face on things, that had to hurt pretty bad. They must be dreading this week, when they host their big New York contemporary sale. Fingers crossed, eh?

So what the hell happened last week? Two words - Credit Crisis.

Art investment is just another example of the boom ‘n’ bust cycle. With sub-prime still wrecking the US economy, and the UK about to follow suit, hedge-fund managers are not in the mood to spend their remaining cash on over-priced art which is costly to look after and insure. When people (even rich people) see prices falling, they suddenly lose interest in that class of asset, even if it is supposedly cool to be seen to own famous works of art. After all, having a famous painting or photograph on your wall when your posh buddies come round for a beer, isn’t going to be much to shout about if all your friends secretly think, “Blimey mate, you paid HOW MUCH?! Are you an idiot or what? Didn’t you know the art market has gone to the dogs?”

So my professional recommendation, as your trusty international nekkid accountant, is:

If you are an artist or photographer who sells his work, buckle up. It’s gonna get hairy after Christmas, so expect your collectors to disappear into the mist and your print prices to tumble forthwith…

If you are an art collector who has invested for the short term (and you are not deeply emotionally attached to the fancy piccies on your wall):

Sell! Sell! Sell! While you still can.




Sorry. Must stop blogging about economics. Force of habit, I’m afraid.

Here’s Clayre McKinnen – I really like this pose.

The key to good photography is composition

I’m reposting a comment from the learned Grommit - one of only a few of us who has actually had formal artist training, comes from a family of exceptionally talented artists, and has a psychology degree to boot (never say our readers aren’t highbrow!) He very kindly shared his words of wisdom on the Weston veggie shots a few days ago. It’s interesting because a) I can’t write this sort of arty language for toffee, and b) because he says what all photographers already know of course, but it’s news to me because I have about as much understanding of composition as Gordon Brown understands the UK economy.

You can read Grommit’s full comment here (scroll down) but I’ve repeated the critical bit below.

"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."

Richard’s comment on this: “Yep! I told you this last month, but you never listen to me.” (smug bugger)

My comment: “Dammit, I wish I could have said it that well in the first place.”

Incidentally Grommit, if you want to see some exceptional fine-art photography where the model really “engages”, go look at some of Dave Rudin’s work , particularly his shots of Sarah Ellis. They knock my socks off! (Actually Dave Rudin knocks my socks off because he really is gorgeous, but let's not go there.)

On another, totally unrelated topic, I’d like to introduce bloggers who haven’t tried it yet to the (now very old) Gender Genie. This was developed many moons ago by Israeli scientists and claims to be able to tell you, with 80% accuracy, whether a piece of writing has been done by a man or a woman. (I’m guessing that our resident psychologist, Dr Grommit, will make mincemeat of this program.)

Needless to say, after extensive analysis of our blog posts, my writing is predominantly male, and Rich’s is predominantly female.

Rich’s comment: “That’s because artists and engineers think with different parts of their brains to most people.”

My comment: “Girlie! Girlie! You’re a big Girlie!”

Rich’s comment: Unrepeatable!



The amazing Syd, engaging with Rich rather intensely if you ask me.

The Student and the Master

I wrote this a while ago, about a lesson which was very personal to me. Only had the guts to post it now.



Outstanding artists are often prodigies. My son is a potential example of this. Because he lives and breathes his art scholarship, he is spending most of his spare time in the art room, ably assisted and advised by the super-tea-drinking Hogwarts art teacher. She sees more of him than I do at the moment. This is inevitable, and he is producing some amazing work as a result.

But not all relationships between student and master are as healthy as this one. Sometimes, the teacher may become attached to the student, particularly where the student is grown up and the age-gap is smaller. Because the two spend so much time together, locked in a common passion for art, in some cases the relationship may develop a more emotional and mental dimension.

The student of course worships the master, is in awe of him and wants to suck as much as knowledge as possible from his idol. The teacher must hold that awe in trust, see it for what it is, and use it carefully as a way of nourishing and encouraging the student. Being an artist or photographer, and usually a pretty good one, the teacher can use his own influence, personal knowledge and experience as a method of successfully teaching his pupil.

As a method of teaching, this is very necessary. The greatest gift a teacher can offer a student is his experience of his own life as a working photographer or artist. Teaching art is not just about teaching technique. It is about imparting personal life’s experiences, views and even emotions about the teacher’s life as an artist. Through his own experience, the teacher can encourage the student to not only learn the raw craft, but also how to overcome that student’s insecurities, fears and how to nourish that grain of creativity that will make that student the best that he or she can ever be. As a result, master and student develop a unique bond, a relationship and intellectual intimacy which is part artistic, and part personal. This closeness is inevitable, especially with a prodigy. The teacher recognises a special gift in the student, and concentrates on developing that potential into something partly shaped by the student, but largely steered by the teacher. The student’s finished art will therefore reflect both his own views, personality and ideas, and also those of his teacher.

But what happens when that grain of potential is successfully nourished into something amazing? What happens when the student has learned all he or she can possibly learn from the teacher? What happens when the student surpasses the master? Outgrows him? Does the master pat the prodigy on the back and wave him “Farewell. Go with God my son. Go forth into the world and produce amazing art!”

Well, if the teacher is a good one, that’s exactly what should happen. But what if the teacher has crossed the professional line and has become attached to the student? What if their relationship is “special?”

In such circumstances, the teacher may not be able to let go of the relationship. He needs the student, he needs to feel that the student still needs him, adores him, can still learn from him. He needs that “awe”. But the awe is gone forever. The student is now a successful artist in his or her own right, and is grateful for the tuition of course, but now wants to explore his own creative vision, by himself. There is nothing more that can be learned from the teacher.

The teacher resents this, is jealous of the student’s success, feels rejected , and in some (unfortunate) cases, I have seen the master copy the student’s work, steal the student’s ideas and claim them as his own. The teacher may be feeling abandoned, vulnerable and empty of inspiration. He feels that the student’s work is amazing, innovative and partly his own anyway, because his artistic vision was taught to and reflected through his student, and they may well have come up with the ideas through conversations they have had together in the past. So because he helped inspire the student’s art, the teacher feels he can therefore use the student’s ideas, because the vision belongs to both of them. The teacher cannot let go of his prodigy.

This is an example of an unhealthy relationship. One that has strayed beyond student and professional teacher. All too often, it results in resentment, a complete destruction of the intimate relationship between the two, and a severance of the emotional bond they once had.

Although this is immensely sad and tragic, it happens all the time.

Such is the nature of relationship between art and passion, master and prodigy.

Because artists are human too.



The images are of Claire Louisa.

The Thinning of the Ranks

Gary M has been doing a most excellent job of monitoring the ongoing trend amongst photographers to take a break from nude photography. I have also been dismayed to learn of the number of nude photographers who are changing style, taking a break, quit altogether, or have simply lost their mojo. Having briefly lost my own mojo recently, I can completely relate to this, but it’s nevertheless upsetting when so many talented nude artists quit all within the space of one month.

This is not just related to the bloggie nude photographers we know and love. You only have to go to the web-models forum in the UK to learn of all the nude and glamour photographers leaving for health, or “personal” reasons. It’s like a virtual graveyard at times, compared to this time last year. There are large numbers of models complaining bitterly about not being able to get paid work any more, and the photographers’ shoot cancellation rates have gone through the roof.

Of course photographers and artists come and go all the time, but why so many now, all at once?

“Is it something in the air?” I said yesterday. "Or like Gary says - is it something in the water?"

“More like something in the wallet,” said Rich.

Indeed, the global credit crunch means that most people are increasingly hard-up financially (ourselves included). It is exceptionally difficult to find money to pay models (no matter how good they are and how much you want to shoot them) when you have no dosh left at the end of the month. This is assuming you do nude photography as a personal interest, rather than being hired by an agency of course. AFAIK, agency photographers are doing just fine. Although I've heard that fashion photography is suffering too, and Conde Nast have cut their flat rates for most fashion shooters to a paltry £350 for a finished set of fashion photographs. This deeply sucks. How the hell are photographers (and therefore by default, professional models too) supposed to put food on the table? It is very difficult to be inspired to create unique and amazing art when you’re constantly worried about monthly bills.

But it’s not just money. There’s such an air of pessimism around, that even some of the most talented artists are having problems getting their creative juices flowing. Partially it’s the weather of course – winter is approaching, our bodies are genetically designed to semi-hibernate at this time of year, and glamour/nude photography is seasonal anyway.

But there’s also the problem, in the UK at least, of an increased sense of fear and caution on the part of models. For example, and I mean this in the nicest possible way and with no disrespect at all to UK models, but most of our shoots are now chaperoned by boyfriends or other photographers (even though they know I'm going to be around). Again this is no problem in most cases, unless the chaperone interferes, which has unfortunately happened on more than one occasion this year. This leads to a certain air of tension in the shoot, and hardly helps the creative process. In addition, modelling charges have nearly doubled on average since this time last year, which in turn produces additional pressure on photographers.

All in all, it’s not a pretty picture is it? By spring either everyone will either be up financial shit-creek (pardon my lingo), or the problems will have self-corrected and photographers will be inspired to start shooting again. Or else they will decide to cut back on nude photography, and start shooting something else.

Which is exactly what Rich quietly decided to do a little while ago. Over the space of the last few months, I have watched as something in his eyes slowly died. That something was the last vestige of desire to be a professional nude photographer. He denied anything was wrong, but of course, I knew.

He finally decided to tell me last week.

We had a long, long talk over industrial amounts of (very good) coffee. He’s not quitting nude photography entirely, thank God, and he’s going to honour his modelling commitments for the rest of the year (now where have I heard that phrase before?) but after that, things will change. This is because we have changed, as people. The art must evolve along with the personal development of the artists themselves.

Rich will still continue to occasionally photograph nudes, and I will continue to steal some for the blog, but studio nudes will be a very small part of a new and different project that he has in mind for the future. To coin the (absolutely terrible) photographic phrase, “He’s taking his art to the next level.”

Of course he’ll be inflicting the results on you folks in due course, as it’s all part of the learning process. But I’m getting ahead of myself. I’ll let him tell you more about it soon. It’s his art after all.

Me? As long as I can keep waffling on about nothing-in-particular, and showing mega-groovy art piccies, I’ll be happy. After all, waffling is an art form too.



Clayre McKinnen from a few weeks ago.

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.

The Quest for Perfection

It often strikes me, in the modelling and art photography industry, that most folks usually try too hard. They are always looking for the next best thing. Art photographers look to perfect their lighting, their technique, they are always dissatisfied with their work. They aren’t happy until they get the “killer image” in a shoot, the perfect shot that makes it all worthwhile. The one that is "real art". If they can’t create that, for whatever reason (and there may be many), they are unhappy with their work. Similarly most photographers I know spend inordinate amounts of time browsing online, constantly comparing their photographs to others – is someone else’s better? If so, why? How can I get better, dammit? I wanna be the BEST!

Likewise models are constantly and desperately striving to look thinner, more toned, more beautiful. They hone their posing, their technique, their makeup. They shoot with only the best photographers, and compete to get the best ports. They need to be better and cooler than other models - how else can they be a famous model? How else can they get to the top of their profession, get the big bucks, and be a STAR?

Now don’t get me wrong. Striving to improve oneself (whether you are a photographer or model) is a good thing. It’s human nature, after all. How else can you improve, and better your craft and your artistry? More importantly, how else can you support yourself financially? But the problem here isn't to do with earning a living. It's to do with the pressure in modern society, and in the art industry in particular. The unrelenting pressure to be better than your best. The never-ending quest for fame and glory. The constant nagging doubt that you are inferior in your craft, that you are inadequate when compared to your peers, and the inner craving to fit in with the best (and most popular) photographic creatives. This industry feeds off insecurity, and this is not a good thing.

“You know,” says Rich, “If only I could shoot as well as Sascha Hüttenhain, then I’d be happy with my photography.”

“Well, no you wouldn’t,” says I. “Nothing would change.”

Even photographers who are of Sascha's calibre, are constantly dissatisfied with their work. They are permanently striving to improve, just as fast as they can. The relentless pressure is still there. They are constantly pushing themselves to achieve a photographic utopia which exists only in their imagination. (Note, I’ve no idea if this applies personally to Sascha or not – I’m generalising wildly after spending way too much time observing professional photographers and models. Sascha may be deliriously happy with his art and think he's the bees' knees, for all I know.)

Although a certain amount of professional competition is generally healthy, I never understand with people, just why the compulsive need to compare oneself with others. And exactly what is the damn rush to improve so fast? By trying to cram in as many shoots as possible before Christmas, by staying busy, busy, busy, by entering goodness knows how many photographic competitions, by relentlessly pimping your art – exactly how does this help YOU, the person? How will driving yourself so bloody hard, actually give you a healthy working environment in which your creativity can flourish?

And why the rush to get to the top? Why is everything so urgent, so pressurised? Why do you constantly crave more and compare yourself to others? Why do you work so hard, and yet find yourself constantly wanting?

Because you’ll feel guilty if you stop, is my guess, because being in a constant whirl of competitive activity in modern society has now become a habit, a compulsion. It is considered “normal.” Shame, guilt and fear of inadequacy have won the day. You’re either constantly busy, constantly feeling you must create unique top notch art, or…or what?

What would happen if you simply stopped? Turned off the computer? Took a breath? Chilled out? If you stopped comparing yourself to everyone else in the industry, if you stopped browsing Model Mayhem, or the photography blogs? What would happen to your art then?

Go ahead. Step off the treadmill. Give yourself permission to chill. Try just doing nothing.

In the words of the wise Bishop Stephen Cottrell, "Learn to nurture your inner slob."

And I bet your art improves all by itself.

The Frida Cult

Frida Kahlo (1907-1954) is now regarded as one of the most significant artists of the twentieth century.

I have had a crush on Frida for some time. She’s really big in the States – you can buy Frida cushions, Frida curtain material, Frida bags, even Frida crucifixes, you name it. It’s a cult. At times, I wish I was in the States, as Frida is almost unknown in the UK. But elsewhere in the world, she is huge. In fact her position as a globally recognised cult figure has become so powerful, that at times it threatens to overshadow her art.

If you’ve never heard of Frida or seen her art, then may I recommend the movie “Frida” where Salma Hayek plays her. So good I cried, and I really don’t cry easily in movies. If you don’t like movies, try her diaries or any number of her biographies.

Frida Kahlo was an amazing woman. Her life was filled with immense, unrelenting pain. She endured more in her short life than most people will ever have to face, but she never let this defeat her.

In 1928, when she was 21, Frida embarked on a relationship with Diego Rivera. Diego, then aged 41, was Mexico's most celebrated artist, famous for politically motivated murals. Ironically, she has become better known than him, practically an icon. Unlike Diego, Frida was a self taught painter, but a good one. She used personal symbolism mixed with Surrealism to express her suffering through her work. Although many folks thought she was a surrealist, she rejected this and considered her art to be “realistic not surrealist”. She painted herself and her life, no holds barred.

Henry Ford Hospital (1932)

Probably the most influential event in Frida's life was the most tragic one as well. When she was eighteen, she was in a bus accident that wrecked her life. Her body was almost destroyed. Both her spinal column and pelvis were broken in three places when she was impaled by a metal handrail that entered her hip and exited through her vagina. She was not expected to live. After the accident, bed-ridden for months, Frida began to paint. She painted to pass the time, but art also became an essential therapy for her emotionally and spiritually. Because of the accident, Frida was never able to have children. She had several miscarriages, which caused major depression, and the only outlet for her sorrow was her art. If you examine her work, her paintings were very passionate, albeit violent, bloody, and upsetting, but they simply represented her actual life and the truth of what was happening to her both physically and emotionally. Most of her paintings were self-portraits. She said, "I paint self-portraits because I am the person I know best. I paint my own reality. The only thing I know is that I paint because I need to, and I paint whatever passes through my head without any other considerations."

Frida is my heroine – she was true to herself, her sexuality and her art, and to hell with what anyone else thought. An unashamed rebel, she was bisexual and had affairs with as many women as men. She drank like a fish, was wined and dined by the artist community (including Picasso), and appeared on the cover of Vogue. Her fashion was very Mexican, very unique, and a whole fashionista cult has built up in the States and Mexico, influenced by her personal style as well as her art. Even though life was against her, her spirit was indomitable – as illustrated at her one and only exhibition in Mexico in 1953. At this time, Frida's health was very bad and she should not have attended. But this didn’t stop her, and she insisted on being carried from home to her exhibition in her bed. She was placed in the middle of the gallery, and told jokes, entertained the crowd, sang, and drank the whole evening. The exhibition was an amazing success, and she had the best evening of her life. That night she really LIVED. She didn’t let her body beat her, she chose to live on HER terms.

I judge Frida to be a woman of strength, talent, humour, and endurance, a real feminist. Everyone finds something different in Frida’s work, but for myself, I personally really identify with her portrayals of pain, something with which I also live rather too much, and which also influences how I view and value art. No matter how much pain and how many operations she suffered, she still endured. Perhaps that’s why I admire her so very much. She is an example to me, and a personal inspiration.

My favourite quote from her writings is her final message before she died:

"I hope the leaving is joyful and I hope never to return".

Sums me up nicely too.

The Broken column by Frida Kahlo, 1944.

The Photographers Eye

Rich was talking to our oldest son’s art teacher at Hogwarts last week about the dreaded scholarship and the ongoing photography v. art saga. During this conversation he let slip that he was a photographer.

“Ah," she nodded sagely, “You have the Eye. My father was a photographer. I have the Eye too you know”

Our twelve year old son was rather boggled by this. He had visualisations of a giant Photographer’s Eye floating around in space, watching everything. He even did a quick sketch.



O.K. It doesn’t scan so well.

So my son later asked his father, “So what exactly is The Photographer’s Eye?”

Rich explained that it is basically the ability to see good composition and form.

Mystery solved, right?

Now I’ve been reading about this, and it seems to my uneducated mind that there’s a lot more to it than this.

In my opinion, the Photographer’s Eye is an ability to visualise not just the photograph, but a way of looking at the world around you. It’s natural instinct, and it’s innate to photographic creatives.

Artists and photographers seem to have a unique way of thinking and imagining. They are different from us ordinary mortals. They see everything in terms of light and textu