Pretty and Jaded

If you're attractive, you're bound to receive a lot of attention. Some of it will be positive attention, and some of it will, inevitably, be negative attention. The important thing is not to use the presence of negative attention as if it were proof that everyone who gives you attention has the same thing in mind. And while it may be true that receiving less attention would reduce the negative attention you receive, it's still not fair to treat everyone who gives you any of that attention as if they were one of the bad ones.

If one guy who told you you were pretty decided to stalk you, it doesn't mean that the next guy who tells you you're pretty will follow the same pattern. And if one stalker decides to try to rape you, it doesn't mean another stalker has the same intentions. It doesn't mean you shouldn't protect yourself, but it doesn't help to view everyone who gives you attention as a live threat. Treat the attempted rapist as an attempted rapist. Treat the stalker as a stalker. And treat the kind gentleman who just gave you a compliment as a kind gentleman who just gave you a compliment, not as if he were attempting to rape you.

Just because bad people do bad things in the name of sex, doesn't mean it's a good idea to punish good people for wanting to do good things in the name of sex. What bad people do doesn't make sex bad. It makes bad sex bad. But bad sex is already bad, and there's such a thing as good sex. Just because somebody shows evidence of an attraction, does not prove that they are one and the same as the back alley rapist. The whole thrust of my argument is that we shouldn't punish good people for the things that bad people do. And telling a good person not to like sex, or that he's bad for liking sex, or just for admitting it openly, is not good. For you or him or any of us in this society.

One comment I see in flickr profiles a lot is "if you have ANY pornography in your photostream or favorites, I WILL block you". But this just propagates the stereotype of people who like pornography. Like as if, just because I have a few pornographic pictures in my photostream, it means I'm not the kind of person you'd like to get to know. Even if the majority of people who are "okay with pornography" are annoying and offensive and disgusting, it doesn't mean every one is - and why not criticize the behavior rather than the pornography? Instead, you could say, "if you are annoying or offensive or disgusting to me, I WILL block you." That would be far more reasonable.

I understand that some people might just be opposed to pornography on a level that they can't stand dealing with people who are okay with it. Although I don't really respect that approach, because I've made friends with people who do all sorts of things I don't agree with. Unlike most people, I believe we should live and let live, and let people have their interests so long as they're not hurting me (or others). And no, pornography doesn't hurt anyone just by virtue of being pornography (the fact that some people might use pornography to hurt people doesn't change the fact that I don't hurt anyone with my pornography). But the funny thing is, on flickr, there are content filters so that people who don't like pornography don't have to see it. So how do you even know if somebody has pornography on their photostream, unless you're going out of your way to look for it?

It just bugs me because when I see a comment like that, I identify with the type being told off, even if I don't really belong in the group - but for certain superficial qualities, like having pornography (even if I don't act like your typical single-minded drooling pervert). But, those superficial qualities are enough for lots of people - they see a pornographic picture, and they dive for the bushes. And I'd hate to take on the duplicitous approach of having to tell myself (and others), "well, okay, this person doesn't like anyone who has pornography, and I have pornography, but I'm not included because I'm different from most people who have pornography." I guess it's a matter of taking these statements in the spirit they're intended, rather than the letter. But that bothers me - I believe that you should say what you mean, and mean what you say. And anyway, if I were to take on the approach of not treating myself like I have anything to do with pornography in spirit, then things just get more confusing, because people will argue that what I do is pornographic, and then how do I defend myself? Am I supposed to just say, "well, it's not technically pornography because I don't fit the social profile of a pornographer"?

The point is that a style of picture doesn't dictate whether a person is good or bad company. And it really bugs me that I see so many people discriminating on that account. Are you one of them? I guess you would also assume that just because I took (and liked) a picture like this:

...that means I don't have the intelligence to write an insightful post like this one.

Right?

I Need An Assistant

But I can't afford to hire one.

Uploading a photo to flickr is such an action of consequence. I take some pictures, I bring some ideas to life, I work on getting a final product (which consists mostly of selection). I might have something great, or I might have something merely okay, but in either case, the photo goes up, because I want to share it with the world, and then...not a lot happens. I watch the view count increase ever so slowly, as if that meant something. Sometimes I get attention in the form of comments (some of which are interesting, many others are merely flattering and not much else - which I appreciate, but there's not much for me to do with them), or occasionally a group invite (which I'm kind of ambivalent about; groups mean exposure, but most of my photos attract groups on subjects that aren't terribly exciting for me, which is one of the unique ironies of my photography). But that's it.

I'm not sure really what I expect, after all. But I wonder sometimes what people get out of my photos. I mean, yeah, I know there are apparently a lot of guys (and possibly a few girls) who think I'm hot, and that's great. But I don't need to know the sordid details of what those people "do" with my photos. Not in most cases (the few girls being the exception :p). And I know there are others who appreciate the artistry in my photography above and beyond their determination of whether or not I am attractive (and sometimes in addition to that). I like to hear when people are inspired by the work that I do, both my pictures and the thoughts and ideas and concepts that accompany them. I like to hear how they're inspired.

I don't want to come off as being too self-complimenting. I don't think I'm the best artist in the world, but I don't think I'm the worst either. And if there are ways I can improve, beside just generally getting more experience, I'd be happy (and humble) to listen to advice and take suggestions. I don't exactly expect my work to attract journalists and museum curators and whatnot, but it would be nice if it did, and if there were some way for me to reach that point, I'd want to know how to do it. On the other hand, advertising is at least as - if not more than - important as talent, and I never talk to anyone about what I do. And part of that is because what I do is controversial. Though controversy does draw attention, it's also very hard to bring up in conversation when you're the person responsible for inciting that controversy.

But I have no intention of turning my back on controversy, it is what makes what I do interesting, and therefore worthwhile. I'm not interested in focusing on boring subjects that don't ruffle anyone's feathers. Perhaps, then, what I need is to be less guarded on what exactly it is I do as a photographer (and in other aspects of my life). Yet there is a part of me that fears that what I'm doing is not really art like I think it is; that the only value it has is whatever value the people who find me attractive get out of it (thus rendering it on the level of pornography, and not even very exciting, to porn standards), and that all the "art" I see in it is an illusion that I am projecting onto it.

But I don't fully believe that, it's just a fear that nags at me. I think the more likely scenario is that I can't seem to pull myself away from what's easy and familiar (and interesting) - that is, taking pictures - and force myself to do the busy work that would get me noticed - which would be, working with what I've already created, showing it off to people, putting it together in more easily digestable forms, selling prints, getting my website together, et cetera. Of course, part of my hesitation to do that is, again, the fear of controversy. Self-portrait artists love to make quick change selling prints on flickr (surreptitiously), but this is much easier done when the model is attractive enough in her clothes, because I would feel extremely self-confident going anywhere and asking to have a picture like this one printed out and sold to my fans:

And anyway, how many people, no matter how much they like that print, would actually hang it on their wall, where all their guests can see it? I'm working against a heavy layer of sexual repression in society, here. There are powerful forces working against me, against what I do, and against everything I stand for. Which is to say, freedom.

Sight vs. Shock (Voyeurism and Exhibitionism)

As a voyeur and an exhibitionist, I am surely not ignorant of the kind of negative attitudes passed around regarding voyeurism and exhibitionism, and I must say that they concern me. As with all so-called "paraphilias", there is the difficult question of what sorts of interests are unusual or unhealthy (a question that is confused by inaccurate understanding of human sexuality), and where the line lies that separates an unusual interest from a mental disorder, or criminal activity.

When I read clinical definitions of voyeurism and exhibitionism, I see a focus on the involvement of "unsuspecting persons". I believe this is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it accepts that voyeuristic or exhibitionist behavior involving only consenting participants may not be abnormal or criminal. But on the other hand, it promotes the idea that voyeurism and exhibitionism is defined by the presence of unsuspecting participants.

To parrot the popular stereotypes, exhibitionists are flashers who get off on shocking people by unexpectedly exposing themselves, and voyeurs are stalkers who get off on invading other people's privacy during intimate moments. But why define these people by the nature of their disruptive behavior? If you ask me, a flasher may be an exhibitionist, but the problem isn't that he likes being watched, it's that he likes to shock people by showing them something they're not expecting, and quite possibly don't want, to see. The antisocial behavior is not 'wanting to be seen', it's a matter of impaired impulse control, lack of empathy for others, and that sort of thing.

If we define exhibitionism this way, then what happens to the people who want to be seen, but have no desire to shock or surprise others, or in any way disturb nonconsenting participants? I might fantasize about showing up to the dinner table naked, but I don't actually do it, because the thing that gets me off is the idea of being seen, not the idea of shocking people. In reality, when nonconsenting participants are involved, the reaction is likely to be less than positive, and my desire to avoid disturbing people trumps what superficial thrill I might get from being seen. Ultimately, what I want is the pleasure of being watched by people who are clearly interested in watching. It's not about shocking people, it's only about being seen.

And there are people who would like to widen the definition of "voyeurism" to include even indirect voyeurism - like watching porn videos. Is there really something abnormal about wanting to watch other people have sex? Particularly if your sex drive is stimulated largely by sight - and this will vary from person to person, but I know that I personally am highly aroused by visual stimuli. To me, it seems insane to suggest that getting off on watching people having sex indicates some form of mental disorder.

Again, the question of criminal or abnormal behavior comes down not to the voyeurism itself - the desire to watch - but other factors more directly related to antisocial behavior. This would include obsessive attitudes leading to stalking, and criminal invasion of privacy - the difference between watching a woman undress in front of an open window, and breaking into her home and installing a hidden video camera. The problem is not the watching, it's the willingness of the individual to violate others' rights and privacy. And if that woman consented to have a video camera installed in her home, so that perverts could watch her online, then there's nothing wrong with that either. Voyeurism is a fundamental part of human nature - unless, perhaps, if you're blind.

So, to conclude, the point of this discussion, as all of my discussions of this sort, is not to look at sexuality as some kind of deviant impulse that needs to be closely watched and controlled, and constantly put down and insulted. If bad people do bad things with sexual motives, don't punish the sex. Punish the bad person for his willingness to do bad things. Punishing the sex just hurts everyone else, by propagating confusion and unhealthy attitudes toward sexuality, which is a fundamental part of the organic living experience - and what can be an intensely positive and creative (rather than destructive) part of that experience, if approached with the right attitude.

"See and let yourself be seen."

Oops, I didn't post anything in February...

I've been really busy. But then, it seems like that's never not the case.

I don't think anyone reads this blog. It's too bad; they're missing out on some great exclusive content. ;-)

Mediocrity (and the Pressure to be Great)

The hardest thing is taking mediocre photographs. The bad ones are easily discarded, and the good ones are eagerly displayed. But those in the middle - it's always hardest for me to decide what to do with them. I'm talking about the ones that aren't great photographs, but have something in them, maybe just a single isolated quality, that I have a hard time tossing aside. I want to share that quality, but I don't want to devalue my photography by producing a lot of subpar material.

And yet, if I think about it, I've already made the decision. There are other photographers that produce only high quality work (although the truth of it is that they only share their high quality work), and as much as I envy those photographers for being so talented and so professional, they're not me.

I'm still only learning - honing my craft, if you will - and I'm probably not at a level where I can pump out a heavy concentration of high quality material. Although admitting that - and each time I share a mediocre photograph, I am admitting that to myself and the world - still makes me feel uncomfortable.

But additionally, I've already decided that the photographs I share with the world - at least through the venue of my flickr photostream - are not to be considered the best selection of my work. This is not a portfolio to show off my skills. It is more like a scrapbook, where all of my work goes (all of it worth holding onto, anyway). And there is value in that, despite the complaints you'll hear from people who feel they are drowning in a deluge of amateurs producing quantity over quality.

My work is not just about the end results (the good photographs); it is a process, and a document of my progress through the years - both as an artist, and as a human being. So the near-misses that merely hint at something of interest are important, because they point the way toward future successes. And while many artists undergo this process in the dark - behind closed doors, as it were - keeping their failures and their mediocrities to themselves, I have chosen the path of transparency, sharing my humanity and my fallibility with the world.

Because one thing I resent is the image of the "professional" - the talented laborer who produces only works of great ability, who never fails. And the fact that the process from amateur to professional is so frequently hidden. It promotes the idea that we are not allowed to learn, and we are not allowed to be amateurs. We must toil in the dark until we are perfect, and only then can we show ourselves to the world. Otherwise we risk the ridicule of being compared to the greats, and coming up short beside them.

And that is exactly the trepidation I feel every time I share a work of mediocrity, because I couldn't bring myself to destroy it simply because it wasn't great. But I'll make that sacrifice in the hope that it will inspire other future artists and professionals not to be afraid to make mistakes - because they must be made if one is to learn from them. And maybe someday, the climate will change, and people won't be so afraid of failure. Because you cannot succeed once without failing many more times first.

And furthermore, if there is something in a work of mediocrity worth saving it from the trash bin, then others may see that, and may benefit from it, even though the work is not great. They may be inspired towards greatness as a result. Or it may simply be enough to brighten their day. Not everything in the world is great, nor can it be.

David Hamilton's Bilitis

I undressed and climbed into a tree. My naked thighs embraced its smooth, damp bark, and my sandals walked on its branches. High up, among the leaves, sheltered from the heat of the night, I sat astride the spreading fork of a branch, my feet hanging free below. It had rained, and drops of water fell and ran along my skin. My hands were green in the moss, and my toes red from crushed flowers. I felt the beautiful tree vibrate with the wind's passage, and, so, I tightened my legs around it, and pressed my open mouth against the long, downy neck of the branch.

- from Bilitis

Bilitis suffers from the same (predictable) flaw that the movie adaptation of Lolita suffers from - casting the adolescent schoolgirl, just on the brink of sexual awakening, too old. But, like Lolita, the rest of the film is so enchanting (beautiful in Bilitis' case, depressing in Lolita's) that even this pivotal flaw fails to bring down the whole picture with it. And in both cases, the actresses do a convincing job of acting the character, in spite of the age disparity (which is even greater for Bilitis, who could, in my estimation, be anywhere from 12 to 16, but is played by a 25ish year old Patti D'Arbanville, versus the 15ish year old Dominique Swain playing Lolita, who is supposed to be 12-14). Interestingly, a lot of Patti's style (especially the hair) and mannerisms as Bilitis reminded me of Dominique Swain's Lolita (played twenty years later). I wonder if that was a conscious influence.

In any case, it's not surprising that a young character would be cast older in an erotic film, given modern paranoia about sex - especially in Bilitis' case, where the erotica is a primary focus, as opposed to Lolita, where anything that comes off as being erotic can be written off as an unavoidable consequence of depicting a destructive sexual relationship. It's a typical case of cinematic moralism: controversial sexuality is only forgiven when it's being used to preach the evils of sex. David Hamilton - operating out of France, I believe - is thankfully above this crippling influence, and yet we still get a 25 year old "schoolgirl", for better or worse. Frankly, the film, while highly erotic, is not at all explicit, and none of Bilitis' scenes involve anything that a young-looking 16 year old, having legally reached the age of consent in many jurisdictions, couldn't handle. She doesn't even really have sex at all - just a fair bit of kissing and touching, and generally being naked, which wouldn't be such a big deal if it weren't for our sex phobia.

The basic theme of the movie is the sexual awakening of a young schoolgirl named Bilitis. She develops a crush on the school photographer, but she's reluctant to submit to her heart's desire. During summer vacation, she stays with an older family friend named Melissa, who is married, and beautiful in her own right. There, she learns about love. First with the photographer, who happens to work on the beach. But all the men in her life are rough and single-minded, and insensitive about her virginity. In a passionate moment while the husband is out on a business trip (with a fling of his own), Bilitis and Melissa surrender to their attraction to one another and make love. The experience is wonderful for both, and Bilitis falls in love, while Melissa stresses that their relationship cannot continue. "Even if you love me more than anyone in the world, you'd still need a man." So, Bilitis goes out looking for a man to hook Melissa up with (somebody that will treat her better than her abusive, cheating husband). And she ends up falling for the photographer, whom Bilitis is on the outs with, but as much as she hates to see them with each other (and not her), she allows them their happiness and returns to school having lost her first love. It's a touching story.

The film itself oughtn't really to be judged on the usual merits of motion picture entertainment. You could call it an art film. It's not interested in telling a story the same way every other movie you watch does. It attempts to do so, but it's pretty obvious that the story is an excuse for the atmosphere and cinematography, and not vice versa. It's more like a dream than a standard narrative. Hamilton's films are basically moving photographs, with music and sometimes dialogue, and just a bare semblance of a story. You watch them essentially for one purpose - to be wowed by David Hamilton's passionate embrace of the beauty of feminine grace. So if you like David Hamilton's photography, you'll probably like his films - not necessarily as films, but as an extension of his art. And if you don't like David Hamilton, then chances are these films will bore you (or possibly offend you, if you're an uneducated prude). Personally, I think they're beautiful. And watching this one has rekindled my interest in collecting his other films. Even in spite of the fact that I'm concerned about picking up transfers that may be edited, or not have the proper language (this one was in English). In the end, seeing them, even in an imperfect form, is better than not seeing them at all.

And I'm very impressed that the DVD I got includes the film soundtrack as a bonus feature. The music is very pretty, but there is one song in particular that I liked, which becomes rather dramatic, even to the point of having some electric guitars come in the background. I'm really happy to be able to so easily track down that song, without even leaving the disc! It's just too bad the soundtrack isn't also included in CD format.

Objectification: Two Sides

Too often I hear how porn supposedly degrades women, and how every expression of male sexuality aims to objectify women, transforming them into a commodity that exists to be used up and then discarded. This is the line where equality feminism steps over into misandry. I wouldn't claim that there are no men who mistreat women, but at the same time, it is unfair to blame male sexual biology as the cause of some social deformity (the inability to treat women like people) and proof that males are animals and morally inferior to females.

Not every man who submits to lustful thoughts is committing objectification - or at least, those attitudes regarded as "objectification" are a healthy component of a sexual attraction that includes other components, such as regarding the object of attraction as a human being. It's simply too much to condemn the male sexual impulse as something wrong and disgusting. Some men abuse it, this is true - just as some women abuse their sexual impulses - but most do not.

The "drooling male horndog" is a natural part of a healthy sexual culture. One should not be ashamed to be found sexually attractive - do not assume that it is a requirement that this attraction go hand in hand with an animalian disregard for your basic humanity, or an excuse to throw all civility out the window. As long as I hear about men objectifying women by responding to their sexual appeal, I will complain about women objectifying men by reducing them to unthinking brutes who can't control their sexuality, and can't think of anything other than consumption when amidst the throes of sexual arousal. There are two sides to objectification, you see.