Forced perspective: More on the Grannan PTSD photos

Laurie and Debbie of the Body Impolitic  have an interesting post on Katy Grannan's series of portraits of female vets with PTSD in last week's NYT Sunday Magazine.

When they're not blogging about body image, Laurie Toby Edison and Debbie Notkin collaborate on books of fine art photography. Laurie takes the photographs and Debbie writes the prose. One of their best-known projects is a book of fat female nudes, Women En Large.

I had the pleasure of meeting Laurie and Debbie at BlogHer 2006. They were passing around review copies of their remarkable book of male nudes, Familiar Men.

 

Comments

[Eric Jaffa]

None of the PTSD photos is sexy. The hair and makeup isn't even flattering in most of the photos, let alone sexy.

None of the women are wearing bikinis or showing cleavage. Most of them aren't smiling at the camera.

[Vance Maverick]

Eric, have you paid any attention to the people you're disagreeing with here? Hint: the question is not whether you, personally, find yourself aroused by the photos.

[Eric Jaffa]

Vance Maverick -

Are you turned on by those photos?

[Vance Maverick]

OK, that makes it clear at least that you're not paying attention to the people you're disagreeing with. Your personal state of arousal or otherwise, and mine, are not the point.

[Vance Maverick]

</i>

[Eric Jaffa]

The point:

The photos aren't sexy.

The photos weren't intended to be sexy.

The photographer did nothing wrong by taking these photos.

[Vance Maverick]

Apparently the only conceptual tool you're willing to bring to bear on the photo is the binary classification sexy/not sexy. Given that, your conclusions don't have much claim on the rest of us.

[Doyle Saylor]

Our friend, Robyn, participated in the book, Women En Large. She felt it was a great experience to help her with body image.

Robyn is finishing grad school, and is poet and playwright whose work has played in the Bay area.

[Rose]

I find it very sad that after reading this article, the feminist community has nothing to say about it except to further attempt to degrade these women for so-called "cheesecake" photos!

The picture of the woman reclining on the beach is a haunting image. You can feel her pain looking at it. It's very sad. The focus on her pose as "sexy" (presumably because she's laying down, a pose some must automatically associate with "getting ready for sex" and her hand is on her thigh (as in, close to her vagina, so of course, sexual) is truly disturbing to me.

I don't think the photographer was trying to belittle or dehumanize her subjects with these photos. I think the feminist community, whatever that means these days, are attempting to humiliate these women, while trying to cloak their disdain in pity.

I wish you'd move on to new things. Or actually discuss the content of the article, instead of focusing on these so-called "dirty" pictures. The attitudes of the anti-women religous right, and the supposedly pro-women liberals on the issue of sexuality is becoming shockingly similar.

[zuzu]

Rose, nobody is blaming the women in the photos for the weird sexualization in them.

The photos aren't sexy.

Sexualized =/= sexy. And your definition of what "sexy" is (bikini, cleavage, smile) shows a serious lack of imagination.

[labradog]

I'm afraid I don't see it. I'd never call these photos cheesecake. "Stark" or "haunting" is more like it.
The phrase "cheesecake" connotes photos having a titillating aspect, and these do not.
This is not to deny anyone's perception that they are such, but I don't believe most people would find them so.
This quote - "the question is not whether you, personally, find yourself aroused by the photos." - begs the question of who decides what is "cheesecake". Otherwise, I can post a photo of a mossy stone, and insist that it is titillating, and that whether it turns you on is beside the point, and it is so because I say so.

[astronautgo]

I'd never call these photos cheesecake.

It's not that they are cheesecake, it's that they use the tropes of the cheesecake genre of photography.

[Rose]

zuzu - but they did pose for them. So you're saying that while you don't blame them, you pity how stupid they are for posing for them? Explain further, please.

[Rose]

Also, one more thought...you know how women get sexualized in this society? By having vaginas and breathing. In other words, WE ARE SEXUAL, by nature, by society, by nothing else but our existence as women - why is that so fucking shameful?

[djw]

Rose, I don't get the hostility. Subjecting the choice of photographs the puzzlement (Lindsey) or mild criticism like the linked post, from the perspective of other professional photographers, doesn't seem objectionable at all to me, even if you disagree. I, too, found it odd, and didn't really know what to think of the photos when I first saw the story.

And the idea that the women are being "blamed" or "pitied" is transparently ridiculous. If I were being photographed by a world-famous photographer for a major story in a major newspaper, I'd pretty much pose however and whereever she wished me to, within reason. She's the expert, after all.

[Vance Maverick]

It's bizarre to be having a discussion at this level in the comments to a series of posts that lay the issues out so clearly. But briefly, Rose, there's a difference between "being sexual" (which goes beyond possessing certain body parts, but is certainly an individual matter) and "being sexualized", which involves public presentation. Yes, these women posed for the photos. But the photographer told them how to pose, and created the images, and the editor chose the images and printed them alongside the article -- and all those choices reflected in part a style of public presentation of women's bodies for men's consumption.

[brent]

By having vaginas and breathing. In other words, WE ARE SEXUAL, by nature, by society, by nothing else but our existence as women - why is that so fucking shameful?

Rose,

You are missing the point rather spectacularly. Photos tell stories. They exist as part of larger narratives about the people that are in them and the people they represent. The critique of this particular set of photos is that they seem to feed the narrative tendency of portraying women in a primarily sexual way. There are a number of reasons why this is a problem, and they have nothing to do with sexuality being fucking shameful as you put it. It is a lot to get into in a short post but suffice to say, the relentless use of this type of imagery serves to limit and control the way that women are thought of in general and in the larger social context. The critiques regarding this particular piece for instance points out that the men were portrayed quite differently and in ways that seemed more specifically appropriate to the topic of PTSD.

Now you may disagree or agree with the general critique of these images and/or this approach to textual analysis in general but to try and make it about whether or not the pictures were "dirty" is to shoot far wide of the target.

[Eric Jaffa]

Vance Maverick -

You can say about any photo of a woman that it "reflected in part a style of public presentation of women's bodies for men's consumption."

Wow, a woman with PTDS is sitting on a beach, and photos exist of models sitting on a beach. Wow, a woman with PTSD is sitting in a chair, and photos exist of models sitting in chairs. Wow, a woman with PTSD is standing near a wall, and photos exist of models standing near walls.

[pk]

Forgive me for the cross-post, but since the discussion seems to have moved here:

I don't know how photographer, model, and circumstances combined to create these photos. Many commenters seem to be condemning or banishing the recognition that some of these women are attractive, or posed in a way that could be seen as suggestive. I don't think the overall effect limits this group of women to being nothing but sexual objects, but I do think attractiveness and sexuality, and our recognition of it, are part of what we have to accept about these women. They could easily have been photographed in full uniform, posed stiffly and without gender. But they are women. That's what this story is about. What happened to them happened because they are women.

We can decry supposedly suggestive poses, but we cannot divorce sexuality from humanity. And yet it is possible, isn't it, to see an attractive woman without allowing oneself to imagine demeaning or raping her, let alone giving oneself permission to do so? Is the military capable of protecting women from men who can't control themselves? Or do women who join the military have to become sexless drones--driving trucks, carrying weapons, but no longer seeing or carrying themselves as women?

Clearly women are capable of successfully performing necessary military functions. But the military is not yet capable of respecting women as fellow human beings. This is both despicable and inexcusable. The military needs women who will serve. Until it can protect them, it cannot protect the country.

[brent]

Wow, a woman with PTDS is sitting on a beach, and photos exist of models sitting on a beach.

Is it really your impression that this is the entire depth of the analysis being brought to bear on these images?

[Kevin T. Keith]

Wow, someone here's an idiot.

Be that as it may . . .

One intriguing and really very well done project (there's not a book) of fine art nudes of older and larger women was shot by . . . Leonard Nimoy. (Yeah, that one.) I stumbled across it and was startled to see his name, but he's actually very skilled. In this project, he recreates famous artworks depicting young women by shooting full-bodied women in the same poses. It's a very thoughtful and empathetic body of work.

He's also got a book out on spiritual and mythical images of women, and his Web site includes a variety of photo projects, each organized around some theme, many focusing on women's bodies. He's really quite interesting.

[Eric Jaffa]

brent -

Any way that a woman stands or sits, you could find a Sports Illustrated swimsuit photo where a woman is standing or sitting in a way somewhat similar.

It's the bikini which makes the difference. That is why this "cheesecake" charge which doesn't consider that the women aren't wearing sexy clothing is wrong.

[Eric Jaffa]

Kevin T. Keith -

Whom are you calling an idiot?

[Kevin T. Keith]

Whom are you calling an idiot?

Well, when I said "idiot", only one person responded . . .

[labradog]

What are the tropes of the cheesecake genre of photography? And if their existence in a photo does not make the photo "cheesecake", what are we talking about, here?
Also, we should keep in mind that there are many ways to create a photo portrait, many intermixed levels of involvement by the photographer, the subject, and the viewer. One photographer may pose their subject; one subject may pose for the photographer; photographer and subject may both take part in the creation; and no matter what, we never know what each viewer may bring to the experience.
Some of the comments on the poses seem highly subjective. There seems to be a lot of weight given by some to the subjects having their hand on their thigh. Sometimes, that's just a comfortable place to put one's own hand at that moment.
I don't think there is enough information here to make a definitive critique of any of the involved parties motivations. This is indicated, in part, by the fact that some saw the tropes of cheesecake, while I saw stark and haunted. I can only add that what I saw was, I feel, in keeping with the article's subject.
As a US Attorney might say, while there is room for interpretation here, there is insufficient evidence to indict.
Thank you all for a certainly interesting discussion of the abstract aspects of maing and being a part of art.