Francien Krieg.
The Creators Project has a feature on artist Francien Krieg, who has a series of nudes of elderly women. Aging bodies are hardly anything new in art, but there’s always a fuss. Yes, we all get to see just how much sway aging and gravity have on our bodies, and experience the sad wistfulness in the remembrance of a young, limber body, when the days stretched in front of you seemed eternal. It doesn’t take long before your bits make a rush to hit the ground, and it can be a hell of a lot of work to stave that off for as long as possible. The portrayal of the bodies of old people often elicit a revulsion from those who are young, simply because it hasn’t occurred to them yet that, yeah, if you live long enough, that will happen to you too. I remember that shock happening to me, when in my teens, I had to help my great-grandmother get dressed. That was an eye-opener. Now I’m 59, and my arse is making every effort to fall down to the floor and stay there. I’m not quite ready to let that happen, so it’s an ongoing fight.
So, old bodies. I understand the reasons for depictions, even those done for short-term shock value. What I don’t understand is why it’s always women. Can we not get out from under the constant pressure of sexist judgment in old age? Do we need to be paraded for the “ohgods eeeeuuuw” crowd? Where are all the naked old men, who are also just as subject to gravity as us women. A pair of 80 year old testicles aren’t any more fun to contemplate than 80 year old breasts; and depending on the old man in question, he might have comparable breasts to an old woman’s. I think such portraiture is fine, but I would like to see men included, and I’d prefer to see people who were proud and confident in posing, despite their age.
One of the “shock images” that’s been around the internet for a while is Lemon Party, a photo of some older gay men engaged in consensual and pretty low-key sexual contact.
I’ve never understood why it was supposed to be shocking and horrifying.
Tabby, yeah, pretty sure everyone knows about that one. Some years back, I watched a movie, Wolke 9, which had to do with older people, affairs, and a failing marriage. There was a serious “eeeuuuw” reaction to that movie that I never got. You know what it’s about, and if you can’t cope with aging bods, why in the fuck are you watching it?
We naked apes are not geared for long-term thinking. When you’re young, it’s damn near impossible to imagine yourself old. It’s okay when it sneaks up on you, because you can cope with incremental changes.
“We naked apes are not geared for long-term thinking.”
Thus the world we live in today and the fight against trying to fix climate change.
I’m a big supporter of more male nudes in art and advertising, nudes and men in skimpy clothing. Not just for the value of goodlooking young men, but to have more male body visibility over all adult age groups. Definitely a heavy leaning towards women’s bodies.
Anecdotally, there was a kids’ movie on out in the country over the weekend, Husband said they were all watching, anad there’s a scene where all the menfolk get driven out into the snow for their annual bath (the movie is Ronja, in case anyone’s interested), with full frontal male nudity all over the mountainside. Husband said some of the reactions from other adults were interesting -- and quite repulsed. Which I’ve never understood -- for all the power and glory attributed to men, the male body gets awfully little by way of visual admiration on a regular basis.
Also why men in skimpy or odd clothing in advertising is almost exclusively a subject for humour, that one I don’t get, either. (This one came up a while ago.)
Either way, more power to this artist and the art, but it would be nice for once to see a wrinkly sagging ballsack reaching for the ground, not just boobs.
I’ve been bumping up against this issue in my photography, to the point where I haven’t taken a camera out “for serious” for a while. There’s a lot about my artistic past that’s problematic for me now and I may be scratching my head over it for a really long time -- as in, barrier to further work. I agree with you, almost completely, I think.
For about 20 years I did various forms of glamour and stock stuff, and I also went over to the other side a couple times and photographed subjects that were way outside of my normal range deliberately, to prove (to myself and others) that I could. So then I started to realize that there’s a pornography of ugliness, as well -- like when Avedon went out of his way to do high fashion style pictures of ordinary and unattractive people; I suddenly felt patronized when a friend suggested I take my wet plate camera to India to do pictures of, basically, poor old people. I got angry when Bill Jay did a series of beautiful gritty ugly portraits of homeless people -- damn it. It’s all objectification. Gah!! I damn near decided to just gear up and do nothing but still life. Except I really enjoy working with humans. Except for when I don’t. Hm. Maybe I need to do “photography of grumpy people” -- never mind the age or gender or whether they are physically attractive, let me just shoot portraits of assholes. Sigh. Not enough time.
I have a real problem with the declaration of “ugly” or “unattractive”, especially when it’s coming from monied artists of one sort or another. So much of what we deem attractive is either all surface shit -- clothes, jewelry, fab hair, and so on, or it’s the actual traits of a person, wit, compassion, humor, and so on.
Very few people make it into the “oooh beeyootiful!” category, because just having a purty face isn’t enough, you have to have all the trappings, too. I’m not the least bit pretty myself, and I’ve rolled my eyes at those who have argued. I don’t find people to be ugly, I generally find all peoples’ faces to be all kinds of interesting. Attractiveness, for me, is a deeper matter, and I can’t judge that without a good sense of who any given person is and what they are like.
I can say that I dislike snots who decide they are the arbiters of what constitutes beautiful and ugly.
Marcus, did you watch this documentary? Some great faces there!
Caine@#7:
No, but I will watch it soon.
Interesting!! There are some really great shots in the selection they put in the trailer. But then, someone who shoots that many frames of humans, is going to have some great shots.
I agree about the “ugly” or “attractive” question. I break heavily toward glamour because it’s a construct, it’s fake, but it’s knowingly fake. It’s weird -- I’ve gone through phases, including a period for years where I thought commercial advertising art (e.g.: Penn’s Clinique ads) was the truth because it was shameless commerce. I’m part of the generation that Andy Warhol mindfucked, I think. I blame Warhol anyway. I’ve got to just shut up or I’ll start fighting with myself.
rq
One of my favourite movies of all times! Did you know that the old man is the same actor as Michel’s dad?
Seriously, what happened? It seems like it was the 80s when we were all running around naked and then it was now.
Caine
Some years ago I was visiting someone in hospital and there was an exhibition by a local photographer of old people. Instead of doing the usual sitting portrait she went for a different route and photographed them with things they loved. There were portraits with book stacks, with chess boards, with flowers. My favourite one was an old man leaning over a mountain of chocolate bars. Those images and people were beautiful because they radiated joy.
+++
I hope they all stop fucking once they’re past 35. Maybe until 40, but only with the lights turned off.
It’s usually the message or feeling behind an artwork that makes the subject within attractive or appealing or mesmerizing rather than the model themselves, I find. A true artist doesn’t capture the superficial beauty or other aspects, but the expression and the mood -- that does a lot more for me than pretty people with vacant faces (although this, done right, can be an impactful work all its own…).
This. And that comment about the snots. :)