Exercise

Shafran’s work is mainly derived from his personal life and includes information about his eating habits and his wife’s whereabouts. In the series Washing-up, through beautifully lit and composed images of sink areas after washing-up time, and accompanying text, Shafran gives us an intimate insight into his daily routines and family life. Objects and information, tastes and preferences shine through what on the surface appears to be banal and homogenous subject matter. The more you look at the images, the more distinctions you can make and the more insights you get. His use of everyday domestic environments gives the viewer a point of resonance and a sense of shared experience in the commonplace activity of ‘doing the washing up’

Go to the artist’s website and look at the other images in Shafran’s series. You may have noticed that Washing-up is the only piece of work in Part Three created by a man. It is also the only one with no human figures in it, although family members are referred to in the captions.

• Did it surprise you that this was taken by a man? Why?
• In your opinion does gender contribute to the creation of an image?
• What does this series achieve by not including people?
• Do you regard them as interesting ‘still life’ compositions?
Make some notes in your learning log.

Research and reflection

Until it was mentioned in the text of the exercise above I hadn’t noticed that washing-up was the only piece of work in part three created by a man. I can however see how the viewer of such an image may make such an assumption. Perhaps this would be the “unseen” element of any image, the capacity to promote an assumption in the viewer based upon visual clues and the viewer’s social context and life experience?

Surprise was not a word that I would associate with the recognition that images of washing-up had been taken by a man rather than a woman. Individuals of  either sex and any gender are unique in how they view and react with the world around them. It is equally possible for either a man or a woman to photograph domestic scenes. The images of washing-up included elements that were possibly, and I mean possibly in the mildest sense, indicative of male presence, notably the paintbrushes and lager cans on the draining board. It amused me as I later browsed Shafran’s other works to note that it was Shafran’s wife that was pictured wearing decorating overalls as its reminded me of the socially ingrained gender bias to which I had almost succumbed.

The sex or gender of the photographer contributes to the way in which they create an image. The photographer’s eye is influenced by a multitude of things including ethnicity, age, sex, gender, upbringing, wealth, in fact all manner of lived experience.

Much has been written about the “male gaze” in describing the photographing of women. John Berger stated that ” Women are depicted in quite a different way from men – not because the feminine is different from the masculine – but because the ideal spectator is always assumed to be male.” Charlotte Jansen argues in her excellent article in BJP that as the number of female photographers, whether professional or as is most prevalent social media posters increase so the “female gaze” is bringing balance to what was once a patriarchal medium. She states “Do women photograph women differently to men? Certainly.  And female subjects interact differently with the camera when a woman is behind it” “Women see the world differently – in just as much colour and nuance. We are beginning to see that world, everywhere we look.”

The Washing-up series represents a modern take on still life imagery. By not including a person the viewer is not distracted from taking in all of the details from the image. If a person was to be included in the image the viewer’s gaze would be drawn initially to the figure and a narrative reasoned from visual clues offered by the figure with the remainder of the image only seen as background. Without a figure in the frame a narrative is created from the scene alone, the viewer noticing the smallest of clues as to what has gone before or may come after this moment.

Still life is not my favoured photographic genre, however after spending time browsing Shafran’s website I found myself enjoying some, but unfortunately not all, of his work. I found Washing-up a far more interesting visual read than I had expected and this is reflected in my approach to Assignment 3.

References

Bainbridge S. (ed.) (2017) The female gaze [online]. BJP website. Available from:  https://access.bjpsubs.com/female-gaze-issue-download/?submissionGuid=f8a8a8ed-ebd6-4822-9062-755c49489f1d. Last accessed 04/06/2020.

Berger J. (1972) Ways of Seeing . London. Penguin Books Ltd. p64.

Bibliography

Shafran N. (2000) Washing-up 2000 [online]. Nigel Shafran website. Available from: http://nigelshafran.com/category/washing-up-2000-2000/page/7/. Last accessed 04/06/2020.

Smyth D.(2018) Everyday beauty with Nigel Shafran [online]. BJP website. Available from: https://www.bjp-online.com/2018/05/shafraninterview/. Last accessed 04/06/2020.

Jobey L. (2008) Photographer Nigel Shafran: domestic harmony [online]. The Guardian website. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2008/oct/23/nigel-shafran. Last accessed 04/06/2020.

Bainbridge S. (ed.) (2017) The female gaze [online]. BJP website. Available from:  https://access.bjpsubs.com/female-gaze-issue-download/?submissionGuid=f8a8a8ed-ebd6-4822-9062-755c49489f1d. Last accessed 04/06/2020.

Jansen C. (2017) Girl on Girl. Hong Kong. Laurence King Publishing Ltd.

Exercise:

Reflect on the pieces of work discussed in this project in your learning log and do
some further research of your own.
Here are a few questions you might ask yourself:
• How do these images make you feel?
• Do you think there’s an element of narcissism or self-indulgence in focusing on
your own identity in this way?
• What’s the significance of Brotherus’s nakedness?
• Can such images ‘work’ for an outsider without accompanying text?
• Do you think any of these artists are also addressing wider issues beyond the
purely personal?
Make some notes in your learning log.

Reflection:

I have really enjoyed the opportunity to “live with” and to reflect upon some of the published self portraiture portfolios of Francesca Woodman, Elina Brotherus and Gillian Wearing. It took me some time to move beyond my initial discomfort at gazing upon and reading images of individuals who are naked. I put this down to a very conservative upbringing and a level of social conditioning that tells us that naked is bad and to gaze upon such nakedness can only be voyeuristic. I discovered that the longer I spent with these images the easier I found it to understand the reasoning behind the images and to appreciate the messaging within the images.

When I consider the semiotics of Woodman’s and Brotherus’ work I feel both artists have confronted the traditional, male-centric objectification of the female form. John Berger states that “Women are depicted quite differently to men”….. “the ‘ideal’ spectator is always assumed to be male and the image is designed to flatter him” Both Brotherus’ and Woodman’s images do not, in my opinion, flatter the male viewer. There is no “calculated charm” expressed towards the viewer. There is purely self, naked rather than nude. Berger described this difference as “To be naked is to be oneself. To be nude is to be seen naked by others and yet not recognised for oneself”.

I found both Woodman’s and Brotherus’ images moving. Woodman’s work felt dark, moody and at times confrontational. Brotherus’ work, which is extensive, ranged from quirky and amusing to tender and very personal. Her project Annunciation when viewed chronologically needed no explanation. Her pain throughout was palpable and despite the intensely personal nature of the subject matter I didn’t feel as though I was intruding. The conscious viewer/viewed relationship disappeared leaving me with overwhelming sensations of sympathy and empathy.

Wearing’s work baffled me. I had to admire the considerable effort and the craftsmanship that went into the production of such lifelike and accurate silicon masks. The difficulties that Wearing encountered in lighting the portrait due to the different light reflecting properties of the silicon were fascinating. I appreciated the dedication needed to create these images including ensuring the detail of the backgrounds are true to the original snapshot image,  but I didn’t really feel the intended meaning of the artist just through viewing the images.

Self Portrait as My Brother Richard Wearing 2003 Gillian Wearing OBE born 1963 Presented by Tate Members 2014 http://www.tate.org.uk/art/work/P81098

Wearings images presented self portraiture in entirely the opposite way to Woodman and Brotherus. Rather than the openness and brutal honesty of the nude or naked image Wearing presented a mask or a barrier to understanding the person beneath. Wearing described her intentions in Susan Bright’s book Art photography Now, when discussing the portrait of her mother, as: (when wearing the mask) “[I could] with my eyes and posture convince the viewer I was her” With this work Wearing appears to have inverted the entire notion of self-portraiture as that of an image of oneself. It is an exercise in artistic, sympathetic deception. For me it held less appeal than the work of Brotherus or Woodman.

Is there an element of narcissism or self-indulgence in focusing on your own identity in this way?

Narcissism can be defined as an “inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love, vanity.” (dictionary.com) Self-indulgence can be defined as “indulging one’s own desires, passions, whims, etc., especially without restraint.” (dictionary.com)

I do not recognise any of the negative connotations of  narcissism in these works. In comparison to self portraiture on social media where people only present the best of themselves Woodman and Brotherus are brutal in their honesty. I find no sign of vanity or self love in their images. Both artists definitely demonstrate a fascination with  self. This kind of fascination is an entirely natural process that we all go through at some time in our lives and it is necessary for us to develop a sense of self. The differentiation here is that Woodman and Brotherus are prepared to share their intimate fascination with the viewer.

All three artists display self-indulgent traits within their work, but isn’t that one of the requirements of artistic output? I think that artistic endeavours necessitate a level of self indulgence in order to produce the best work possible.

What’s the significance of Brotherus’s nakedness?

There may be many motivations for Brotherus choosing to be naked in her images. I have already mentioned the apparent fascination with self that appears throughout her portfolio. In addition to this within her project “Annunciation” her nakedness, the absence of barriers, positively impacts the narrative. By showing herself to be naked in what appear to be intimate and distressing situations Brotherus conveys a sense of honesty, vulnerability. She exposes her pain and distress without any form of barrier.

In Brotherus’ later work she continues to photograph herself naked however she differentiates between her earlier autobiographical work and her more recent projects, stating on her website “Personally, I see a clear difference between my autobiographical photographs, for which I know the emotion in question, and the other ones where I appear as a model. In the latter, there is not necessarily any emotion that I could identify. It’s about composing a picture with a human figure in a space, and it can represent anything you want.”

Can such images ‘work’ for an outsider without accompanying text?

I needed explanatory text in order to make sense of Wearing’s imagery when first viewed. In this case the text explained the process the artist underwent to produce the images and this enhanced the viewing experience.

I didn’t find the need to textual explanation for Woodman’s or Brotherus’ work although I found that I needed to spend time with the images in order to more fully understand the narrative or meaning. In fact the more time I have spent considering the work the more I have gained from it.

Researching these works I found many texts and critiques that explain either the experiences of the artist at the time of the works or the motivation or original meaning of the work. These texts served in the main to enhance the viewing experience but were not a necessity.

Do you think any of these artists are also addressing wider issues beyond the
purely personal?

The work that I felt most addressed wider issues than just personal exploration was Brotherus’ project “Annunciation” which deals with the issue of infertility.  Other work by all three artists deal with issues that whilst being personal to the artists are also equally personal to some viewers.  Messages contained within such imagery will be recognised by many and their personal emotions projected onto the viewed work. As such these works will all deal, perhaps to a less degree to works such as “Annunciation”, with wider issues.

References

Heikka E. Rastenberger A-K. (2016). The rules of the game [Online]. Elina Brotherus (website). Available from: http://www.elinabrotherus.com/texts. Last accessed 14/05/2020.

Berger J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London. BBC and Penguin Books. P45-64.

Bibliography

Cooke R. (2014). Searching for the real Francesca Woodman [online]. The Guardian (website). Available from:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/aug/31/searching-for-the-real-francesca-woodman. Last Accessed 14/05/2020.

Bright R. (2005). Art photography now. London. Thames and Hudson. P51, 42-43.

Cotton C. (2014). The photograph as contemporary art. Third Edition. London. Thames and Hudson.

Bate D. (2009). Photography the key concepts. Oxford. Berg. P82-83.

Brotherus E. (n.d.) Elina Brotherus.com [website]. Available from: http://www.elinabrotherus.com/. Last accessed 14/05/2020.

Tate. (n.d.) Gillian Wearing CBE born 1963 [online]. Tate.com (website) Available from: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/gillian-wearing-cbe-2648. Last accessed 14/05/2020.