Let’s get to the bottom of it: The Arses of Photography
Jean-Paul Goude is a old (74), white, wealthy male. He is an established and very famous photographer who recently photographed that bum-based photo of Kim Kardashian on the front cover of Paper which I’m sure you’ve all seen by now. He is known for all those very famous pictures of Grace Jones. Less well known is that he titled them “N**** Arabesque”, or captioning them with “Do Not Feed the Animal” with Jones inside a cage.
Jean-Paul Goude has also taken pictures of other black women which are problematic — one photo, which was used as the basis for Kim Kardashian’s pose, was described by a women’s studies professor as “A ‘primitive’ vision to provide pornographic pleasure and intoxication presumably for a white male spectator.” He has himself stated, “Blacks are the premise of my work … I have jungle fever.” He named his book, published in 1979, ‘Jungle Fever’ too. He is also famous for his manipulation of images — “I don’t want to sound immodest, but I was Photoshopping images long before digital cameras and computers had even been invented.” He stretches limbs out, contorts bodies, searching for symmetry and graphic. I believe that that, in itself, is not an issue — many photographers strive to create art, and like, say, painters, we lust after beautiful composition, symmetry, depth or what ever you’re after. I’m a longtime advocate, lover and user of Photoshop. I feel it is just a tool — like make-up is, like lighting is, like a good camera sensor is. But I think it’s very dangerous when it’s used in combination with a mindset that firstly has a reductionist attitude to a female body. It’s dangerous especially when combined with turning a blind eye to intersectional issues of how there is a history of sexist, racist images of black women — portraying them as primitive, or as creatures, as servile, as sexual — the jezebel — or a combination of those.
The original image is now parodied by a white woman, a white, very wealthy woman — and it smacks of privilege. Yet, her overly-sexualised, manipulated body is still the focus, under a dominant arch of what should be champagne but definitely is meant to resemble a terrifying stream of jubilant jizz, landing on her bottom — curved and manipulated in post-production to a fetishistic level. I shouldn’t admit this, but, as a photographer, your sitters are really at your mercy — you can if you wish manipulate and dominate them. You could, if you wanted, bend them to your will, you can enact any twisted prejudices or sexual fantasies upon them. You are in such a position of power that it is possible to go beyond the photos and actually assault them.
Famously, many women have accused another white, wealthy photographer - Terry Richardson, of frequent rape and sexual assault — his photos are often of women in incredibly reductive, overly-sexual, passive poses, with him giving the thumbs up. Being a photographer is a privileged position, you are imposing your artistic and personal preferences upon your sitter from a privileged position and I have always seen that as genuinely sacred. It is so easy to create a bubble in the studio where your artistic wants prevail — where the willingness of the subject can be led astray — you can bend the situation maximising a desperation to look hot, to look fanciable, to ‘fit in’ — and really, you, as the photographer, can find yourself as the arbiter of all of that.
So. Goodness. That’s a heady amount of power. And with great power, comes a great need to not be an asshole. You have to be both aware of the historical and social context in which your photo exists, how it contributes to sexual, racial politics and culture, the subliminal or overt influence it can have on the viewers. You and your sitter must be equals, the photograph must be, even for that one flicker of a moment, a collaboration between two respectful and respected human beings, you say you are looking for symmetry, Jean-Paul Goude, and I believe that balance between people, that’s the most essential kind. I have always believed therefore that photography is only for feminists. If you’re not a feminist then get the hell out of my industry. My view of feminism is rather all-encompassing, an extended intersectional interpretation to include race, LGBTQ and disabled issues, that is is not just about equality for women but a fight for equality for all sections of society that historically and currently continue to suffer a secondary status.
I cannot bear the idea of someone picking up a camera and not viewing the person in front of them as an equal, of someone picking up a camera and seeing the person in front of them as just a body to be manipulated. Perhaps your sitter thinks they have a choice, but you as the photographer are the one giving them the illusion of that choice. Don’t use photographers who aren’t feminists, and if you want to be a photographer, be a feminist first.
