I have always wanted to shoot a portrait of my good friend, and fellow artist, James M. Graham. James is both an interesting person to know as well as an interesting person to look at, and therefore has all that is necessary to make an interesting portrait.
So when James told me that he had a model coming in from Norway, and that he wanted me to shoot a portrait of them for an upcoming Ass Kittens album cover, I jumped at the chance. Shooting a portrait of someone you don’t know, or at least don’t know well, provides a certain set of challenges. What is their story? What is the story they want me to tell? What is the story I want to tell? How do I make them comfortable? How do I find the truth? There is, however, also a certain comfort in shooting someone you don’t know – most of the time you never really know if you got it wrong.
But, I know James. I know him better than some of his family members do. I know what sends him soaring into the clouds and what causes him to crash to the earth. I know what he yearns for and I know what he holds in disdain. I know his dreams and his fears and, like anyone worth knowing, he is not a simple man.
Besides, being an award winning producer and sometime front man for the punk rock group “The Ass Kittens”, James is an internationally published erotic photographer who works primarily in the fashion and fine art worlds. His work is as complex as he is and his internal conflicts, which are always present, often play an important role.
Whether taking a photo, or making music, he is Punk Rock.
So when I was told what the concept for the shoot was I wasn’t very surprised, after all, such imagery is quite in vogue at the moment in many music circles. But as much as he’s Punk, he’s also a very gentle soul, and therein lies the conflict that plagues him. We discussed the parameters for the shoot between ourselves as well as with the model, who loved the concept and was excited to shoot it. We wanted to make sure that the resulting image showed a man uncomfortable with his darker side, a darker side that he did not choose, but that was being chosen for him. It had to be sexy and provocative to be sure, but it also had to be a socially rebellious and a little shocking, after all, that’s what punk rock is all about.
I shot him and Ingvild for four hours last Sunday and went home exhausted. It was two days before I even dared to download the digital files, develop the film, and look at the shots I took. Conceptualizing a portrait requires a certain amount of effort. Actually shooting a portrait, while fun, is both physically and mentally exhausting. Once James and I selected the image to use, about another fifteen to twenty hours went into retouching the shot and making it commercially ready.
This was the result of that labor:
The response to this image has been overwhelmingly positive. Most who viewed it understood what it was about, understood what it was for and had no problem with.
But two women, both of whom I have tremendous respect for, were offended by it, one going so far as to say that it was “disgusting” and that any woman who would pose for such a photo was “severely damaged”. After hearing their reactions I spent the next several days thinking about the image, and what it meant. My other friend had this to say:
I majored in women’s studies with a minor in art history, so that is going to influence my perspective. I also grew up in a very political and socially conscious family where even the men identified themselves as feminists. In the world in which I come from, putting a nude woman on a leash being held by a man and having her act like an animal would pretty much get all involved banished.
Well, I consider myself to be both politically and socially conscious as well, but I didn’t read the image that way. In my eyes it was clear that the man wasn’t in control (he’s barely holding the leash) and that the model is acting out of her own volition, while he hides his head in shame. This is her choice, not his. But maybe I’m too close to the photograph, after all, I took it.
To get another perspective I asked my friend Sita (social worker, activist and art photographer) about it. Her response was:
I’m not sure why this photograph would be offensive or controversial. Isn’t the entire point of feminism to give women the freedom to choose how to live? (Or, in this case, how to be photographed?) I don’t look at this photograph and see an image advocating the subjugation of women. I see an excellent portrait of James that really captures my experience of him. Yes, there is also a nude woman in the photo. Yes, she is clearly being portrayed in a fetish relationship. And…so?
Yet another replied:
I think it comes right out of Digital Photo Pro and really I don’t see it as being offensive because he is clearly conflicted in the image. His expression changes the whole thing. As a photograph it is awesome, as subject matter, it’s edgy but not offensive, then again I have an open mind. I would totally use it – it’s a great shot.
Another remarked:
“Would they have the same problem if James were on the leash? I’d have a problem, too, if she were trying to escape. This, however, is clearly voluntary. Her choice, not his.”
I feel badly that I produced an image that caused two women for whom I have the utmost respect to be offended. At the same time, I’m greatly relieved that the rest of the women I know were not only not offended, but that they understood the intent and liked the photograph for what it was. I do not view women as mere objects and certainly do not work to demean them. This is not a documentary, it is punk rock album cover and, as such, the image fits the usage. In the end, I took a job, did the job to the best of my abilities, the client loved it and I walked away happy in the knowledge that I had created a photograph that worked both commercially as well as artistically.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
