Fuck you, professor whatever your name was.

SPOILER ALERT.

I’m watching Alien – the original film, from 1979 – on HBO Max. I’ve seen it several times. Every time I’ve seen it, I have this creepy memory of a college literature professor, who mentioned it in class to illustrate some point. I don’t remember the exact context or the point he was making. I assume it was something to do with vulnerability. I know we weren’t talking about film or sci-fi – just some book we were supposed to have read.

Seemingly out of nowhere he said, “Why do you think Sigourney Weaver had to have the final fight with the monster in her underwear at the end of Alien?” or something like that. The answer was that in her near-nudity, she was more exposed, more vulnerable. He talked about it for maybe 30 seconds, and there was this comment he made – a totally unnecessary and creepy comment – about how Sigourney Weaver has a glorious body. Why? Why was it necessary to say that? It wasn’t. It did not help make his point, whatever that was. It was just creepy. This isn’t just “woke 2020 me” looking back at it now. I knew then, immediately, that it was creepy.

Oh yeah, also, it was a spoiler. That film came out in 1979, and this happened 1989 or ’90, or maybe ‘91. I hadn’t seen Alien, at that point, and I bet a lot of the other students hadn’t seen it either. There was no Netflix, no streaming, no anything “on demand.” There were video stores, but I don’t remember college students doing a lot of video renting. A lot of people didn’t have TVs, much less VCRs in their dorm rooms. Blockbuster wasn’t even a big deal yet. But the first time I did see it, which was probably at least a few years later, as the movie seemed to be drawing to a close, I knew the alien wasn’t gone because Sigourney wasn’t in her underwear yet. Then when she was, I knew, “Ah! Here comes the monster, any second now.”

Fuck you, professor whatever your name was. For being creepy and for spoiling the end of that film. 

something I noticed in The Witcher

So, I don’t know if this is really worth an entire blog. But... here I am writing one.

I watched The Witcher the past few days.

It’s a new series on Netflix, based on a series of books and stories by Polish author Andrej Sapkowski. It was also turned into a series of video games, as well as a Polish TV show and film. This new Netflix version is an American version. I just saw an article this morning about the new series being the highest rated Netflix original series on IMDB.

One general thought I have about the show is that it feels a little inconsistent. This first series is 8 episodes. The first few episodes have some pretty extreme violence: heads being chopped off onscreen – that sort of thing. Then a couple of episodes that seemed a bit less violent, but also a little less interesting. It jumps back and forth between two timelines, which I didn’t realize until half-way through the series, then it all comes together in the last few episodes.

The Witcher is the title, but also one of the main characters. He is a wandering, magical monster-hunter. In each episode he has a sort of self-contained adventure in a different place dealing with a different creature. Which means in each episode, there are new characters introduced, who we mostly never see again. So there are a lot of relationships or stories, perhaps, that aren’t really developed, though it seems like there’s more going on there. Perhaps the books do much better in developing those characters.

Okay, so that’s all general stuff about the show. The main thing that prompted this blog is the nudity. There’s nudity in this show. The amount of nudity is also a little inconsistent. There are a few episodes with what might be called “partial male nudity” – that is, a bare butt. And some bare male chests here and there. There is one main female character who is nude or topless in quite a few scenes throughout the 8 episodes. And there are two group nude scenes – one is an orgy, induced by magic, and the other is, I think, an illusion of a bunch of women and some men sort of... I don’t know, “frolicking” maybe?

There is sometimes a casualness about the nudity in this show, but (this being an American show) it’s always presented in a way that’s sexual or that seems intended to be enticing. There are no clearly visible genitalia in the show. There is some blurry background frontal nudity. But, like most commercial TV/film nudity (again, this being an American show) there’s a clear reluctance/refusal to show genitalia, even in a clearly adult program. It seems to me a weirdly simultaneous prudish and prurient attitude about nudity and sexuality.

I find the fact that those two scenes of group nudity were both prompted by magic to be... interesting. It suggests that people wouldn’t normally be naked in a group. Of course, I think people should be naked in groups more often. I mean generally, not just for an orgy. I think seeing people naked – just normal people – would help tremendously to ease our culture’s discomfort with what human bodies actually look like and help us have a more realistic sense of what’s “normal.”

Well, I’ve written a lot about those things elsewhere. So, moving on...

Here’s the thing I really wanted to write about, the thing which I found surprising. I don’t recall noticing this before in any other commercial TV or film. All of the topless women in the show (in the group nude scenes, as well as that one main character) had similar sized breasts, with similar nipples and areolas.

I’m a photographer, and I do take nude photos (among other things). So, I’ve seen people naked. But even if I weren’t a photographer, I’m sure a quick google search would show me that, like lots of other body parts, breasts and nipples and areolas come in significant range of sizes. There’s a lot of variety out there in size. You’d think that would be reflected in a group nude scene. And I’m not even talking about the extremes on either end of the size range – just normal, average, variation in a population. 

I’m wondering who cast this show and insured that all the breasts looked a certain way? I don’t recall there being another female character with lines who was topless, so mostly these were “extras.” I know at some auditions they “type out” various people who don’t have the right look. But did they do that with breasts? Or was that part of the casting breakdown? Seriously, the more I think about it, the weirder it is. 

Okay. So, that’s my little rant. I don’t know that’s it’s really a rant. Just something weird that I noticed. As always, comments are welcome. 

interesting idea?

I got  response from my recent craigslist ad (https://greensboro.craigslist.org) from a guy who wanted some “artistic dick pics”. My first thought was, “Eh...I don’t know.” But I’ve thought a little about it, and it might be an interesting idea for a series. I could do a series with women as well, but I’m not aware of a catchy name that rhymes, or even just a clever-sounding, concise name. (Suggestions?)

I have trouble finding people to model for me, even clothed. So, I’m not sure if I could find several guys to do such a shoot.

What do you folks think? Is this an interesting idea? Feel free to comment here, or write me on facebook (if you know me) or email me: blacksheepphotog@gmail.com

our future first lady

As a photographer and as someone who has modeled a little (and taken a lot of self-portraits), AND as someone who has lost work and friends (in the arts!) because of the nature of some of my photography, I take it personally when people get “nude-shamed”. (Yes, I just made up that term.)

I haven't gone to any effort to view Melania Trump’s nude photos. This topic surfaced a while back, but apparently it’s having a post-election revival. I’ve seen two posts about it on facebook tonight. What I did see of her photos from past posts (and perhaps places like The Daily Show? – I don’t know, wherever), appeared to be a type of nude &/or implied nude photos that I'm not especially interested in: the stereotypically “sexy” young woman - “hot chick” - don’t you wish you could bang her - light porn sort of thing. There’s way too much of that in the world these days, and mostly, I’m not that interested.

Anyway...

If you think the act of posing nude is bad or shameful or necessarily naughty, something that no one ought to do, or at least no one respectable, here's what I say:
You desperately need to get over your Puritanical nonsense about the human body, and probably about sex. I hope you don't have children, because I can only assume you are passing on your damaging attitudes about perfectly normal, healthy, natural, human functions, and about the fact that we human beings have physical bodies. We do! We have bodies. Wonderful, horrible, fascinating, boring bodies. There's nothing wrong with having a body, nor with letting other people see it, if that’s what you want to do with it.

As a matter of fact, we as a “people” would probably be much better off if we became accustomed to seeing normal, non-hyper-sexualized human bodies. We’d end up much healthier. 

Gah!

idea for a photo project

There are two photo projects I recently discovered.

The Nu Project is an ongoing project by a pair of photographers photographing volunteers (all women) around the world. And the Daily Portrait Berlin is a project where a Berliner photographs a person they don’t know, then the next day that model photographs a person they don’t know, etc. These projects are really cool, and they make me want to be involved in something similar. 

I don’t know of any such project locally, and I couldn’t find anything online. so I thought I’d try to start one. Since I have a really difficult time finding people willing to model for me, I thought I’d try taking myself out of the equation. Sort of. If I make it a submission kind of thing, then people do not have to commit to showing up for a photo, and also they would have a sense of choice and control of the images being used. 

I need to come up with a name for the project and a statement of purpose, start a page online somewhere, set up guidelines, and hope for submissions.

The purpose would be to say to the world, “Hey, I am a human, and, as such, I have a body. Having a body is not shameful nor is being nude. This is what my body happens to look like at this time, and that’s okay.” Or something like that. I need a name for this project that is interesting or catchy but that also concisely reflects that idea.

The guidelines would be something like:

     - decent quality artistic nudes or casual nudes of “ordinary people”

     - full-length or 3/4

     - may be individuals, couples or groups

     - please include a simple statement of permission by all people in the photo 
        and the photographer

     - photo size between 600 and 3000 pixels

     - no selfies; self-portraits are okay, but no arm’s length or mirror holding 
        your phone/camera photos

     - no close-ups of your genitalia or sexually explicit photos (that’s a totally 
        different sort of project) 

     - no overly edited, or obviously retouched photos

     - studio photos are okay, but the idea is simple, natural

I literally cannot do this alone. 

So, if anyone has suggestions or is interested in participating or in helping me get this thing going, please get in touch. 

Whoever did this? - they need to stop.

A little earlier this morning I saw this photo on tumblr. Yes, tumblr. 

Yes, yes, I know; tumblr is full and overflowing with nudity. That’s why I’m there. I actually joined tumblr as a place to see what’s out there photography-wise. On tumblr you can find some really great artistic photography. You can also find some really poor quality, disturbing porn. Sometimes you’ll find both, together on the same page, which I find much more disturbing than the disturbing porn itself. You can all kinds of nudity anywhere on the spectrum between those extremes of great art and bad porn.

Anyway…

This morning I saw this photo (just a warning, it’s a nude): click link 1

I thought it does have some appeal, but basically I don’t like it. And the more I looked at it, the more it seemed not quite right. So I did a google image search, and found this (also a nude): click link 2

I believe it to be the original. I find it much more appealing. Mainly, I don’t get that “not quite right” vibe from it. I like it. It’s quite lovely. 

Obviously, these are versions of the same photo. The one on the right has been re-done: her skin is darker, her breasts and nipples are larger, there’s a significant bush of pubic hair added, and – most bizarrely – a totally different face has been superimposed.

WHY?!?!? 

I do not understand. Who is this other face? Is this some kind of revenge-porn thing? Is that someone’s ex-girlfriend, and they didn’t have any actual nude photos of them to post online, so they made this? (If so, that’s bad. Don’t do that, people.) Or was this version, perhaps, made to fit someone’s personal masturbatory preference? (If so, that’s a little odd, but...just keep it to yourself, eh?)

As a photographer, as a creator of what I hope are some artistic images, I find this disturbing. I’ve seen, on tumblr, a few photographers complain about other people editing and posting versions of their photos – cropping, maybe changing the color &/or contrast, etc. That’s not good. But, this seems much worse. Someone’s turned this photo into a photo of a different person, and it doesn’t seem to be an obvious, clunky version for comic effect. (I admit, I’ve done that once or twice, but never published it online, or tried to convince anyone that it was “real”.)

Anyway... Whoever did this? - they need to stop.  

skirt blowing

Apparently there was a thing called a “skirt blowing machine” at amusement parks. It blew a burst of air up through a vent for the purpose of blowing up women’s skirts, revealing their legs and undergarments. Sometimes this vent would be part of a “fun house” or sometimes at the exit of a popular ride.

AND there was a person whose job it was to operate that machine. So when a woman walked by, the machine operator pushed a button or pulled a lever or whatever, causing the burst of air.

ALSO sometimes there would be one or two other amusement park employees whose job it was to take a woman by the hands – ostensibly to help them down from a ride, etc. – but in reality they were guiding her to the air vent and preventing her from pushing or holding her skirt down. They might even hold her there longer, and control how long her legs and undergarments were exposed.

Now, I can sort of get how someone might think this is just good, silly fun – everyone laughs and the woman is embarrassed but not really hurt. BUT I can easily see how this could feel like a real violation – with not choice or foreknowledge to be made into a sort of sexual spectacle for the general public’s entertainment.

Mostly it’s really difficult for me to grasp the mindset and the cultural environment in which something like that is normal and okay. This was still going on in the 1960s and 70s, maybe later. Actually, for all I know, it could still be going on at some parks.

Obviously our current culture has a really messed up relationship with sex and nudity and with our bodies. Maybe there’s something beneficial in public displays of bodies and sexuality – in admitting that we humans are sexual being and that a sexual appetite is normal and healthy. But I guess it’s the lack of choice in this whole “skirt blowing” idea that rankles. Should not the skirt blowing be optional? What if everybody knows where the skirt blowing vents are, and can easily avoid them if they choose, but also everybody tacitly agrees to be “surprised” when a skirt is blown up?

Hmm... Ya know, I’d probably take issue with that as well. Yeah, I’d probably say to that, if you want to expose your body, just do it. You don’t have to be ashamed of it. It’s your body, woman or man, and if you want to show your ankles or knees or thighs or every bit of it, I say yes. Empower yourself; be not ashaméd. 

torn

I’m sort of torn.

Many people who know me are aware that I prefer being naked. I just do. It feels good. It seems right. In the summer it’s great because I don’t have to turn up the air conditioning as high as I would if I were clothed.

However...

It’s winter now, and I don’t want to turn the heat way up high all the time. It’s my checkbook, but also the planet—it’s bad for both. I just don’t want to use energy unnecessarily. And I’m broke-ish. So most of this winter, I’ve been wearing some clothes around the house. Much more than I normally wear. If I don’t turn the heat up, it’s just too cold for comfort.

But when I go very long without being naked, I just get out of touch with my body. I’m not especially healthy, not really in shape, but when I get out of touch with my body this way, I feel less healthy, less happy.

So…I’m sort of torn.