Saturday, March 21, 2009

Work for the show




HI!

  These three images will definitely be in my finished book.  They are my 3 favorite images thus far.  
Posted by Nick Parisse at 7:17 PM
Labels:

14 comments:

  1. AnonymousMarch 22, 2009 at 8:59 AM

    It disheartens me IMENSLY that your morals are so low that you would post the first image on the iternet (being you took it under such false pretense to the model)... as if planning to show it in the show was not bad enough... you posted it on the internet.

    This speaks highly of the enourmous flaw in your character.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Evelyn LeighMarch 23, 2009 at 7:52 PM

    WHOA sister child. who are you to judge? we all make artistic decisions, but they are all our own to make. she chose to show her face to a camera, nicky is choosing to show it as art, you are choosing to be unnecessarily nasty.

    Unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 01001010 01101111March 23, 2009 at 8:00 PM

    It speaks enormously of the flaw in your character that you would post that comment anonymously. The only people looking at this blog are us so we don't have to worry about it. We are photographers we have no moral obligation to our subjects. If a woman wants to sell her body to make some extra cash she will have to endure the consequences of her actions. I know you have a google account because you were required to make one so you chose to post anonymously which was a cowardly act because you did not want to face the consequences of your actions. That image was not taken under false pretense. She knew that photographs are taken to be shown to people. She knew these photographs would not be hidden in a box under his bed.

    On another note you should try to word your sentences properly and learn to not use ellipsis incorrectly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ElishagMarch 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM

    First of all it doesn't show her in a "dominatrix situation" at all it just a picture of her. Second she knew that the picture would be used for a project. Third he didn't post her name, occupation, where she lived or anything like that. Fourth only our class is looking at this and people in turkey! LASTLY, Nicky has no fiduciary relationship to her in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. colormekatieMarch 23, 2009 at 9:08 PM

    Woah! Hello Drama!

    I can see both sides on this..

    First off, I'm not a fan of anonymous postings. If you have something to say, please stand by your words. I'm all for a little discussion but how can we have it with concealed identities??

    The whole issue is kind of messy. On one side, I think Nick should have kept his promise to the girl to not show his images but I also feel that she is at fault for allowing him to photograph her..

    ReplyDelete
  6. JamesMarch 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. h.a.p. | warped perspectiveMarch 23, 2009 at 9:19 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 01001010 01101111March 23, 2009 at 10:38 PM

    Ya lets get a post fight going woo hoo!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nick ParisseMarch 23, 2009 at 11:40 PM

    Those are some pretty strong words. As an adult I have learned that we’re responsible for our own actions. I did not choose this life path or career choice for her. She did that on her own. What she also did was contact me, invite me to her environment and pose for my camera, knowing full well that pictures are created to be seen. I did not seek her out. She chose me.
    It’s funny; I don’t remember you there the day of the shoot, which means that you have no point of reference on the matter. However, for your piece of mind, I will let you know that I tell every one of my subjects what my intentions are for each image. Not that it matters; I have no obligation to do so. I do not seek profit from any portrait. As soon as I click the shutter the image is mine, legally. You may recall the chapter on copyright issues that we spent so much time on a few semesters ago in professional procedures.
    I would like to invite you to my next “sex worker” shoot. It will be this Friday, March 27 at 1pm. The model you refer to was so impressed by my images that she has invited me back to take more. There you will be able to see and hear my interactions for yourself. You may also get a chance to meet her on May 1st when she attends the gallery opening. All I ask is that you don’t stare, point fingers or whisper at an inaudible tone.
    Also, cowardice is a big pet peeve of mine so next time you have something untrue to say please leave your name. After all, we do have class together 3 days a week and I don’t want to have to play the guessing game.

    ReplyDelete
  10. brianMarch 24, 2009 at 9:37 AM

    Great stuff here folks.
    One thing though- no one has spoken about the photograph. What we have here is a photograph and a bunch of words- at the end of the day, the words go away and all we have is a photograph. So, i would like to ask what this picture is- what story does it tell in and of itself? While looking at this, what does it suggest as the relationship between photographer and sitter? How is she "portrayed"? And what does her role "SEEM" to be here, based on visual cues and body language (posture, facial expression, distance from camera, etc).
    When work becomes public, words become lost and the photograph becomes the object of contemplation. We are then faced with looking at the picture and making our decisions based only on the visual information in front of us; an interpretation of the story being told.
    This whole situation seems like an inversion of the Sally Mann story. In her work, she had the most innocent and primal relationship possible with her subjects, but based on the way she makes them "look" many people are seriously offended by the photographs and completely disregard the context due to the visual cues in the photographs themselves. If I remember correctly, last year an art show of Elton John's photography collection was disrupted by a police raid that forced John to take down a photograph by Sally Mann of her naked child because of child pornography laws. Elton John ended up closing the show out of protest, but the point is that the context (mother photographing child) of the photograph was disregarded because of the content (naked child) of the photograph. I am curious what happens in this situation when we peel away the content from our speculations about the context. After all, if we weren't there for the shoot, all we can do is speculate about, or create our own interpretation of the context.

    ReplyDelete
  11. CatherineMarch 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM

    The middle image is really strong. It has a really painterly effect; it looks like a 15th century European painting. it reminds me of the THE ARNOLFINI MARRIAGE by Jan van Eyck, it has so many of the same elements, with the mirror and the dog and the drapery. The woman is very similar in skin tone and hair color, and her facial features are small and delicate like the woman in the painting. Obviously this wasn't planned because it's her environment which I think makes the image even more interesting than if it had been planned that way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 01001010 01101111March 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM

    Lets just get another comment war going.

    ReplyDelete
  13. brianMarch 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM

    I deleted 2 comments from this string for inappropriate comments. Although I realize the context of the joke was not meant to be offensive, the slang terms used are a little spicy for my taste, and this venue.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 01001010 01101111March 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM

    I feel like it is no longer possible for me to discuss artwork in a mature manner while this blog is under the fascist rule of Brian Emery.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)