GenderF*ck

owlwink

Just wondering what people think of this???????





Picture 1
Looking down from our heteronormative pedestal we view a gender ****ed individual lighting the level below. Shoddy lipstick, marks out a colouring book attitude that the figure has towards its own performativity. Stubble grates at our expectations of womanly velour. We ourselves begin to lose ourselves as we view a malformed and malleable interpretation of gender identity.

Picture 2
Monroe obsession drips from the various masks being worn. A moment of outburst with the mirror allows the camera to capture the cracked pieces that have not survived the metamorphoses. The photographs in this project depict an exploration into the tidal waters of gender fluidity in a verismilitude of its chaotic manifestations.

Ricky91t

Huh?a bit of explanation would'nt go a miss!

magicbastarder

owlwink wrote: »

Picture 1
Looking down from our heteronormative pedestal we view a gender ****ed individual lighting the level below. Shoddy lipstick, marks out a colouring book attitude that the figure has towards its own performativity. Stubble grates at our expectations of womanly velour. We ourselves begin to lose ourselves as we view a malformed and malleable interpretation of gender identity.

Picture 2
Monroe obsession drips from the various masks being worn. A moment of outburst with the mirror allows the camera to capture the cracked pieces that have not survived the metamorphoses. The photographs in this project depict an exploration into the tidal waters of gender fluidity in a verismilitude of its chaotic manifestations.

looks like a bloke in a wig to me.

run_Forrest_run

I think the pictures are actually fairly lame to be honest, you actually paint a better picture with your words..maybe creative writing is what you should concentrate on.

melekalikimaka

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

I think the pictures are actually fairly lame to be honest, you actually paint a better picture with your words..maybe creative writing is what you should concentrate on.

i wouldnt go this far

but some work on compositition... not being rude but from looking at the shots you dont strike me as a photographer by any experience... maybe look on flickr at a few portraits, unusal ones and from there take from compositional inspiration, rather than as it seems here just shooting in auto

mehfesto2

I think it's trying to prove the point that with a flowery, elaborate explanation you can pass anything off as art.

That or they're pics of his/her drunk mate they wanna put up on t'internet for a laugh.

melekalikimaka

mehfesto2 wrote: »

I think it's trying to prove the point that with a flowery, elaborate explanation you can pass anything off as art.

That or they're pics of his/her drunk mate they wanna put up on t'internet for a laugh.

lmao

mike65

Art college has so much to answer for.

Mike.

owlwink

A noob has to start somewhere.

mehfesto2

I meant no offence, but I just don't see the target audience/message these pictures have.
I' not against expressionism, but I think the art should carry the majority of the message, not the footnotes.

What was the central idea/theme?

challengemaster

face in #2 reminds me of this

owlwink

I have been working on photo sets that correspond to various types of literary theories. This one going inside Queer theory. I suppose the message is stronger when it is alligned with the others, so as the viewer has a grip of the context of which they are viewing the work in. The writing I added I would only put with notes in a workbook. Just ideas that I wrote really before I began thinking how I would take the pictures. I do intend on doing alot of photoshopping with these ones in particular. Especially with colour. Wanna try some strange hand colouring techniques.

deRanged

owlwink wrote: »

The writing I added I would only put with notes in a workbook. Just ideas that I wrote really before I began thinking how I would take the pictures.

I was about to ask whether or not you had written the text before you took the photos. The text doesn't quite fit the photographs, which is what made me think it came first.

owlwink

deRanged wrote: »

I was about to ask whether or not you had written the text before you took the photos. The text doesn't quite fit the photographs, which is what made me think it came first.

Combination of both really.

mehfesto2

Just beware over-doing it in photoshop with pics like this.
I'd consider reshooting the pics again.

The flash seems a bit heavy. I'd consider bouncing the flash of another surface, rather than directly aiming it off the subject. The first one particular is ruined by sharp, heavy shadows created by the flash. Not to mention the heavy white spot on the left (was that cling-film, or something similar?) But I think the 'looking down' on te subject works well for your theme.

The expression in the second one is a bit OTT. A bit of subtlety would go further. You say the main concept is 'queer theory'? Why not tone it down slightly. Get the character to sit for you in costume. Get him comfortable and make it appear that he is comfortable in his role. After all homosexuality isn't the problem for homosexuals, it is the views of others that cause them their pains. Screaming at a mirror implys self-loathing. Is that what you really want?

If he appears happy with himself, rather than a 'screaming queen', I feel you would be doing the sunject more than justice.

And please, promise me you won't make this a B&W pic with selective colouring on the lipstick and wig!!!

Arciphel

Sorry but I don't think the images work well on a photographic level, to me they just look like snapshots and you are trying to dress them up and imbibe them with deep meanings with your decriptions.

But it's kind of like a joke, if you have you explain the punchline it's kind of pointless?

I understand that this is trying to be artistic and all that, and I admire that because most photography is pretty formulaeic and by the numbers, but I think you need to somehow make the photos edgier in themselves, rather than trying to reverse engineer meanings into them with your writing that really isn't there...sorry. Some good PP work might work wonders though.

Can I ask who inspires you from a photographic point of view, do you have any influences you can point to?

smash

I don't think your explanations come out in your photos, have a look at some of David LaChapelle's work, you might get some inspiration there.

owlwink

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Just beware over-doing it in photoshop with pics like this.
I'd consider reshooting the pics again.

The flash seems a bit heavy. I'd consider bouncing the flash of another surface, rather than directly aiming it off the subject. The first one particular is ruined by sharp, heavy shadows created by the flash. Not to mention the heavy white spot on the left (was that cling-film, or something similar?) But I think the 'looking down' on te subject works well for your theme.

The expression in the second one is a bit OTT. A bit of subtlety would go further. You say the main concept is 'queer theory'? Why not tone it down slightly. Get the character to sit for you in costume. Get him comfortable and make it appear that he is comfortable in his role. After all homosexuality isn't the problem for homosexuals, it is the views of others that cause them their pains. Screaming at a mirror implys self-loathing. Is that what you really want?

If he appears happy with himself, rather than a 'screaming queen', I feel you would be doing the sunject more than justice.

And please, promise me you won't make this a B&W pic with selective colouring on the lipstick and wig!!!

Thanks man, although the idea in the second picture was that we the viewers are the ones perceiving the reflection and not the true face of the individual. Thus the shattered window was to reflect the incomplete nature of the image. Although even in its incomplete stage the viewer tends to make those assumptions, which to be honest I found interesting.

melekalikimaka

your a damn hippy

away with you and your abstract ideas...

i want a photo of a tree

Dragan

Looks like party shots gone wrong.

When i see a title like "Gender****" i really want to see some weird and twisted stuff to be honest.

owlwink

Dragan wrote: »

Looks like party shots gone wrong.

When i see a title like "Gender****" i really want to see some weird and twisted stuff to be honest.

I would like to go to one of your parties

Dragan

owlwink wrote: »

I would like to go to one of your parties

You really don't! :pac:

To expand, i imagine back in the day, when cross dressing etc was seen as a sign of evil/the gay which you prefer then a picture of a dude in a dress would have been very striking.

Not any more. It's now just a dude in a dress.

"Gender****" as a concept is fine.....but you need to be either in your face weird or subtle for it to work....although that is only my opinion.

Like the below.....subtle.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/138568108_33368ea414.jpg?v=0 NSFW depending

Phototoxin

I think it's trying to prove the point that with a flowery, elaborate explanation you can pass anything off as art.

AFAIK its called 'fine art' - make some art, dont matter how good it is, then give a speil explaining it. I knew a guy studying it. Suffice to say I wasn't impressed.

Also photos just look like normal snaps as opposed to portraits.

Calina

owlwink wrote: »

Picture 1
Looking down from our heteronormative pedestal we view a gender ****ed individual lighting the level below. Shoddy lipstick, marks out a colouring book attitude that the figure has towards its own performativity. Stubble grates at our expectations of womanly velour. We ourselves begin to lose ourselves as we view a malformed and malleable interpretation of gender identity.

Picture 2
Monroe obsession drips from the various masks being worn. A moment of outburst with the mirror allows the camera to capture the cracked pieces that have not survived the metamorphoses. The photographs in this project depict an exploration into the tidal waters of gender fluidity in a verismilitude of its chaotic manifestations.

OP, I do not have the faintest clue what you are trying to achieve, but what it looks like you managed to do is tell people how to interpret your photographs. This is a bad thing to do because it pisses off people like me who want to look at a piece of work and draw some of their own interpretation out of it.

From a technical point of view, and from a comparison with your blurb point of view, very little is working here. All I do know is you're telling me to interpret the images thus and what you have written in English is almost meaningless.

Looking at the photographs, they are far from being striking. Very far. I'm going to add that incidentally, they are nothing like what I would like to shoot, but that won't prevent me looking at the composition and the like.

The first one is sharp. The flash is overdone; the expression in your model's face lacks emotion. If I had taken the photograph, what I would have done with it was crop away some of the stuff around the ages, converted it to black and white and left the lipstick in red. As it stands now, it looks nothing like gender confusion per se. What you wrote about the picture is actually - in my view - very patronising to me at least because what I don't see when I am looking at the photograph is "We ourselves begin to lose ourselves as we view a malformed and malleable interpretation of gender identity." What I see is "someone has too much time on their hands".

The second one was shot from too high an angle.

As for the concept of exploration into gender fluidity, it's not cutting it for me. For the most part it seems to happen only when men dress up as women.

DonkeyStyle \o/

owlwink wrote: »

Just wondering what people think of this???????

I love it!
A disturbing fusion of cross-dressing / urban-exploration with a raw, unassuming, documentary style.

I like the symbolism in the second picture... the inaudible scream of the cross-dressing man seems to echo the (similarly imperceptible) message behind the photo itself... it presents us with an unusual paradox that mirrors (quite literally!) our own confused gender identity.

Have you got any women you can dress up like men? (I'm thinking eye-liner moustaches and bowler hats here)

Keem 'em coming IMO.

Hugh_C

I like the top one a lot, it's as if the pleats in his, erm, dress are like a cow's udder. I'm sure you intended that all along ...

owlwink

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote: »

I love it!
A disturbing fusion of cross-dressing / urban-exploration with a raw, unassuming, documentary style.

I like the symbolism in the second picture... the inaudible scream of the cross-dressing man seems to echo the (similarly imperceptible) message behind the photo itself... it presents us with an unusual paradox that mirrors (quite literally!) our own confused gender identity.

Have you got any women you can dress up like men? (I'm thinking eye-liner moustaches and bowler hats here)

Keem 'em coming IMO.

Finally someone who kinda likes them. They do need some editing work though.

Ricky91t

Im not trying to be smart or anything but the photographic type of these shots are ones you see taken by teenage girls on social networking sites!No 1 has all bits over exposed where the flash is reflecting off something thats oof!

And No 2 doesn't really do much for me

Keep trying though

owlwink

ricky91t wrote: »

Im not trying to be smart or anything but the photographic type of these shots are ones you see taken by teenage girls on social networking sites!No 1 has all bits over exposed where the flash is reflecting off something thats oof!

And No 2 doesn't really do much for me

Keep trying though

Ill post up some samples after I have done some editing.

Ricky91t

owlwink wrote: »

Ill post up some samples after I have done some editing.

Ok why didnt you just wait till after you editied?so we all saw the finished products and maybe the photod would of turned out much better..


Were you kinda looking for editing tips?

owlwink

ricky91t wrote: »

Ok why didnt you just wait till after you editied?so we all saw the finished products and maybe the photod would of turned out much better..


Were you kinda looking for editing tips?

Any tips really. Probably should have stated that. My Bad..

Dragan

owlwink wrote: »

Any tips really. Probably should have stated that. My Bad..

Just state in future that stuff if unfinished and you are looking for tips, also leave out the spiel and allow people to draw their own conlcusions.

A lot of the people here are highly talented and certainly don't need to be spoonfed and when allowed to draw their own conclusions the advice you will receive will be second to none.

owlwink

Dragan wrote: »

Just state in future that stuff if unfinished and you are looking for tips, also leave out the spiel and allow people to draw their own conlcusions.

A lot of the people here are highly talented and certainly don't need to be spoonfed and when allowed to draw their own conclusions the advice you will receive will be second to none.

Cool

owlwink

Heres two I did some editing on any tips???

Picture 1


Picture 2


Gonna keep working on them. Looking for advice really.

sunny2004

ok. i am going to give my honest opinion regarding the first 2 images.. I have viewed them a number of times....

They are in my humble opinion complete bullsh*t. I am sorry, I wouldnt know where to start to give an opinion on them professionally..
You have just posted the new ones above so I need a while to process them.

If you are offended by my remarks than I apologise without reservation..