THE
PATHOLOGY OF GLAMOUR By Dr. Sacha Playfair, ARPS
Due to a
typing error in the October CRCN, which spoiled the content of
Iconoclastic No.2, I have re-published it again, along with No.3.
With apologies to Dr. Playfair. C.R.C.Editor
"Glamour
photos have shown one clear thing which forty years of medical
practice failed to
teach - that when women dress, he first bit of clothing they put on
is suitable footwear with heels like stilts.
This
interesting social fact is confirmed on the covering of a video
which promises to teach photographer how to become
"glamour" workers. There she stands (or squirms) contorted
into an arched position, bent backwards by tightening of her torso
muscles. Her buttocks stick out prominently, her breasts project
upwards, her stomach is tensed flat. Her head and neck are twisted
so that she is staring at the photographer, her mouth is half open
with lips pouting so that she seems to be crying out in agony. The
legs projected backwards at awkward angles with the feet bent down
sharply and in tight shoes with threateningly long stiletto heels..
All this is supposed to make her enchanting, but poor thing, she
seems to be in the terminal stages of strychnine poisoning.
Another
characteristic picture from the "glamour" collection is
that of a woman leaning back on a sofa. She is nude except for her
stiletto-heeled shoes, for the stocking she is pulling up over one
thigh, for the fur stole about her neck, and for a top hat on her
head. Not in my experience, a customary domestic scene.
We have seen
pictures of naked girls lying across craggy seaside rocks, or draped
against dry walling in the Cotswolds. Is there a special category of
masochist models, or could the model release form carry extra
clauses concerning danger money.
Come to think
of it, the word "glamour" is very difficult to define.
Perhaps a dictionary might help. In Longman`s I read: "... a
romantic and often illusory attractiveness." The Oxford Concise
describes ".. delusive or alluring beauty or charm."The
operative words could be "illusory" and
"delusive", though "synthetic" comes to mind, as
does "contrived". The more the photographer dictates
idiotic, zany poses, remote from life, the more he is making a fool
of the model, and a fool of himself.
A very
acceptable generalisation
is that young women are nice, and that (more often than not)
scantily-clad young women are even nicer. But they must look likely,
and not as some form of nightmare marionettes.
Poland
has a yearly photographic exhibition called Venus, held at
Cracow. It was my good fortune once to be able to visit it. A lot of
artistically beautiful homage to women, and quite free of thechimera
which is perpetrated in the name of "glamour". Gentle
shapes, forms and shadows were the features. In fact the only
artificiality to be found was in one picture in which the prone body
was photographed to suggest a landscape and very elegantly too was
this done.
If a
photographer is motivated to celebrate the shape of women. Let us
encourage him. But let him do it with the same esteem he might give
to recording the Lake District or the Taj Mahal. Feminists who
object to "glamour" condemn the sexuality inherent in such
photographs. They are mistaken. The real complaint is that most
"glamour" is absurd, mendacious and insincere. That the
model is wearing nothing, or next-to-nothing, is not relevant. That
she is posed into becoming a caricature is not forgiven.
3. THE
R.V.P. OF LANDSCAPES
By
Dr. Sacha Playfair, ARPS
Quite rightly
we pay homage to the beauty of landscapes and to the photographer
who captures it. But does he (or she) really do so? Quite often that
is questionable.
It is very
difficult indeed to convey on a two-dimensional sheet of paper the
aesthetic pleasure felt in viewing a large and three dimensional
stretch of scenery. The photographer is elated. There he stands at
the summit of a hill, surveying valleys, lakes or mountains set in
undulations of he countryside, with perhaps, glistening curves of
riverin the depths. The breeze is balmy, the sun is shining. He has
just enjoyed a delightful picnic and the company of his charming
partner. he feels relaxed, free
and happy. This is the moment he takes out a camera and
carefully composes the picture. Probably he instructs his companion
where to stand and to look appreciatively over the distance. Having
learnt by now that the proper place of woman is at the intersection
of the thirds, she dutifully obeys.
When some days
later he comes out of the darkroom with his enlargement, the
photographer is delighted. As he proudly examines it, he is reliving
the emotions of that time when he worked the shutter button.
Mentally he is back on the hill, mentally he is there, enjoying
again all the euphoria of that occasion. In other words it is a
retrospective sensation. It is a personal feeling compounded of
great memories. For him the picture is a matter of R.V.P., or
Retrospective Personal Value, a
reminder of felicity from space, scene, weather, freedom,
well-being, company.
It is truly
subjective. When he shows off his print to what he believes should
be an admiring public, he is disconcerted by its rather flat
response. These people have not been present to share the way he
felt at the time of its taking. They have no association of ideas by
which to them is just another "pretty view", competently
taken. "Very nice" they say briefly, handing it back to
the author, who is disappointed at having so many philistines about
him.
Alas, he
is unlikely to learn the lesson that the next time he sets
out for landscape photography he should choose to travel hungry, in
cold weather and escorted by his bank manager or by a representative
of Commissioners for Inland revenue. Personally, I happen to know
the main architect of Britain`s VAT system, and I might invite him
to come along.