Blake’s print works in a socio-historical context by using cultural and historical references to relay its message. Yeah Baby (2010), is a two-layer print, background and foreground, with a high amount of symbolism, both in the imagery and the use of color. Each layer works independently by presenting different aspects for interpretation, yet they are tied together by the common symbolisms presented within. This common thread revolves around the topic of sexuality, pornography and legitimize.
The foreground image that is being presented is the portrait of a young woman, yet this is not a traditional portrait. The angle in which the face is captured is from above, as opposed to from the front, suggesting a relation of dominance from the spectator to the woman. Also, the woman appears submissive, with her eyes glancing upwards, head tilted backwards and mouth open. In addition, she is adorned only with a pearl neckless, showing no signs of clothing. The image contains a sexual and pornographic connotation that is reenforced by the background layer.
The background layer presents a light purple colored repeating pattern that reflects the same style of design as similar patterns of European origin during the middle ages. When analyzing the symbolisms within this layer, the color purple and the rabbit images stand out. The color purple in western culture represents purity, nobility and royalty. If one takes into account that the repeating pattern resembles those that can be found in medieval tapestries, and that in most cases nobles where the only people that could afford them. This suggest that there is a relation between the type of pattern and the color that was chosen. In addition, the pattern contains images of rabbits, which in many cultures, is a symbol of fertility and sexuality. This interpretation of the imagery makes sense when it is compared to the foreground image, which also has a sexual connotation.
When the piece is viewed as a whole and all ideas, sexuality, pornography, purity and nobility, are tied together a critic about the purity of nobility can be seen. One that questions the legitimize of social hierarchy, since we are al humans with the same needs.
Feb 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Firstly, I’d like to say how interesting it was to see Ricardo’s train of thoughts on my work. I honestly had not thought about old world nobility much. Perhaps the purple was a subconscious nod to nobility and royalty on my part, as I was thinking of richness and dignity when choosing colors and patterns for my background. Ricardo gave a very thoughtful interpretation to my work, but there are a few things he did not address. They were things I dearly wished would be conveyed, but I was (and still am) highly concerned that my image needs tweaking to really show through. Undoubtedly I am dealing with highly loaded imagery, and I need to tread carefully. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t tread at all though, and working out specifics is what our critiques and discussions are meant for are they not?
ReplyDeleteFirst I would like to address, reiterate and expand on some of the points Ricardo made about my work. He mentioned that my two layers operate independently of one another, and on some levels they do. In my mind however, they are intertwined (then again I made it, so of course they are). In my mind pornography is as American as apple pie, and yes I know I am diving head first into Cliché land. Especially in this, the age of the Internet, we are exposed to sexual imagery very early and very often. I am trying to image a physical manifestation of this idea, as if sexual imagery were as pedestrian as wallpaper. Repeatable, reusable, background noise that we rarely consider the implications of.
As to the wallpaper, it is appropriated William Morris wallpaper, who was a textile designer, writer, and a pivotal figure in socialist thinking in Britain of the 1800’s. Using this wallpaper was particularly interesting, as it is somewhat of a “higher class” image being reused in a decidedly not so classy way (which can be again flopped around as this is a “fine art” image). Do I expect the viewer to know this? Not really, unless you are a textile art aficionado or a huge William Morris fan. It is not required knowledge for the piece as I think the “classiness” of the wallpaper is conveyed all on its own. For those that do know it provides another chuckle or realization that these two images in normal society do not belong together. Image classism is something I think about in the back of my mind, though never really what my work is directly about.
I am also glad Ricardo took notice of the strangeness of her face, pose, and especially her pearls. In the source image they were an extremely garish teal color, and I couldn’t stop asking myself, why the hell she was wearing them. Were they some kind of armament, something to keep her clothed, or something to make her look super hawt? I considered highlighting further her strange string of plastic pearls, but ultimately decided against it as I felt it would detract from what I was really grasping at.
Now to the points, or really just point, that Ricardo did not touch on. As I discussed earlier, I believe that sexual imagery is apple pie, or something like that (for those who were paying attention, I think it’s pedestrian and common). As images like these proliferated, they quickly became, subconsciously at the least, what we expect of our own sex lives. While I can only speak for myself, real sex is rather unlike pornography. What I wished to accomplish with Yeah Baby and subsequent images yet to be made, is to expose the absurdity of pornographic situations. I do not wish to directly attack pornography, as I find nothing wrong with it in and of itself, only with the “packaging.” When one thinks about pornographic images as wholly common, and for many, the first exposure to sex at a young age, and then looks at a porno, it is both hilarious and horrifying. As I am not balding, bulging with steroid induced muscles, and I do not have any tribal tattoos, I do not make a very fitting porn star. None of my girl friends have had fake blonde hair, worn copious amounts of lip gloss, were boob jobless, and didn’t have a “thing” for heels either. I guess I’m losing out.
ReplyDeleteMy intentions were to find, from the inexhaustible dregs of the internet, the most absurd, silly looking images I could find to reuse and force my audience to revaluate what they think is really attractive, and what they are shown by an established industry to get them…erm…excited. I want my audience to take a step back from what they are told is attractive through absurdity and humor.
As a quick side note, I would also like to mention that this source image, and many others I have yet to use, contained “naughty bits”. I decided to edit them out of my image entirely, leaving blank space, and in this case a phallic outline. I did this specifically to remove a primal level of attraction from the image. It allows you to divorce yourself from the sexual nature of the image and to focus on the strangeness of the face and its situation.
Sorry, it made me split my comment into two, as it was too long for one post. (yet another phallic reference?!) Also, if I never have to type the word pornographic again, that'll be ok.
ReplyDeleteP.S.-I hope my highly informal tone in my response paper is ok with everyone. I feel most comfortably talking about my own work in this manner, and I feel like I get at more truth when I can be a little more relaxed and informal. If someone is bothered by it...I will most likely ignore your feeble pleas. I do want to make it known though, that I did think seriously about this assignment, and did not treat it as a "joke". I am humorous, my work is (sometimes) humorous, and I feel most honest when my writing is that way too.