Environment

The presentation of this series of images is what I feel is most important. I want the images to be seen as repulsive yet the viewer to be unaware of what they are of. Similar to my previous work with the meat and the shower gel, which was quite suggestive and provocative due to the viewer not knowing what was in the image, I want this series to have the same effect. I have cropped and edited the images so that although, the photos are still repulsive, hopefully it won’t be completely obvious that the material is meat. I want the images to be seen as obscene. I want the viewer to recognise that it might be sexual, dirty, repulsive and obscene, but I want them to be questioning what the photos are. I feel like that will make them an obscenity.

The four photos I plan on exhibiting: Going from the first image of the chicken being frozen, followed by it slowly defrosting and then being submerged in the urine.

Reflecting on these, I’m happy with the outcome of the photographs and the way the materials have contrasted to make it appear quite obscene, in a similar way to urolagnia. I feel that the images appear repulsive, confusing and quite sexually suggestive. However I feel that I should have experimented more with the size of the images. As last time I felt that using the photo in A3 had the best response, I decided to print these in A3 too. I am happy with this layout size, however I didn’t explore how they would appear if  they were to be larger and even projected. Until I have viewed other people’s reactions to the photographs though, I don’t think I can entirely reflect on how the series has worked. I intended on the images to provoke confusion and appear as an obscenity, but I don’t know yet if this is that they do.

Fetishes – Urolagnia

From looking into fetishes, a few of them which have stood out to me the most are ones involving materials which could be classed as repulsive. For example, Urolagnia, Emetophilia (involving vomit) and Coprophilia (involving faeces). As I am still intrigued in provoking disgust from the viewer as well as a sense obscenity I want to experiment with fetishes which can be seen as repulsive. Also because I have considered that not everyone will be disgusted by certain fetishes, the materials can still be seen as repulsive depending on the environment they are in. For example, although urine may not be seen as repulsive (for some people) when involved sexually, there’s a large chance it would be seen as grotesque if combined with a lump of raw meat.

‘Urolagnia (also known as urophilia) is a sexual fetish with a focus on urine and urination. People with urolagnia often like to urinate in public, or urinate on, or be urinated on by other people, and may also drink the urine. The consumption of urine is urophagia. Some like to watch others doing these things. These activities are often described by the euphemisms “golden showers” or “waterspouts”.’

Forms of Urolagnia – clothes wetting, exhibitionism, human urinal, omorashi (watching a person with the urgent need to urinate), voyeurism (viewing people urinate without them knowing).

As an experiment with involving fetishes with the repulsive/suggestive meat photos, I’ve made a series of photographs based around urolagnia. Using frozen chicken thighs, I have slowly defrosted the meat by coating it in warm piss. When I’ve used my own bodily material in work before such as my hair, I’ve never felt disgust to it due to it being my own and not somebody else’s. As I wanted to understand the same disgust at the material of urine as a viewer would, a friend urinated in a bag for me instead of using my own. The bag of urine was kept warm in a bucket of hot water so that when I poured it over the chicken it would start to defrost the meat (Can I link this to the fetish of frozen objects?).

A small selection of photos of the meat being defrosted by urine

Research into ‘Immersion/Piss Christ’ – Andres Serrano quite clearly relates to this piece of work as well. Piss christ is a famous photograph off what appears to be a crucifix that has been submerged in a glass of the artists urine. The famous photograph became really controversial due to ‘sacred’ object being contained in a repulsive and disrespectful material. It was the piss and the environment of the piss which made the image so offensive and disgusting. In response to Serrano’s work, I considered why the images I was making were so disgusting and in terms of fetishes when the urine is involved it may not be seen as obscene yet when it’s used as a mechanism of defrosting a piece of meat it’s obscene.

As I’m considering using photos from this piece of work as my exhibition piece I need to explore how I would display them, how many photos I would use and if they were to be edited in any way. I feel that although this work is quite repulsive and vulgar, I need to work more in a way to make the images obscene when being viewed.

Frozen meat ideas

Seeing a flatmate get chicken out of the freezer to defrost, I became really interested in the patterns imprinted into the meat. From where it had been in the plastic wrapping, shapes and patterns had been made and I found it strange how I was thinking how delicate  these patterns looked until I remembered I was looking at a piece of chicken. As soon as the meat was defrosting I saw it as a disgusting material again, however it made me think about the process from it being frozen to defrosted.

Why is the meat less repulsive when it’s frozen? Is it because I feel that it’s cleaner?

I wanted to record this as an idea and maybe explore if using frozen meat instead of fresh meat in my photos changes the reaction which could be produced.

The Difference between Obscene and Obscenity

Obscene – An adjective

Used to describe scenarios which could be offensive to current standards of decency or morality. Also Lewd or lustful, disgusting or repulsive, beyond all reason, liable to deprave or corrupt.

Obscenity – A noun

Used to explain something that is obscene, an act of obscene behaviour, an offensive word, a profanity, dirtiness. Obscenity is the qualities that make something obscene, lewdness, indecency or offensive behaviour.

My work currently is a combination of both obscenity and the obscene. It’s obscene because it can appear repulsive and lewd, yet is also an obscenity due to the abnormal nature of it. Another feature which contributes to it being an obscenity is the interpretations created. For example, the close up image of the chicken with shower gel on, where I questioned people on what they thought it was, resulted in a few provocative and sexual answers. This in itself was seen as an obscenity with the majority of people who said it looked like ‘cum’, finding it funny, uncomfortable or grotesque.

Sex is often seen as an obscenity due to it being able to offend, outrage and repulse some people. This relates back to looking into ‘erotic obscenity’, what makes sex obscene and the working with suggestive images.

Using ‘Andrea Dworkin – Pornography’, ‘Kerstin Mey – Art and Obscenity’ and ‘Lynda Nead – The female nude, Art, Obscenity and Sexuality’ I have explored sex in a way which it could be seen as obscene. From this research I’ve become more interested with the subject of fetishes.  Although sexual fetishes may not always be seen as obscene due to people having their own fetishes, I’m intending on experimenting with them in my work to see if they create any form of obscenity.

Does making the images suggestive make them obscene?

But then why is it obscene to someone, does sex in any form offend them?

Could I continue using meat and ‘repulsive’ and suggestive materials in the images along with sex to create obscenity?

Fetishes/Paraphilia:

Common (most popular fetishes according to research) – BDSM, Domination and Submission, role-play, rubber/latex/leather, Voyeurism and Exhibitionism, foot fetishism, cross-dressing, Urolagnia, group sex, adult babies, Anililagnia.

‘Weird fetishes’ (according to research) – balloons, Coulrophilia (sexual attraction to clowns), Dendrophilia (sexual attraction to trees), Voraphilia (pleasure from the thought of being swallowed), tentacles, Psychrophilia (fantasies of people freezing/having brain freeze), Mucophilia (sexually aroused by sneezing), Avisodomy (sexual attraction to birds), Emetophilia (fetish involving vomit), Mechanophilia (attraction to machines).

From researching into fetishes, there are hundreds and the lists could go on. The fetishes I have categorised as ‘common’ are the main fetishes that have been been found among people’s interests. When working with fetishes I do need to really consider that they are completely normal to some people and wouldn’t be seen as obscene at all. So how can I work with this is a way which could still create a sense of obscenity?

1:1 Theory tutorial

•  Write a blog post discussion on the londonography trip
• Research into Andre Serrano – Piss Christ (Photograph which depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artists urine. It’s always attracted controversy due to the repulsive and ‘disrespectful nature of the work.)

• Record evidence of broader context, for example the situation in the library where the man commented on how he felt repulsed by the photo I was printing. Discuss this more and look into the before and after of people’s reactions when they see my work.
• Research more into the difference between obscene and obscenity.
• The photograph of the chicken doesn’t appear so repulsive, maybe experiment with photographing it in a more sickening way?

I have photographed the meat before in ways which are more repulsive, for example the image below. However I feel like they have a completely different effect compared to the close up images, where the material is less repulsive yet you don’t know  what it is. Because meat is sold in the majority of shops, people are faced with seeing it whether they want to or not, so the sight of a piece of meat is repulsive but it isn’t an obscenity. If I explored the environment I put this though, would that make it obscene? Rather than just the meat being placed against a white background, should I look into putting it into a very humane and hygienic area? The combination of a clean and clinical setting mixed with something dirty and repulsive could be seen as an obscenity.

Reactions/Thoughts

People’s first interpretations of what’s in the image when viewing the photo:

• milk
• water
• soap
• cum
• cellophane
• meat
• skin
• An STD
• spit on a window
• inside of a throat
• flesh
• seashells
• milk and coffee
• glazed donut
• eye
• phlegm

Another quite different reaction I received was from a man working in the library. When printing images he (who was working next to me and noticed the photos) commented on them about how disgusted he was. I was told how in his opinion, it was clear that the photos were chicken and how they were repulsive and sickening. He also told me how he’s been a vegetarian for 15 years and feels like this might be one of the reasons he found the image so grotesque. He said how the thought of the feel, the smell and the place that the meat would be effects him just as much as the sight of it, giving me an example of how if he’s on the train and someone is eating meat he has to move to another carriage. As a vegetarian myself, I can understand not only the sight but the thought, smell, feel etc. is just as repulsive.

Although I initially didn’t expect his input, I found it really interesting and it has made me think more about the way I present the work. For example, if I were to have exhibited an actual piece of chicken covered in shower gel in the middle of the room what would be people’s reactions?

Compared to the photos where its questionable as to what the image is, the viewers would be aware of the materials however what would the focus point be on? Disgust at the smell? The environment? I feel like it would change the ideas of the unknown yet it would be interesting to experiment with peoples reactions when the subject matter is put in front of them.

 

Group Crit

What is it? – Initial impressions from group crit of what the image is

water

soap

glazed donut

tit covered in cum

latex

biological (inside of the body)

meat

Feedback after explantation of work –

Unknown, inside of something, close up image contributes to the idea of it being inside of something.

Experiment with scale of the image.

What effect would making it really large have, would it become more of a repulsive/confrontational piece? How would having the photo on a smaller scale impact the viewers interpretation?

Print onto canvas? Print onto large bits of material? Silk? (sensual material that the image could relate to)

FEMINITY – back to the idea of being inside the body, is it the fear of the inside compared to the outside?

Record the reaction before and after finding out the image’s subject matter.

Erotic Obscenity

What makes sex obscene?

When ‘disgusting’/defies modesty?

When exposed?

When unusual? – Fantasies – Fetishes

When shocking?

Henry Miller “Everybody says sex is obscene. The only obscenity is war.”

‘WHAT IS MORE OBSCENE SEX OR WAR?’

After searching ‘obscene sex’ into the news filter on google, the top three articles I found were the following:

• ‘Twister trainee accountant fired for sending obscene and ‘distressing‘ sex texts and pictures to three victims‘ (dailyrecord.co.uk)
• ‘Couple performs obscene sex acts on plane in front of shocked passengers‘ (mrconservative.com)
• ‘Katie Price: Sex with cross-dressing Alex Reid was obscene, depraved and left me frightened’ (mirror.co.uk)

Close up of raw meat coated in a shower gel. Does the added layer of material add to the way the image affects the viewer?

What is your initial thought when you view the image? Is it obscene?

Is this image more suggestive?

What thoughts does it provoke?

Was the raw meat obvious at first? If so are you more repulsed by the flesh or by the obscenity of the image?

The Infinite Mix – Cameron Jamie

The infinite mix presents audio-visual artworks by leading international artists Martin Creed, Jeremy Deller with Cecilia Bengolea, Stan Douglas, Cyprien Gaillard, Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster, Cameron Jamie, Kahlil Joseph, Elizabeth Price, Ugo Rondinone and Rachel Rose.

“Spanning a range of approaches and formats from cinema-style 3D video to hologram like projections and multi-screen installations, the works in the exhibition address us in ways that are conceptually as well as emotionally immersive.”

Not only was I completely intrigued by all the pieces of work in this exhibition, but I also found it relevant to my current ideas. I’m still focusing on obscenity and how I can repulse or shock the viewer in different ways. The format of this exhibition, with the large screens and blasting sounds made me consider how much of an effect it would create if I presented my work in a similar way.

Cameron Jamie’s work ‘Massage the history’, was one of the pieces I was strangely fascinated by. The film footage consisted of young men performing provocative and erotically charged dance with living room furniture. Whilst watching the footage, I felt a small sense of uncomfortableness due to how obscene and weird the video was. At the same time it was humorous and I could feel people around me watching the film and being as confused as me as to why they were performing like this. Jamie’s work relates to mine in a sense that the reaction I felt from his work was felling uncomfortable and confused and this is what I want from my work. This has made me think more about obscenity and instead of mainly focusing on repulsion and disgusting the viewer, I should look into strange and weird subject matters.

Large Scale – Close Up

Experimentation with the scale and crop of my images. Comparing the image where you can clearly see the raw meat next to the close up image, I feel the second photo will gain more of a response. It appears more obscene due to the fact it’s more unknown as to what it is and where it’s from.

Is it more repulsive? Is it more obscene?

Another aspect of this work I want to adjust to make the subject matter more unknown is the area on the meat I’ve taken the photograph. For example, the photograph below, I see as most repulsive and sickening. However it is also quite obvious that it isn’t human skin and is in fact just chicken meat. The sight of chicken flesh, although is disgusting to some people (including myself), is commonly seen and not shocking.

The use of a less obvious image, may also be less repulsive however makes it more obscene and questionable. When showing a small audience these images (the obvious chicken flesh photos like above) it was viewed as repulsive however when showing the photos which aren’t so obvious, they were more disgusted at the unawareness they had of the subject matter.