36 thoughts on “Holding space for forgiveness: a vision of healing”
One of the reasons (among many) that I have been married for 26 years to my husband is because with him I feel safe emotionally, physically and psychically; and I be the same safe place for him in all those ways as well.
In our society, males are taught that they cannot show or express their deepest feelings….except via sex.
Women are taught that they must withhold sex because that makes them more valuable.
So women are withholding from men the one way they are socially allowed to connect deeply and emotionally with another human being.
When a parent withholds love from their child, that child too often grows up to be violent either to themselves (usually females) or to others (usually males). When women withhold the thing males need in order to express their deepest feelings, the thing that makes males feel connected to another human being, is it any wonder some of these males get so violently angry? If society were to allow males their feelings in many other ways, perhaps they would not have sex so emotionally loaded; they would not see sex as a need. Women get their emotions out in many ways and many women don’t see sex as a need in the same way men do. Let’s teach our boys that they can cry, can open up, can FEEL in all the same ways as girls do without being made to feel shame for that. Imagine that, men are made to feel shame for openly showing their vulnerable feelings and women are made to feel shame for openly showing their sexual desires. There’s a link in that.
The idea of male sexuality as always being violent is maybe socially propagated but not one I believe in and I “have” been molested….twice; once as a child and again as a young teen.
If we stopped forcing men to be the killers, stopped making them feel ashamed for having and showing their feelings, would they be as violent as so many are now?
Pam, I am not saying it is — I want to test this widely-held theory or accusation.
Not sure that male desire is inherently violent – not easy to say no or turn aside or divert perhaps, especially if guys feel loved because they express themselves sexually (is that a cliché).
Perhaps this would help understand why a ‘no’ is not just (so) disappointing but a source of anger and helplessness. Also men might be less vocal than women as a species?
One thing about young sugar addicts is that they easily become alcoholics — since alcohol is the only other product that packs so much carbon/carbohydrate in one little swig. The neurological and hormonal groundwork is set in place.
As Green-Star-Gazer suggests, the grocery store check out lines are ripe with information about our cultural teachings! Have you noticed what is underneath the magazines with many breasts? Candy.
What is the associated message here?
Breasts (while very sexual) contain the source of nourishment for the gazing toddlers in their not-too-distant past. What better way to begin to sell them on the idea that candy is also a form of nourishment than to align them with the colorful covers.
And, if we keep going, we might want to consider what the effect of too much sugar is on developing children’s bodies and minds (or any of our bodies and minds).
None of this is by accident…but what are we to learn? And what would we like to do to shift what is happening in our culture right now?
Thank you for a forum to discuss such wide-ranging topics!
This photograph and the conversation are huge, and I cannot take it all in or respond at once. Instantly I was reminded of the video of women in India “catching men looking” in their mirrors, or rather the men caught themselves. I believe I saw it here, PW shared it.
This photograph is completely different. The mirror is an invitation to his desire, to his Self. He is invited to see himself as he is… and his desire is implied, or anticipated. She accepts it. She invites. The mirror is held over her heart.
If there is one way we can heal, it is to have the confidence to be invitations to one another, and know that we are physically, psychically safe. That we are risking everything, and as scary as it feels to do so, we are still safe.
GSG: I find your comments incredibly helpful and insightful. They are working their way in. Thank you.
In the UK, stats on domestic abuse against women in this country continue to increase with 7.3% women (1.2 million) and 5% men (800,000) report having experienced domestic abuse2.
31% women and 18% men have experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16 years. This amounts to 5 million women and 2.9 million men.
And as someone else quoted here: 2 women per week murdered by current or ex partners, which is a third of all female homicide in the UK.
It is likely though that the figures are likely to be higher for abuse against men because of the utter shame in acknowledging that it is happening at all. Culturally, at least over here, it is not yet well supported enough and the peer pressure amongst males, young and old to be a ‘man’ (not show vulnerability) is immense.
I have often visualised about what I would do differently faced with the circumstances that I experienced on my way home from school that lunchtime, on a road busy with traffic. And one of the things I have considered more than once, apart from letting all of my inner rage out in an attempt to scare the bejeesus out of him, because I was just in a stunned silence, was that I slowed it all down, really slow, and asked him questions, and that I looked him in the eye, that I held the gaze, and that because of that he would not hurt me. I believe even at 14 it was in me to do that.
For clarity re: violence and sexuality… Merc slowing down is at work here be fuddling my words!…. I meant this:
– of all the violence perpetrated on the planet, one gender seems to be vastly out-performing the other. Also within the sexual arena again, most of the violence that is perpetrated seems to be done so by one gender.
That said, I personally do NOT feel that in general sexual expressions of desire made by the male half of the population is inherently violent. And, I may be in the minority. That is what I was trying to say.
Appreciating the depth of the discussion here.
On the image as an image of a ritual- we, the viewers who were not present for the ritual have only what we bring to the image as a flat 2-D image and our own personal experiences in life. The people in the image (and any others present who are not in the image) have a very different relationship to this image because they have a memory of the experiences they were having around the time this image was captured and those memories cannot be separated from their experience of viewing the same 2-D image. Their brains offer up a more 3-D memory matrix and probably physiological responses along with the memory that the rest of us just will never have as we all view the 2_D image. For a participant of the moment it is impossible to un-remember that moment and accurately imagine how non-participants might/should/could see the image. Just adding that for clarity about viewpoints. No judgement, just commenting.
… ” That seems to be the underlying theme of this conversation — that many people perceive male sexuality and desire as in some way inherently violent. What if we work with that as a presupposition, for the sake of discussion? ”
This is an interesting comment and I’m not sure it is a valid presupposition, but it may be. Personally, as a woman, I do not perceive male sexuality and desire as inherently violent, but that is based on my own experience as I have not been raped or molested. The one time it was attempted on me I stopped it from escalating. I am also not exposed to much media (by choice) so I don’t know what is being projected into the collective thru these methods and what the collective is taking onboard.
I do perceive that most of the violence in general that happens here on the planet to be perpetrated by human males on both women and men and other life-forms, some of it is sexual in origins, but much of it not… but still the arena of violence seems to be something that is hooked more deeply into the male side of the population which is a core issue that must be addressed. However, that the quoted statement is made here makes me wonder if this is one of those wounds that the males are carrying… that they feel this in their core – that humanity sees male sexuality and desire as inherently violent. If so, what a burden this must be and… more importantly, how do we as a collective unwrap this and heal it?
Part of the answer may lie in being more aware of how our culture uses sex and violence in the media to continue to feed that dysfunction. Once we realize this and once we see our part in the process we can choose to unplug our support for those media. Money is the blood that allows them to continue, if we withdraw the money, they will eventually die. It is not a quick fix, but money is at the core of much of the violence that is promoted in the media, especially in music and movies. The twisted projection that male virility+power is achieved by entitlement and the willingness to use violence is aimed at young males because they are so easily hooked because their brains have not fully formed but their bodies are bathed constantly in hormonal changes that they have not yet learned how to manage. It starts very young. Just one small example: have you ever noticed in grocery stores the eye-level of the boob-busting covers of the “women’s” magazines? Who exactly are these images for? Take a look next time you are standing in line at the check-out counter… boy toddlers in the push carts of their moms are transfixed by these images…. so are pre-teen boys. The programming is delivered right into their brains thru their eyes. Mom’s are usually too tall to see the cover’s images effects on their own kids….that and they are usually on their cell phones so they miss the whole story! I see this as a small example of when the Feminine begins her abandonment of the masculine. “He” is left on his own without parental guidance to navigate these stimuli and thus the perpetration of the cycle begins.
Proverbs and Songs
by Antonio Machado
(English version by Robert Bly)
Dedicated to José Ortega y Gasset
I
The eye you see is not
an eye because you see it;
it is an eye because it sees you.
II
To talk with someone,
ask a question first,
then — listen.
III
Narcissism
is an ugly fault,
and now it’s a boring fault too.
IV
But look in your mirror for the other one,
the other one who walks by your side.
V
Between living and dreaming
there is a third thing.
Guess it.
VI
This Narcissus of ours
can’t see his face in the mirror
because he has become the mirror.
VII
New century? Still
firing up the same forge?
Is the water still going along in its bed?
VIII
Every instant is Still.
IX
The sun in Aries. My window
is open to the cool air.
Oh the sound of the water far off!
The evening awakens the river.
X
In the old farmhouse
– a high tower with storks! –
the gregarious sound falls silent,
and in the field where no on is,
water makes a sound among the rocks.
XI
Just as before, I’m interested
in water held in;
but now water in living
rock of my chest.
XII
When you hear water, does its sound tell you
if it’s from a mountain or farm,
city street, formal garden, or orchard?
XIII
What I find surprises me:
leaves of the garden balm
smell of lemonwood.
XIV
Don’t trace out your profile,
forget your side view –
all that is outer stuff.
XV
Look for your other half
who walks always next to you
and tends to be what you aren’t.
XVI
When spring comes,
go to the flowers –
why keep on sucking wax?
XVII
In my solitude
I have seen things very clearly
that were not true.
XVIII
Water is good, so is thirst;
shadow is good, so is sun;
the honey from the rosemarys
and the honey of the bare fields.
XIX
Only one creed stands:
quod elixum est ne asato.
Don’t roast what’s already boiled.
XX
Sing on, sing on, sing on,
the cricket in his cage
near his darling tomato.
XXI
Form your letters slowly and well:
making things well
is more important than making them.
XXII
All the same…
Ah yes! All the same,
moving the legs fast is important,
as the snail said to the greyhound.
XXIII
There are really men of action now!
The marsh was dreaming
of its mosquitoes.
XXIV
Wake up, you poets:
let echoes end,
and voices begin.
XXV
But don’t hunt for dissonance;
because, in the end, there is no dissonance.
When the sound is heard people dance.
XXVI
What the poet is searching for
is not the fundamental I
but the deep you.
XXVII
The eyes you’re longing for –
listen now –
the eyes you see yourself in
are eyes because they see you.
XXVIII
Beyond living and dreaming
there is something more important:
waking up.
XXIX
Now someone has come up with this!
Cogito ergo non sum.
What an exaggeration!
XXX
I thought my fire was out,
and stirred the ashes…
I burnt my fingers.
XXXI
Pay attention now:
a heart that’s all by itself
is not a heart.
XXXII
I’ve caught a glimpse of him in dreams:
expert hunter of himself,
every minute in ambush.
XXXIII
He caught his bad man:
the one who on sunny days
walks with head down.
XXXIV
If a poem becomes common,
passed around, hand to hand, it’s OK:
gold is chosen for coins.
XXXV
If it’s good to live,
then it’s better to be asleep dreaming,
and best of all,
mother, is to awake.
XXXVI
Sunlight is good for waking,
but I prefer bells –
the best thing about morning.
XXXVII
Among the figs I am soft.
Among the rocks I am hard.
That’s bad!
XXXVIII
When I am alone
how close my friends are;
when I am with them
how distant they are!
XXXIX
Now, poet, your prophecy?
“Tomorrow what is dumb will speak,
the human heart and the stone.”
XL
But art?
It is pure and intense play,
so it is like pure and intense life,
so it is like pure and intense fire.
You’ll see the coal burning.
Is the picture holding space for the story or is the story holding space for the picture?
What naive presuppositions are we asked to forgive?
Oh this picture tells a story — which is why I posted it and what I want to focus on.
I am presenting the narrative of a nonviolent model of male-female sexual relating. That seems to be the underlying theme of this conversation — that many people perceive male sexuality and desire as in some way inherently violent. What if we work with that as a presupposition, for the sake of discussion?
If that is presumed true for a moment, then what would it look like to withdraw that violence and still leave the desire present?
What would it look like for someone to stand (or kneel) in the face of a man’s desire and not be intimidated? What would that understanding be, and moreover, how would it feel? What would her expectations reasonably be?
What process would he have to go through in order to be able to find that space? What would her role be in helping him find and be steady there?
I believe these are the questions we are really asking.
It is not mise en scene (French photographic genere meaning visual theme, or telling a story with a photograph, essentially contrived). If you are seeing mise en scene, you’re not seeing this photograph for what it is, in documentary fact. (And since we are not talking deconstructionism, I can say that.)
There was no ideology; there was and is life. It is a live ritual happening. There is intent to the ritual, as there must be.
This is also one of a series of about 100 photos. Everyone involved had done similar rituals before, and many photo sessions, so there was a sense of familiarity.
At the same time, it was edgy; everyone took an emotional risk, and other risks, creating these photos. One detail I can reveal is that the photographer was my lover and it was not easy for her to witness this scene. I was by far the most experienced in erotic ritual and it was edgy for me because of the intimacies and feelings involved.
For reference there is no way I could “create” that expression on my face. You are looking at an experience of contact and an inner shift. The presence of the camera and the photographer tends to act as a catalyst.
In many respects this is not so different than any other attribute of Book of Blue. There is always an invitation and then a live ritual.
Not sure your experience with photography but there are certain things that you cannot get as candids, if only because a camera, or a third person, in the space is highly inappropriate; its necessary to invite something to happen and photograph it, not quite knowing what it’s going to end up as. Everyone went into their experience spontaneously.
How is any of this an intent in commerce? That would def disqualify it as art and as tarot card; a concept does not. The photos were never made with the intent of illustrating anything. They were made for the intent of documenting something exclusively for me, for my own growth and recording a phase of my personal history.
What is odd from the standpoint of ritual or art is telling the background, though after working with a process and set of ideas for perhaps 20 years and seeing problems arise in our society that could be addressed by those processes and ideas, I’ve decided to open up about this.
“The scene above illustrates compersion.”
Yes, evidently the art includes commercial intent (nothing wrong with that). However, the project’s ideologically saturated mise-en-scène begs to be questioned.
P.S. Badiou is not a deconstructionist, et bien sûr, il est un Français.
Some quotes from those philosophy pages referenced by bodymind below:
The essence of love is to be neither trivial nor sublime. This is why, as everyone knows, it is on the order of hard labor, which is the limping march of the double function of an indeterminacy, the atom u.
Of what order is this labor? Love cannot avoid the return of sexual non-rapport in the modality of a misunderstanding of the object which assures the equivocal triumph of the One and erases the contours of the Two. It can only construct the Two toward the exterior, and not, as such, toward the interior object. Love is thus the alternating movement of an external expansion of the Two, which constructs the scene, and of a return of the atomic object, which erases the two as such, but not exactly the virtual outline of its expansion.
==
And of course, one must at this point come to some transcendental deduction of the sexes. This can wait for another time. Because “woman” and “man” do not enter into the subject-Two in the same way.
==
Neither absolute transcendence, nor the Trinitarian doctrine. It is from this point of view tat one can see to what degree love is atheistic. Because atheism is, in the end, nothing other than the immanence of the Two. Love is atheistic in the sense that the Two never pre-exists its process.
It is thus, as an experience in which God fails to guarantee the pre-existence of the separation, that I understand for my part the enigmatic sentence that the poet Pessoa pronounced to his heteronym Caeiro, and with which I’m pleased to conclude: “Love is a thought.”
==
Ok this is all a little heady; It would take me a while to branch this out into experience to ensure that I have a confident and original understanding of what the author is getting at. I am detecting that this is deconstructionist. But it’s just French philosophy so it sounds like it. The author says he’s Marxist. However “Love is a thought” sounds materialistic.
That aside, imagine how simple this would be if we grasped compersion.
Most people who struggle with compersion cannot get past their initial jealous impulse, which is a death-like fear of loss of attachment. So they smash into jealousy like a wall of possession. It’s a visceral response.
The scene above illustrates compersion. It’s a mutually embracing bond of love that is also self-embracing. It’s holding a mutual space for the erotic reality of both people. It is not an entirely alien concept on Earth but often seems so. Not a theory but an organic expeience of existence that takes hold and grows not despite the rain and wind but thanks to them.
And yes – I think that some of the most powerful, deepest work we can do is to see where we are projecting and call it back.
Thank you for your courage, honesty and awareness, Eric. Even if it’s not always comfortable, I am always learning from you. And yes, the issue of being perfect is a very strong and painful one for one for me, particularly strong right now – and your words (and actions) here help me enormously.
And how can I not post this wonderful song?(again) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sKzMEQ6MUo
What a beautiful photograph Eric. There’s a lot of unspoken language between you and Heather. The silence is wonderful. It’s simplicity speaks volumes and I appreciate it quietly. Thank you for sharing it here.
There is projection BUT there are also the social cues that we have all been programmed for and that, if given, WILL cause someone to read them in the ways that we are all socially programmed to read them. This means when having a dialogue on the internet, it is imperative that writers watch the kinds of cues they send out.
If I want a dialogue without things getting personal, I refrain from using any terms of endearment in my replies and posts. If I have been diligent in this and the reader still thinks we have a friendship, then it IS likely projection. If I have not, then I am responsible for initiating social cues that made the reader think the dialogue had progressed into a more personal relationship. I would have to own up to that and explain myself to the reader instead of just assuming they were projecting. So it is important to always make sure of what we write when we deal with people; know what our intentions are, be aware of the generally accepted social cues and only use cues that are in line with the type of dialogue/relationship we are looking for with anyone we have any conversation with.
I learned this in my long-time conversations on a message board in which the posters all discussed religion. It has served me well to keep what I learned in mind when posting and e-mailing others.
If I were known to be absolutely respectful all the time to everyone, there would be a good chance I was hiding something. I experience the full range of human emotions and responses to other humans. One misconception of a man is that he must be perfect.
I do my best to not to be perfect but rather to be who I am all the time and to minimize the ‘show’ factor in media and the politics element with the many people I work with.
There is also a projection factor. You might (or might not) be amazed what is projected onto me, especially since I put myself right out where I can be seen. People who have never met me, never written to me and never heard from me personally maintain inwardly dramatized fully developed relationships with me that go on for years. Sometimes I hear about them and obviously sometimes I do not.
I know the story behind some comments shared, and I don’t say anything because it would be petty. I am confident that most people trust I try to be clear with everyone, even if that takes time.
In any event, the fact that you may recognize me makes that part of the narrative, for you. So you have your personal response to me to consider, and then your personal response to my artwork, which might shift how you feel about me. You went beyond the South Park reaction — “Oh, that’s just Eric … [fill in the blank],” and it sounded from your description actually a bit transcendent.
In the situation of a person who is well known or well known to a community, people tend to make up their mind about how they want to see that person or how they think they see them (even…wow I never imagined you eating). I am aware that there is a constituency here that has turned its nose up at my Book of Blue photography. There are many who turn their nose up at any artwork made by a man that includes any female nudity. There is a theory that it’s automatically not art.
Some have judged my photography sexist and others have made up stories about it. I am happy to be confident enough never to have let that stopped me from creating or sharing it, or thinking any less of what I have created, with my collaborators. I know what I am saying and how far being an artist has taken me that words never could.
I know my work is real. I know how much I love Heather Fae and what she taught me; what I have chosen to learn from her and how beautiful it feels to love her.
With regards to this part of your comment re: “… The meaning of whether one of the models is me is a question worth investigating, per Mia F. below. Would it matter were I not recognized? How far to take that is another question. In that would be included why I am the male actor, not someone else.”
Since you have asked, with greatest respect I want to say this:
Yes, knowing that the man in the image was you made me skip right over this image the first and second time. Here is why. From the other threads and over the course of time here in PW, there have been multiples of women’s voices saying that they have experienced, how shall I say it, SOME lack of respect SOME of the time from you specifically? I say this not to be adversarial, but to mention it as fact and as a part of the dynamic here in the PW community. I have been one of these voices in the past though not so in this moment.
So here is something to contemplate: if there are women speaking up about this here in this place, then there could be an aspect of this image ( if we want to see YOU personally as the male character in the image) where you personally might be UNconsciously asking for forgiveness… is that a possibility? You don’t have to answer me, it is just something that comes up as I bear witness to this whole process here in this community. Since you chose to publish the image, (a fact in itself that shows a considerable amount of bravery and vulnerability which I commend), and since we recognize you personally, this is a possible factor in why this image is appearing at this time. I honestly don’t know and it is not for me to sort out, only offer up.
What I do know is that recognizing the male actor as you personally MAY make it harder for some people to enter the image. I was definitely one of these. That said, because this image IS so powerful, it drew me back, despite my objections, and so it has been a very powerful growth experience for me, and for that I can thank you and do.
Nevertheless, the dilemma of personal recognition within the context of one’s art remains in the air. Generally speaking if one is making an image on an archetypal level then usually anonymity is best. If the image maker wants the focus to be on the content of the image, and if you want to be clean and clear of any of these sorts of personal confusions/projections, then you might want to consider publishing images where the identity of the models can be more ambiguous by creative use of costumes, cropping, and/or lighting for instance. By presenting these powerful images without the personal connections, we, as viewers thus can’t get caught up in making personal evaluations/projections about the content of the image, rather we can see the images as more archetypal, which is why I couched my original comments in that language for that was the only way I could enter the image. As an creative tool photography can be so very powerful and images of this kind can be extremely provocative AND healing.
Carecare7s comments are also very well taken. In our culture it is generally women’s nude bodies that are barely acceptable (pun intended) in public arenas and even then only selectively (or abusively) so. Eventually, hopefully, we will be able to approach and enter imagery similar to this one with the roles reversed. We as a collective will need to confront the place where the Feminine must ask forgiveness from the Masculine if our wholeness is to truly get on track. We have a ways to go yet however to get to the place of safety where we can all enter THAT image, but first we all have to get over and be healed from our fear of an unclothed male body. This may take some time as our media seems to sexualize everything and while we still grapple with the legacy of the patriarchy, naked male bodies are generally seen as more threatening than women’s bodies. Such is the state of our collective.
Yes.
She seems ready to hold space for whatever he may be feeling, no matter how fierce, vulnerable or passionate — and not need to take it on. The mirror reflects whatever that is back to him — or that option is there. Her intent is clearly to look and to show; at this particular moment he is ambivalent but clearly engaged in the experience of whatever is going to happen next.
“We can study the body language against all the scripts that Carey is so eloquently describing below. How does the body language in the image contrast to all of the scripting, gender politics, victim/perp thinking of current relational models?”
Yes, (it is Carrie BTW), do look at the body language from the lens of how our culture programs us to “see” the image this picture is and then try to see it without that programming. The programming is everything because it is the lens through which we all see ourselves and others. Getting past that lens may take a lifetime but it is well worth it.
Her facial expression (what we can see of it), his facial expression, the mirror all remind me of a Greek passion play; she is “the goddess” and he is adoring her. Or both are gods but she is showing (via the mirror) his god-within to him. Or the mirror shows us the other gender in ourselves even as it shows us our actual gender. Or the mirror shows us that we are human just as she (in our society “the object”) is. Soooo many ways to look at the photo.
Is sex involved? Should it be? Is that bad or good? Is it subtly there even if we deny it? Or do we make this photo about sex because of the nudity in it? Would an asexual see it the same way as a sexual person? Do cis gendered see it the same as bisexuals or homosexuals see it? What about transgendered folks; how would they see it? Do the genders of the two people in the photo even matter? Why? Why not?
So many ways to look at this one picture. Programming is pervasive and hard to see unless one is consciously trying to see it.
The mirror is the whole point of the experience; it is a mirror ritual. That is why I ask whether it’s the real subject; whether it’s not really a photo of the mirror.
Maybe it’s just too unimportant to mention, but for me it’s the mirror that pulls me out of the photo. When I think of the vulnerability and nakedness that I feel with sex-sexuality, I think of a piece of a mirror/glass– all jagged edges and somewhat dangerous. The mirror that she’s holding between her breasts is too … perfect and store-bought. I’d want more of a glimpse of an eye or a knee cap and an unknowingness of what’s going on, confusion, fear. Perhaps what you’re intending here needs a full-on obvious moment to communicate it’s meaning. Or I’m really out there .. .or both.
m.
Beautiful job of sussing out this photo so far…and I appreciate the sensitivity, insight and recognition of vulnerability in publishing it here on PW for the first time. It is part of a series done in early 2008 or 2009.
It is not a posed photo; it’s a photo of a live ritual. Still, it was created by a group of actors and artists, who were operating collectively with the “intent of the image maker,” to borrow from my friend Kelly.
You can ask yourself: what was the intent of the image maker? Note, everything in the scene can be presumed to be the intent of the image maker — including stylization points like dress, scene, hair, makeup, etc.
The meaning of whether one of the models is me is a question worth investigating, per Mia F. below. Would it matter were I not recognized? How far to take that is another question. In that would be included why I am the male actor, not someone else.
One thing I suggest we study closely is the eye contact — and the eye levels.
Where is she holding the mirror, and why? How would this photo be different without the mirror? Is the subject of the photo the people, or is it the mirror?
What is the relationship between the people in the photo, as implied and as demonstrated?
I also suggest we study the intent that each of the actors is projecting — body language as language.
We can study the body language against all the scripts that Carey is so eloquently describing below. How does the body language in the image contrast to all of the scripting, gender politics, victim/perp thinking of current relational models?
What is it about this photo that makes it sexual, and what exempts it from being sexual?
Carecare7 … sign me up for that world! 🙂
“….. he wants to gaze into her eyes, but she is holding up a mirror and he feels she wants him to look there, but if he looks there how can he look in the mirror and not look at her breasts? I feel his turmoil. As a man, part of him just wants to look at her breasts, but if he does he will see himself… and I don’t think he wants to see himself. And somehow, I think she knows this… and it exactly what she wants to show him… his own struggle. She’s looking right down INto him, loving him and waiting for him to look at her, directly in the eye. She is waiting for that but first he needs to learn how to look in the mirror and not get lost in looking at her breasts.”
Such a good place to start with this. Just imagine this; what if the man and woman in this picture were NOT part of Western culture at all but were instead part of a South American indigenous group of people who live their lives naked every day? Would the whole issue of him looking at her breasts even BE an issue then? My point is, a lot of what we all deal with in Western culture (or even some Eastern cultures) has to do with the way we have been programmed to see men, women, nakedness and sexuality. I would posit that where religion resides, there resides a lot of programming that separates the genders and causes one to be subordinate to the other.
In some indigenous societies, the genders were/are not so uptight about sex, gender, body parts and all the bullshit so many humans get all wrapped up in. Imagine a society where sex is so natural, so organic to the people in that culture that it is not even noticed. Not deliberately ignored (because of a label of “sin” attached to it or the label of it being too much attachment to the physical) but just part of the daily scenario of waking, eating, sleeping, cooking, fucking, loving, napping, walking, running, shitting, peeing, touching. After all, many animal species have no thought for what they do or don’t wear, where they fuck, when they fuck (except those who have certain fertile times), who they fuck (except often the females choose) and how they fuck. What if humans did that?
WE place the value judgements on nakedness, genders, sex, and all that. WE put those on our kids, too. Those value judgements vary from culture to culture and geographical place to geographical place. Many African tribes in hot areas have women bare breasted and they don’t have the breastfeeding stigma, or stigma about men looking at breasts (nor do men in those cultures get as fixated on breasts as American men do); it is a learned thing. This means we can UN-learn all that starting with men (but including women, too) now and especially helping our sons (and daughters) to grow up without it at all.
This scenario has no victims, no perpetrators, just programmed people who need reprogramming. Interestingly enough, Timothy Leary once said LSD was an excellent tool (when mindset, setting, and dosage were carefully considered) for RE-PROGRAMING the brain. Imagine clinics where we could all go to get de-programmed and re-programmed for better attitudes and feelings about sex, gender, and sexuality? Then the guy in the photo would not have to worry about looking at her breasts; in fact he might not have as much interest in them as he used to or his interest might not include the shame and the woman would not have the fear of male entitlement, of being objectified, or fear of violence from males.
Oh what a world that would be.
Deeply moving expression of soul level vulnerability. Thank you for this divine gift.. Exquisite! <3
Truly beautiful honesty.
I want to comment about this photo but I want to be clear that I’m not commenting about the people, personally, in the photo. I’m seeing archetypes here and that is what I’m responding to and as a woman myself I can only see this from my limited perspective.
The first time I looked at this photo I dismissed it entirely because the woman’s breast was bared.
The second time I looked at this photo I got past her bare breast and looked at her face and eyes and I was swept up in her compassionate composure and powerful Feminine presence.
The third time I look at this image, I feel myself choking up… and I can’t explain this. I see that the man doesn’t quite know where to look… he wants to gaze into her eyes, but she is holding up a mirror and he feels she wants him to look there, but if he looks there how can he look in the mirror and not look at her breasts? I feel his turmoil. As a man, part of him just wants to look at her breasts, but if he does he will see himself… and I don’t think he wants to see himself. And somehow, I think she knows this… and it exactly what she wants to show him… his own struggle. She’s looking right down INto him, loving him and waiting for him to look at her, directly in the eye. She is waiting for that but first he needs to learn how to look in the mirror and not get lost in looking at her breasts. I also am aware that this could possibly be all projection on my part to be seeing what I see in this image… but I viscerally feel the man’s turmoil so perhaps this is not projection. I feel uneasy because I don’t know for certain.
The triangulation in this image between the man’s eyes, the mirror and the woman’s eyes is really profound to me now…. and I would have missed it if I hadn’t taken a second or a third look and stopped my judging mind. I feel humbled. I feel grateful. I feel vulnerable. I feel hopeful.
One of the reasons (among many) that I have been married for 26 years to my husband is because with him I feel safe emotionally, physically and psychically; and I be the same safe place for him in all those ways as well.
In our society, males are taught that they cannot show or express their deepest feelings….except via sex.
Women are taught that they must withhold sex because that makes them more valuable.
So women are withholding from men the one way they are socially allowed to connect deeply and emotionally with another human being.
When a parent withholds love from their child, that child too often grows up to be violent either to themselves (usually females) or to others (usually males). When women withhold the thing males need in order to express their deepest feelings, the thing that makes males feel connected to another human being, is it any wonder some of these males get so violently angry? If society were to allow males their feelings in many other ways, perhaps they would not have sex so emotionally loaded; they would not see sex as a need. Women get their emotions out in many ways and many women don’t see sex as a need in the same way men do. Let’s teach our boys that they can cry, can open up, can FEEL in all the same ways as girls do without being made to feel shame for that. Imagine that, men are made to feel shame for openly showing their vulnerable feelings and women are made to feel shame for openly showing their sexual desires. There’s a link in that.
The idea of male sexuality as always being violent is maybe socially propagated but not one I believe in and I “have” been molested….twice; once as a child and again as a young teen.
If we stopped forcing men to be the killers, stopped making them feel ashamed for having and showing their feelings, would they be as violent as so many are now?
Pam, I am not saying it is — I want to test this widely-held theory or accusation.
Not sure that male desire is inherently violent – not easy to say no or turn aside or divert perhaps, especially if guys feel loved because they express themselves sexually (is that a cliché).
Perhaps this would help understand why a ‘no’ is not just (so) disappointing but a source of anger and helplessness. Also men might be less vocal than women as a species?
One thing about young sugar addicts is that they easily become alcoholics — since alcohol is the only other product that packs so much carbon/carbohydrate in one little swig. The neurological and hormonal groundwork is set in place.
As Green-Star-Gazer suggests, the grocery store check out lines are ripe with information about our cultural teachings! Have you noticed what is underneath the magazines with many breasts? Candy.
What is the associated message here?
Breasts (while very sexual) contain the source of nourishment for the gazing toddlers in their not-too-distant past. What better way to begin to sell them on the idea that candy is also a form of nourishment than to align them with the colorful covers.
And, if we keep going, we might want to consider what the effect of too much sugar is on developing children’s bodies and minds (or any of our bodies and minds).
None of this is by accident…but what are we to learn? And what would we like to do to shift what is happening in our culture right now?
Thank you for a forum to discuss such wide-ranging topics!
This photograph and the conversation are huge, and I cannot take it all in or respond at once. Instantly I was reminded of the video of women in India “catching men looking” in their mirrors, or rather the men caught themselves. I believe I saw it here, PW shared it.
This photograph is completely different. The mirror is an invitation to his desire, to his Self. He is invited to see himself as he is… and his desire is implied, or anticipated. She accepts it. She invites. The mirror is held over her heart.
If there is one way we can heal, it is to have the confidence to be invitations to one another, and know that we are physically, psychically safe. That we are risking everything, and as scary as it feels to do so, we are still safe.
GSG: I find your comments incredibly helpful and insightful. They are working their way in. Thank you.
In the UK, stats on domestic abuse against women in this country continue to increase with 7.3% women (1.2 million) and 5% men (800,000) report having experienced domestic abuse2.
31% women and 18% men have experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16 years. This amounts to 5 million women and 2.9 million men.
And as someone else quoted here: 2 women per week murdered by current or ex partners, which is a third of all female homicide in the UK.
It is likely though that the figures are likely to be higher for abuse against men because of the utter shame in acknowledging that it is happening at all. Culturally, at least over here, it is not yet well supported enough and the peer pressure amongst males, young and old to be a ‘man’ (not show vulnerability) is immense.
I have often visualised about what I would do differently faced with the circumstances that I experienced on my way home from school that lunchtime, on a road busy with traffic. And one of the things I have considered more than once, apart from letting all of my inner rage out in an attempt to scare the bejeesus out of him, because I was just in a stunned silence, was that I slowed it all down, really slow, and asked him questions, and that I looked him in the eye, that I held the gaze, and that because of that he would not hurt me. I believe even at 14 it was in me to do that.
For clarity re: violence and sexuality… Merc slowing down is at work here be fuddling my words!…. I meant this:
– of all the violence perpetrated on the planet, one gender seems to be vastly out-performing the other. Also within the sexual arena again, most of the violence that is perpetrated seems to be done so by one gender.
That said, I personally do NOT feel that in general sexual expressions of desire made by the male half of the population is inherently violent. And, I may be in the minority. That is what I was trying to say.
Appreciating the depth of the discussion here.
On the image as an image of a ritual- we, the viewers who were not present for the ritual have only what we bring to the image as a flat 2-D image and our own personal experiences in life. The people in the image (and any others present who are not in the image) have a very different relationship to this image because they have a memory of the experiences they were having around the time this image was captured and those memories cannot be separated from their experience of viewing the same 2-D image. Their brains offer up a more 3-D memory matrix and probably physiological responses along with the memory that the rest of us just will never have as we all view the 2_D image. For a participant of the moment it is impossible to un-remember that moment and accurately imagine how non-participants might/should/could see the image. Just adding that for clarity about viewpoints. No judgement, just commenting.
… ” That seems to be the underlying theme of this conversation — that many people perceive male sexuality and desire as in some way inherently violent. What if we work with that as a presupposition, for the sake of discussion? ”
This is an interesting comment and I’m not sure it is a valid presupposition, but it may be. Personally, as a woman, I do not perceive male sexuality and desire as inherently violent, but that is based on my own experience as I have not been raped or molested. The one time it was attempted on me I stopped it from escalating. I am also not exposed to much media (by choice) so I don’t know what is being projected into the collective thru these methods and what the collective is taking onboard.
I do perceive that most of the violence in general that happens here on the planet to be perpetrated by human males on both women and men and other life-forms, some of it is sexual in origins, but much of it not… but still the arena of violence seems to be something that is hooked more deeply into the male side of the population which is a core issue that must be addressed. However, that the quoted statement is made here makes me wonder if this is one of those wounds that the males are carrying… that they feel this in their core – that humanity sees male sexuality and desire as inherently violent. If so, what a burden this must be and… more importantly, how do we as a collective unwrap this and heal it?
Part of the answer may lie in being more aware of how our culture uses sex and violence in the media to continue to feed that dysfunction. Once we realize this and once we see our part in the process we can choose to unplug our support for those media. Money is the blood that allows them to continue, if we withdraw the money, they will eventually die. It is not a quick fix, but money is at the core of much of the violence that is promoted in the media, especially in music and movies. The twisted projection that male virility+power is achieved by entitlement and the willingness to use violence is aimed at young males because they are so easily hooked because their brains have not fully formed but their bodies are bathed constantly in hormonal changes that they have not yet learned how to manage. It starts very young. Just one small example: have you ever noticed in grocery stores the eye-level of the boob-busting covers of the “women’s” magazines? Who exactly are these images for? Take a look next time you are standing in line at the check-out counter… boy toddlers in the push carts of their moms are transfixed by these images…. so are pre-teen boys. The programming is delivered right into their brains thru their eyes. Mom’s are usually too tall to see the cover’s images effects on their own kids….that and they are usually on their cell phones so they miss the whole story! I see this as a small example of when the Feminine begins her abandonment of the masculine. “He” is left on his own without parental guidance to navigate these stimuli and thus the perpetration of the cycle begins.
Proverbs and Songs
by Antonio Machado
(English version by Robert Bly)
Dedicated to José Ortega y Gasset
I
The eye you see is not
an eye because you see it;
it is an eye because it sees you.
II
To talk with someone,
ask a question first,
then — listen.
III
Narcissism
is an ugly fault,
and now it’s a boring fault too.
IV
But look in your mirror for the other one,
the other one who walks by your side.
V
Between living and dreaming
there is a third thing.
Guess it.
VI
This Narcissus of ours
can’t see his face in the mirror
because he has become the mirror.
VII
New century? Still
firing up the same forge?
Is the water still going along in its bed?
VIII
Every instant is Still.
IX
The sun in Aries. My window
is open to the cool air.
Oh the sound of the water far off!
The evening awakens the river.
X
In the old farmhouse
– a high tower with storks! –
the gregarious sound falls silent,
and in the field where no on is,
water makes a sound among the rocks.
XI
Just as before, I’m interested
in water held in;
but now water in living
rock of my chest.
XII
When you hear water, does its sound tell you
if it’s from a mountain or farm,
city street, formal garden, or orchard?
XIII
What I find surprises me:
leaves of the garden balm
smell of lemonwood.
XIV
Don’t trace out your profile,
forget your side view –
all that is outer stuff.
XV
Look for your other half
who walks always next to you
and tends to be what you aren’t.
XVI
When spring comes,
go to the flowers –
why keep on sucking wax?
XVII
In my solitude
I have seen things very clearly
that were not true.
XVIII
Water is good, so is thirst;
shadow is good, so is sun;
the honey from the rosemarys
and the honey of the bare fields.
XIX
Only one creed stands:
quod elixum est ne asato.
Don’t roast what’s already boiled.
XX
Sing on, sing on, sing on,
the cricket in his cage
near his darling tomato.
XXI
Form your letters slowly and well:
making things well
is more important than making them.
XXII
All the same…
Ah yes! All the same,
moving the legs fast is important,
as the snail said to the greyhound.
XXIII
There are really men of action now!
The marsh was dreaming
of its mosquitoes.
XXIV
Wake up, you poets:
let echoes end,
and voices begin.
XXV
But don’t hunt for dissonance;
because, in the end, there is no dissonance.
When the sound is heard people dance.
XXVI
What the poet is searching for
is not the fundamental I
but the deep you.
XXVII
The eyes you’re longing for –
listen now –
the eyes you see yourself in
are eyes because they see you.
XXVIII
Beyond living and dreaming
there is something more important:
waking up.
XXIX
Now someone has come up with this!
Cogito ergo non sum.
What an exaggeration!
XXX
I thought my fire was out,
and stirred the ashes…
I burnt my fingers.
XXXI
Pay attention now:
a heart that’s all by itself
is not a heart.
XXXII
I’ve caught a glimpse of him in dreams:
expert hunter of himself,
every minute in ambush.
XXXIII
He caught his bad man:
the one who on sunny days
walks with head down.
XXXIV
If a poem becomes common,
passed around, hand to hand, it’s OK:
gold is chosen for coins.
XXXV
If it’s good to live,
then it’s better to be asleep dreaming,
and best of all,
mother, is to awake.
XXXVI
Sunlight is good for waking,
but I prefer bells –
the best thing about morning.
XXXVII
Among the figs I am soft.
Among the rocks I am hard.
That’s bad!
XXXVIII
When I am alone
how close my friends are;
when I am with them
how distant they are!
XXXIX
Now, poet, your prophecy?
“Tomorrow what is dumb will speak,
the human heart and the stone.”
XL
But art?
It is pure and intense play,
so it is like pure and intense life,
so it is like pure and intense fire.
You’ll see the coal burning.
Is the picture holding space for the story or is the story holding space for the picture?
What naive presuppositions are we asked to forgive?
Oh this picture tells a story — which is why I posted it and what I want to focus on.
I am presenting the narrative of a nonviolent model of male-female sexual relating. That seems to be the underlying theme of this conversation — that many people perceive male sexuality and desire as in some way inherently violent. What if we work with that as a presupposition, for the sake of discussion?
If that is presumed true for a moment, then what would it look like to withdraw that violence and still leave the desire present?
What would it look like for someone to stand (or kneel) in the face of a man’s desire and not be intimidated? What would that understanding be, and moreover, how would it feel? What would her expectations reasonably be?
What process would he have to go through in order to be able to find that space? What would her role be in helping him find and be steady there?
I believe these are the questions we are really asking.
Rod Stewart, “Every Picture Tells a Story” (1971)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmyGa29zIqk
It is not mise en scene (French photographic genere meaning visual theme, or telling a story with a photograph, essentially contrived). If you are seeing mise en scene, you’re not seeing this photograph for what it is, in documentary fact. (And since we are not talking deconstructionism, I can say that.)
There was no ideology; there was and is life. It is a live ritual happening. There is intent to the ritual, as there must be.
This is also one of a series of about 100 photos. Everyone involved had done similar rituals before, and many photo sessions, so there was a sense of familiarity.
At the same time, it was edgy; everyone took an emotional risk, and other risks, creating these photos. One detail I can reveal is that the photographer was my lover and it was not easy for her to witness this scene. I was by far the most experienced in erotic ritual and it was edgy for me because of the intimacies and feelings involved.
For reference there is no way I could “create” that expression on my face. You are looking at an experience of contact and an inner shift. The presence of the camera and the photographer tends to act as a catalyst.
In many respects this is not so different than any other attribute of Book of Blue. There is always an invitation and then a live ritual.
Not sure your experience with photography but there are certain things that you cannot get as candids, if only because a camera, or a third person, in the space is highly inappropriate; its necessary to invite something to happen and photograph it, not quite knowing what it’s going to end up as. Everyone went into their experience spontaneously.
How is any of this an intent in commerce? That would def disqualify it as art and as tarot card; a concept does not. The photos were never made with the intent of illustrating anything. They were made for the intent of documenting something exclusively for me, for my own growth and recording a phase of my personal history.
What is odd from the standpoint of ritual or art is telling the background, though after working with a process and set of ideas for perhaps 20 years and seeing problems arise in our society that could be addressed by those processes and ideas, I’ve decided to open up about this.
“The scene above illustrates compersion.”
Yes, evidently the art includes commercial intent (nothing wrong with that). However, the project’s ideologically saturated mise-en-scène begs to be questioned.
P.S. Badiou is not a deconstructionist, et bien sûr, il est un Français.
Some quotes from those philosophy pages referenced by bodymind below:
The essence of love is to be neither trivial nor sublime. This is why, as everyone knows, it is on the order of hard labor, which is the limping march of the double function of an indeterminacy, the atom u.
Of what order is this labor? Love cannot avoid the return of sexual non-rapport in the modality of a misunderstanding of the object which assures the equivocal triumph of the One and erases the contours of the Two. It can only construct the Two toward the exterior, and not, as such, toward the interior object. Love is thus the alternating movement of an external expansion of the Two, which constructs the scene, and of a return of the atomic object, which erases the two as such, but not exactly the virtual outline of its expansion.
==
And of course, one must at this point come to some transcendental deduction of the sexes. This can wait for another time. Because “woman” and “man” do not enter into the subject-Two in the same way.
==
Neither absolute transcendence, nor the Trinitarian doctrine. It is from this point of view tat one can see to what degree love is atheistic. Because atheism is, in the end, nothing other than the immanence of the Two. Love is atheistic in the sense that the Two never pre-exists its process.
It is thus, as an experience in which God fails to guarantee the pre-existence of the separation, that I understand for my part the enigmatic sentence that the poet Pessoa pronounced to his heteronym Caeiro, and with which I’m pleased to conclude: “Love is a thought.”
==
Ok this is all a little heady; It would take me a while to branch this out into experience to ensure that I have a confident and original understanding of what the author is getting at. I am detecting that this is deconstructionist. But it’s just French philosophy so it sounds like it. The author says he’s Marxist. However “Love is a thought” sounds materialistic.
That aside, imagine how simple this would be if we grasped compersion.
Most people who struggle with compersion cannot get past their initial jealous impulse, which is a death-like fear of loss of attachment. So they smash into jealousy like a wall of possession. It’s a visceral response.
The scene above illustrates compersion. It’s a mutually embracing bond of love that is also self-embracing. It’s holding a mutual space for the erotic reality of both people. It is not an entirely alien concept on Earth but often seems so. Not a theory but an organic expeience of existence that takes hold and grows not despite the rain and wind but thanks to them.
And yes – I think that some of the most powerful, deepest work we can do is to see where we are projecting and call it back.
Thank you for your courage, honesty and awareness, Eric. Even if it’s not always comfortable, I am always learning from you. And yes, the issue of being perfect is a very strong and painful one for one for me, particularly strong right now – and your words (and actions) here help me enormously.
And how can I not post this wonderful song?(again)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sKzMEQ6MUo
Robert Pfaller. “Backup of Little Gestures of Disappearance: Interpassivity and the Theory of Ritual.”
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/interpassbk01.htm
Alain Badiou. “The Scene of Two.”
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/alain-badiou/articles/the-scene-of-two/
What a beautiful photograph Eric. There’s a lot of unspoken language between you and Heather. The silence is wonderful. It’s simplicity speaks volumes and I appreciate it quietly. Thank you for sharing it here.
There is projection BUT there are also the social cues that we have all been programmed for and that, if given, WILL cause someone to read them in the ways that we are all socially programmed to read them. This means when having a dialogue on the internet, it is imperative that writers watch the kinds of cues they send out.
If I want a dialogue without things getting personal, I refrain from using any terms of endearment in my replies and posts. If I have been diligent in this and the reader still thinks we have a friendship, then it IS likely projection. If I have not, then I am responsible for initiating social cues that made the reader think the dialogue had progressed into a more personal relationship. I would have to own up to that and explain myself to the reader instead of just assuming they were projecting. So it is important to always make sure of what we write when we deal with people; know what our intentions are, be aware of the generally accepted social cues and only use cues that are in line with the type of dialogue/relationship we are looking for with anyone we have any conversation with.
I learned this in my long-time conversations on a message board in which the posters all discussed religion. It has served me well to keep what I learned in mind when posting and e-mailing others.
If I were known to be absolutely respectful all the time to everyone, there would be a good chance I was hiding something. I experience the full range of human emotions and responses to other humans. One misconception of a man is that he must be perfect.
I do my best to not to be perfect but rather to be who I am all the time and to minimize the ‘show’ factor in media and the politics element with the many people I work with.
There is also a projection factor. You might (or might not) be amazed what is projected onto me, especially since I put myself right out where I can be seen. People who have never met me, never written to me and never heard from me personally maintain inwardly dramatized fully developed relationships with me that go on for years. Sometimes I hear about them and obviously sometimes I do not.
I know the story behind some comments shared, and I don’t say anything because it would be petty. I am confident that most people trust I try to be clear with everyone, even if that takes time.
In any event, the fact that you may recognize me makes that part of the narrative, for you. So you have your personal response to me to consider, and then your personal response to my artwork, which might shift how you feel about me. You went beyond the South Park reaction — “Oh, that’s just Eric … [fill in the blank],” and it sounded from your description actually a bit transcendent.
In the situation of a person who is well known or well known to a community, people tend to make up their mind about how they want to see that person or how they think they see them (even…wow I never imagined you eating). I am aware that there is a constituency here that has turned its nose up at my Book of Blue photography. There are many who turn their nose up at any artwork made by a man that includes any female nudity. There is a theory that it’s automatically not art.
Some have judged my photography sexist and others have made up stories about it. I am happy to be confident enough never to have let that stopped me from creating or sharing it, or thinking any less of what I have created, with my collaborators. I know what I am saying and how far being an artist has taken me that words never could.
I know my work is real. I know how much I love Heather Fae and what she taught me; what I have chosen to learn from her and how beautiful it feels to love her.
With regards to this part of your comment re: “… The meaning of whether one of the models is me is a question worth investigating, per Mia F. below. Would it matter were I not recognized? How far to take that is another question. In that would be included why I am the male actor, not someone else.”
Since you have asked, with greatest respect I want to say this:
Yes, knowing that the man in the image was you made me skip right over this image the first and second time. Here is why. From the other threads and over the course of time here in PW, there have been multiples of women’s voices saying that they have experienced, how shall I say it, SOME lack of respect SOME of the time from you specifically? I say this not to be adversarial, but to mention it as fact and as a part of the dynamic here in the PW community. I have been one of these voices in the past though not so in this moment.
So here is something to contemplate: if there are women speaking up about this here in this place, then there could be an aspect of this image ( if we want to see YOU personally as the male character in the image) where you personally might be UNconsciously asking for forgiveness… is that a possibility? You don’t have to answer me, it is just something that comes up as I bear witness to this whole process here in this community. Since you chose to publish the image, (a fact in itself that shows a considerable amount of bravery and vulnerability which I commend), and since we recognize you personally, this is a possible factor in why this image is appearing at this time. I honestly don’t know and it is not for me to sort out, only offer up.
What I do know is that recognizing the male actor as you personally MAY make it harder for some people to enter the image. I was definitely one of these. That said, because this image IS so powerful, it drew me back, despite my objections, and so it has been a very powerful growth experience for me, and for that I can thank you and do.
Nevertheless, the dilemma of personal recognition within the context of one’s art remains in the air. Generally speaking if one is making an image on an archetypal level then usually anonymity is best. If the image maker wants the focus to be on the content of the image, and if you want to be clean and clear of any of these sorts of personal confusions/projections, then you might want to consider publishing images where the identity of the models can be more ambiguous by creative use of costumes, cropping, and/or lighting for instance. By presenting these powerful images without the personal connections, we, as viewers thus can’t get caught up in making personal evaluations/projections about the content of the image, rather we can see the images as more archetypal, which is why I couched my original comments in that language for that was the only way I could enter the image. As an creative tool photography can be so very powerful and images of this kind can be extremely provocative AND healing.
Carecare7s comments are also very well taken. In our culture it is generally women’s nude bodies that are barely acceptable (pun intended) in public arenas and even then only selectively (or abusively) so. Eventually, hopefully, we will be able to approach and enter imagery similar to this one with the roles reversed. We as a collective will need to confront the place where the Feminine must ask forgiveness from the Masculine if our wholeness is to truly get on track. We have a ways to go yet however to get to the place of safety where we can all enter THAT image, but first we all have to get over and be healed from our fear of an unclothed male body. This may take some time as our media seems to sexualize everything and while we still grapple with the legacy of the patriarchy, naked male bodies are generally seen as more threatening than women’s bodies. Such is the state of our collective.
Yes.
She seems ready to hold space for whatever he may be feeling, no matter how fierce, vulnerable or passionate — and not need to take it on. The mirror reflects whatever that is back to him — or that option is there. Her intent is clearly to look and to show; at this particular moment he is ambivalent but clearly engaged in the experience of whatever is going to happen next.
“We can study the body language against all the scripts that Carey is so eloquently describing below. How does the body language in the image contrast to all of the scripting, gender politics, victim/perp thinking of current relational models?”
Yes, (it is Carrie BTW), do look at the body language from the lens of how our culture programs us to “see” the image this picture is and then try to see it without that programming. The programming is everything because it is the lens through which we all see ourselves and others. Getting past that lens may take a lifetime but it is well worth it.
Her facial expression (what we can see of it), his facial expression, the mirror all remind me of a Greek passion play; she is “the goddess” and he is adoring her. Or both are gods but she is showing (via the mirror) his god-within to him. Or the mirror shows us the other gender in ourselves even as it shows us our actual gender. Or the mirror shows us that we are human just as she (in our society “the object”) is. Soooo many ways to look at the photo.
Is sex involved? Should it be? Is that bad or good? Is it subtly there even if we deny it? Or do we make this photo about sex because of the nudity in it? Would an asexual see it the same way as a sexual person? Do cis gendered see it the same as bisexuals or homosexuals see it? What about transgendered folks; how would they see it? Do the genders of the two people in the photo even matter? Why? Why not?
So many ways to look at this one picture. Programming is pervasive and hard to see unless one is consciously trying to see it.
The mirror is the whole point of the experience; it is a mirror ritual. That is why I ask whether it’s the real subject; whether it’s not really a photo of the mirror.
Maybe it’s just too unimportant to mention, but for me it’s the mirror that pulls me out of the photo. When I think of the vulnerability and nakedness that I feel with sex-sexuality, I think of a piece of a mirror/glass– all jagged edges and somewhat dangerous. The mirror that she’s holding between her breasts is too … perfect and store-bought. I’d want more of a glimpse of an eye or a knee cap and an unknowingness of what’s going on, confusion, fear. Perhaps what you’re intending here needs a full-on obvious moment to communicate it’s meaning. Or I’m really out there .. .or both.
m.
Beautiful job of sussing out this photo so far…and I appreciate the sensitivity, insight and recognition of vulnerability in publishing it here on PW for the first time. It is part of a series done in early 2008 or 2009.
It is not a posed photo; it’s a photo of a live ritual. Still, it was created by a group of actors and artists, who were operating collectively with the “intent of the image maker,” to borrow from my friend Kelly.
You can ask yourself: what was the intent of the image maker? Note, everything in the scene can be presumed to be the intent of the image maker — including stylization points like dress, scene, hair, makeup, etc.
The meaning of whether one of the models is me is a question worth investigating, per Mia F. below. Would it matter were I not recognized? How far to take that is another question. In that would be included why I am the male actor, not someone else.
One thing I suggest we study closely is the eye contact — and the eye levels.
Where is she holding the mirror, and why? How would this photo be different without the mirror? Is the subject of the photo the people, or is it the mirror?
What is the relationship between the people in the photo, as implied and as demonstrated?
I also suggest we study the intent that each of the actors is projecting — body language as language.
We can study the body language against all the scripts that Carey is so eloquently describing below. How does the body language in the image contrast to all of the scripting, gender politics, victim/perp thinking of current relational models?
What is it about this photo that makes it sexual, and what exempts it from being sexual?
Carecare7 … sign me up for that world! 🙂
“….. he wants to gaze into her eyes, but she is holding up a mirror and he feels she wants him to look there, but if he looks there how can he look in the mirror and not look at her breasts? I feel his turmoil. As a man, part of him just wants to look at her breasts, but if he does he will see himself… and I don’t think he wants to see himself. And somehow, I think she knows this… and it exactly what she wants to show him… his own struggle. She’s looking right down INto him, loving him and waiting for him to look at her, directly in the eye. She is waiting for that but first he needs to learn how to look in the mirror and not get lost in looking at her breasts.”
Such a good place to start with this. Just imagine this; what if the man and woman in this picture were NOT part of Western culture at all but were instead part of a South American indigenous group of people who live their lives naked every day? Would the whole issue of him looking at her breasts even BE an issue then? My point is, a lot of what we all deal with in Western culture (or even some Eastern cultures) has to do with the way we have been programmed to see men, women, nakedness and sexuality. I would posit that where religion resides, there resides a lot of programming that separates the genders and causes one to be subordinate to the other.
In some indigenous societies, the genders were/are not so uptight about sex, gender, body parts and all the bullshit so many humans get all wrapped up in. Imagine a society where sex is so natural, so organic to the people in that culture that it is not even noticed. Not deliberately ignored (because of a label of “sin” attached to it or the label of it being too much attachment to the physical) but just part of the daily scenario of waking, eating, sleeping, cooking, fucking, loving, napping, walking, running, shitting, peeing, touching. After all, many animal species have no thought for what they do or don’t wear, where they fuck, when they fuck (except those who have certain fertile times), who they fuck (except often the females choose) and how they fuck. What if humans did that?
WE place the value judgements on nakedness, genders, sex, and all that. WE put those on our kids, too. Those value judgements vary from culture to culture and geographical place to geographical place. Many African tribes in hot areas have women bare breasted and they don’t have the breastfeeding stigma, or stigma about men looking at breasts (nor do men in those cultures get as fixated on breasts as American men do); it is a learned thing. This means we can UN-learn all that starting with men (but including women, too) now and especially helping our sons (and daughters) to grow up without it at all.
This scenario has no victims, no perpetrators, just programmed people who need reprogramming. Interestingly enough, Timothy Leary once said LSD was an excellent tool (when mindset, setting, and dosage were carefully considered) for RE-PROGRAMING the brain. Imagine clinics where we could all go to get de-programmed and re-programmed for better attitudes and feelings about sex, gender, and sexuality? Then the guy in the photo would not have to worry about looking at her breasts; in fact he might not have as much interest in them as he used to or his interest might not include the shame and the woman would not have the fear of male entitlement, of being objectified, or fear of violence from males.
Oh what a world that would be.
Deeply moving expression of soul level vulnerability. Thank you for this divine gift.. Exquisite! <3
Truly beautiful honesty.
I want to comment about this photo but I want to be clear that I’m not commenting about the people, personally, in the photo. I’m seeing archetypes here and that is what I’m responding to and as a woman myself I can only see this from my limited perspective.
The first time I looked at this photo I dismissed it entirely because the woman’s breast was bared.
The second time I looked at this photo I got past her bare breast and looked at her face and eyes and I was swept up in her compassionate composure and powerful Feminine presence.
The third time I look at this image, I feel myself choking up… and I can’t explain this. I see that the man doesn’t quite know where to look… he wants to gaze into her eyes, but she is holding up a mirror and he feels she wants him to look there, but if he looks there how can he look in the mirror and not look at her breasts? I feel his turmoil. As a man, part of him just wants to look at her breasts, but if he does he will see himself… and I don’t think he wants to see himself. And somehow, I think she knows this… and it exactly what she wants to show him… his own struggle. She’s looking right down INto him, loving him and waiting for him to look at her, directly in the eye. She is waiting for that but first he needs to learn how to look in the mirror and not get lost in looking at her breasts. I also am aware that this could possibly be all projection on my part to be seeing what I see in this image… but I viscerally feel the man’s turmoil so perhaps this is not projection. I feel uneasy because I don’t know for certain.
The triangulation in this image between the man’s eyes, the mirror and the woman’s eyes is really profound to me now…. and I would have missed it if I hadn’t taken a second or a third look and stopped my judging mind. I feel humbled. I feel grateful. I feel vulnerable. I feel hopeful.