The boundaries of reality are the area of play…

 

 

«VIS-À-VIS, PORTRAITS OF NEW WOMEN»

«对视 : 新女性肖像 »

 

Pigment prints on Hahnemuehle archival paper
Size A: 120×160 cm，Edition of 5, 1 AP; Size B: 60×80 cm, Edition of 9, 1 AP

 

The series contain 50 photographs, interview extracts of each model, one cabinet of curiosities, experimental videos, and the making-of film.

 

/le film 0307 avec ST1.flv

“Making of - Femmes: Portraits Dé/Visagés”
(Flash Player required)

Camera: Linda

Editing: Jean-Marc Sanchez

“I came in because I was truly curious about how I compared to the other women. I only have one small request and I hope you can honor it – under no circumstance do I wish my boyfriend to find out that I am part of this project.  It’s a little secret between you and me. And no I don’t think he’s attentive enough to pick me out from these photos.” - Paris #11

“I’m a Buddhist. Buddha taught us to see everything with the same heart, so there’s really no difference between the face and the genitalia, only in the way we look at them. This series points the question back to us and examines our own intentions. It’s almost like a sutra.” - Beijing #1

“My grandmother is now in the terminal phase of breast cancer and I take care of her every day. This morning, when I was bathing her, I suddenly thought about your project and I looked at her genitalia for the first time. I was shocked to see that it looked so youthful, not at all like those of an old person’s. I didn’t look long, but I noticed that her skin was creamy white, very smooth, with very little hair. I found them very beautiful, like those of a little girl. She’s 74 years old. ” - Beijing #12

“I think good luck to a lot of men, who I believe have a lot of interest in the vagina, not only because it’s such a secret thing, but because women are actually encouraging their vaginas to be censored in a way.” - Beijing #26

50 women were invited to participate in this project through the years 2006-2009. The shootings took place principally in Paris and in Beijing. The portraits included in this project are presented anonymously, with the place of the shooting, the date of the session, and original words from each model. The nationalities of the models included Australia, Austria, China, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Holland Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Morocco, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Switzerland, Japan, Spain, the U.K., and the U.S.A.. It is my desire that the portraits and the accompanying words speak for themselves.

*  *  *

The exposure of the female genitalia implies an ontological vulnerability. Is this why it has remained as one of the last bastions of censorship in the field of representation? It seems to me that the female genitalia have suffered from the polar treatments of paternal protectionism, which subjects them to exclusion from all social discourse, or on the other end, sexual objectivation, which again prevents women from fully exploring their own identities.

I was interested in seeking a strategy that would neutralize traditional diametrical views of the female genitalia operating on these paradigms of attraction-repulsion. This series came into being in order to examine our capacity to look at the female genitalia as they really are, without resorting to ready-made alibis.

Several axes of reflection were explored in this series:

Horizontality, verticality. I think this is the key axis of reflection when it comes to how to show the female genitalia. The vertical axis is considered the “noble” axis because it distinguishes us from all the quadrupeds. It is also the position that “condemns” the vagina to its invisibility. For this series, I have established a horizontal position of the body that aligns on the same horizon the face and the genitalia, the mouth and the vagina. At the same time, we have a sensation of verticality given that the frame is tight and that the frontal point of view forces us to “face” the picture.

Human, animal. If the vertical position renders us human, are the genitalia not the last vestiges of our animal nature? Simone de Beauvoir describes this ancient struggle of women between the propagation of the species and the desire for individuation and transcendence as such: “Woman’s individuality is constantly combated by the interest of the species; she appears possessed by strange forces… It is not without resistance that the woman lets the interest of the species settle in her body.”

Nature, Culture/Raw, Cooked (Lévi-Strauss). If nature condemns us to animality, the human species attempts by all means to erase traces of our animal nature: clothing, accessories, piercing, waxing, paranoia of body hair… The ultimate step would be to cultivate or “cook” our genitalia, supposedly the rawest part of our body.

Face, genitalia. The personification of the female genitalia is a very ancient theme (Baubô the mythical vulva). If we operate a 90° visual rotation of the photograph, we can see, by a visual contamination of sort, a face that superimposes on the structure of the genitalia. The face is often deemed the most human and the genitalia the most animal part of our being. This visual confusion destabilizes established hierarchies.

Baubô, the mythical vulva

Mouth, Vagina. In the essay “Mouth” by Georges Batailles, the mouth is a high place of individualization in human beings because it is capable of words, whereas in animal life, the mouth is understood as “the principle element in the system of capture, killing, and ingestion of preys where the anus is the point of accomplishment.” In these portraits of women, the “lips” of the genitalia are open and expressive, allowing them to ascend to the same status as the mouth.

Eroticism, academicism. The pelvis that one perceives as toppled over reminds us of the arched back that eroticizes the pose according to conventional erotic codes, whereas the frontal viewpoint neutralizes the images (a form of academicism since the Dusseldorf School). This provokes an instability in the reception of the photographs and leaves space for ambiguity and hesitation.

Masculinity, femininity. The “faces” that we see superimposed on the structure of the genitalia convey very “masculine” traits. This questions the validity of the foundations that separate the masculine and the feminine.

I invited my models to stay open to these tensions, fragility, and paradoxes of existence that constitute us as women.