Satan of Silverlake

fowley SOS

Kim Fowley
Satan Of Silverlake


Memphis said...

This is a VERY interesting idea, Theresa. I dont know much about photography, but the photos seem professional and deliberate, as if little is left to accident.
I have a question. It seems that, in so many instances where the Male Gaze is employed, much of its power derives from its eroticism - as in film. To me, these photos do not seem erotic. I cant tell whether thats because I'm a straight man - ie, were I a woman, I'd find them erotic - or because they simply are not. If its the latter (the pics are just not erotic) then wouldnt the entirety of the Female Gaze be better captured by including *erotica* depicting men, through the gaze of women?

Theresa K. said...

what is "erotic" is in the eyes of the beholder.

my question to you is: have you looked at ALL the photos? because there's a lot of steamy erotic undertones going on... but if you're a straight man, you won't - and won't want to - get it...

go to the very first posts.

Memphis said...

You're right about erotica being in the eye of the beholder, but there are limits. One would be hard pressed to find a straight man who did not think erotic the latest cover of "Playboy".

And when I posted my original comment, I had not looked at the very first posts. Indeed, there are erotic undertones to them.

As for this business about straight men not wanting to understand, etc., thats just uncalled for. The very viewing of your photos indicates a desire to understand. Regardless of whether the attempt to understand is succesful, the desire to do so is clear.

There *are* steamy undertones in the first several photos. Can the female gaze be illustrated more overtly? Ie, do women respond to male nudity, semi-nudity, arrangement in sexual poses etc the same way men do with women? The whole notion of the 'female gaze' - does it cover the same territory as the male gaze, or is it fundamentally different?

These are all really the same question. Seeing as how this is a conversation between reasonable and intelligent people, I will not say that you wont understand my question. I will simply assume that you do.

Theresa K. said...

Does this have to be a discussion about erotica?

I am a cinematographer, so by default, MY gaze is a female gaze.

A photographer's gaze and the viewer's gaze revolve around a subject/object relationship - and also around who controls the execution and presentation of the visual... eroticism really has nothing to do with it... unless the viewer or the photographer injects it.

I am presenting PORTRAITS of MEN as seen by a woman's eye... mine. I do not speak for anyone except myself. This is how I saw these men... how I captured them in various moments as they presented themselves to me. Nothing more, nothing less.

Everything else is in the eye and the interpretation of the beholder.

Art is subjective, always has been, always will be.

As for Playboy, however - and its eroticism... I actually find it pretty crass and vulgar. Playboy from the 50s and even up til the early 70s was camp, sexy, evocative... now its tasteless. I worked for Oui, a Playboy subsidiary for a while as a photo dept. intern while I was in college. There's NOTHING sexy, sexual or erotic about staging any of those deliberate scenes.