Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Yorker)   Iiu Susiraja's Self-Portraits Are More Than a Dare. It takes guts to show yourself   (newyorker.com) divider line
    More: Awkward  
•       •       •

1520 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 24 May 2022 at 9:15 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



15 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-05-24 9:32:18 PM  
Interesting compositions. She looks profoundly unhappy, which is sad to see. There is no "nod and a wink" in the shots.
 
2022-05-24 9:38:31 PM  
When I was first learning photography as a kid, I bought a photography magazine, as one does. Featured was a guy who took photos of a fat woman's bottom half as she leaned over in various settings. I got the impression that photographers can be creepy, and that has been reinforced many times over the years.
 
2022-05-24 9:58:41 PM  

knbwhite: When I was first learning photography as a kid, I bought a photography magazine, as one does. Featured was a guy who took photos of a fat woman's bottom half as she leaned over in various settings. I got the impression that photographers can be creepy, and that has been reinforced many times over the years.


Impression?
th.bing.comView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-24 10:04:34 PM  
The Finnish artist Iiu Susiraja makes photographs using herself as a model, but her images are less self-portraits than still-lifes. A deadpan protagonist-or a jarring centerpiece-she appears amid carefully staged arrangements of household objects, gazing into the camera with rich dispassion.

They're still self-portraits. They just involve staging, props, and familiar themes that she repeats. They can't sensibly be described as still-lifes unless TFA writer thinks she's dead and taxidermied.
 
2022-05-24 10:12:56 PM  
Jesus, that is one brave woman. I'm going to use one as my screen saver.
 
2022-05-24 10:33:29 PM  

buravirgil: knbwhite: When I was first learning photography as a kid, I bought a photography magazine, as one does. Featured was a guy who took photos of a fat woman's bottom half as she leaned over in various settings. I got the impression that photographers can be creepy, and that has been reinforced many times over the years.

Impression?
[th.bing.com image 608x320]
[Fark user image image 648x494]


Guts impression? 
media0.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-24 10:48:38 PM  

bobug: Interesting compositions. She looks profoundly unhappy, which is sad to see. There is no "nod and a wink" in the shots.


The bulleye held at crotch level tells a story in itself. This is not happy work.
 
2022-05-25 12:23:23 AM  

Flincher: buravirgil: knbwhite: When I was first learning photography as a kid, I bought a photography magazine, as one does. Featured was a guy who took photos of a fat woman's bottom half as she leaned over in various settings. I got the impression that photographers can be creepy, and that has been reinforced many times over the years.

Impression?
[th.bing.com image 608x320]
[Fark user image image 648x494]

Guts impression? [media0.giphy.com image 500x375] [View Full Size image _x_]


I was riffing on Diane Arbus as played by Ally Sheedy in High Art washed through an impressionism filter. I don't know much about fantasy/manga/anime.

Arbus' photography is renowned for human subjects, more unusual than her predecessors, like the op.
In my imagination, Sheedy always answers her phone even if she's in a leotard in the middle of yoga exercises.
 
2022-05-25 3:34:21 AM  

EdgeRunner: The Finnish artist Iiu Susiraja makes photographs using herself as a model, but her images are less self-portraits than still-lifes. A deadpan protagonist-or a jarring centerpiece-she appears amid carefully staged arrangements of household objects, gazing into the camera with rich dispassion.

They're still self-portraits. They just involve staging, props, and familiar themes that she repeats. They can't sensibly be described as still-lifes unless TFA writer thinks she's dead and taxidermied.


Except when you actually read the quote you posted and realize that it describes her using herself more like a prop in the arrangement. She's not dead and taxidermied, but in most shots she might as well be.
 
2022-05-25 5:02:47 AM  

bisi: EdgeRunner: The Finnish artist Iiu Susiraja makes photographs using herself as a model, but her images are less self-portraits than still-lifes. A deadpan protagonist-or a jarring centerpiece-she appears amid carefully staged arrangements of household objects, gazing into the camera with rich dispassion.

They're still self-portraits. They just involve staging, props, and familiar themes that she repeats. They can't sensibly be described as still-lifes unless TFA writer thinks she's dead and taxidermied.

Except when you actually read the quote you posted and realize that it describes her using herself more like a prop in the arrangement. She's not dead and taxidermied, but in most shots she might as well be.


Especially with that thousand yard stare. There is no joy to be alive in there.
 
2022-05-25 9:31:02 AM  

frankb00th: bisi: EdgeRunner: The Finnish artist Iiu Susiraja makes photographs using herself as a model, but her images are less self-portraits than still-lifes. A deadpan protagonist-or a jarring centerpiece-she appears amid carefully staged arrangements of household objects, gazing into the camera with rich dispassion.

They're still self-portraits. They just involve staging, props, and familiar themes that she repeats. They can't sensibly be described as still-lifes unless TFA writer thinks she's dead and taxidermied.

Except when you actually read the quote you posted and realize that it describes her using herself more like a prop in the arrangement. She's not dead and taxidermied, but in most shots she might as well be.

Especially with that thousand yard stare. There is no joy to be alive in there.


Posing as if she were an inanimate object (and it's a subjective call by the viewer if that's what she's doing) does not make her an inanimate object. Per the extremely straightforward definition of a still-life, no composition that includes a living being qualifies as one.

Nope, not even promotional photos from Weekend At Bernie's. He was only pretending.
 
2022-05-25 9:33:43 AM  

buravirgil: Flincher: buravirgil: knbwhite: When I was first learning photography as a kid, I bought a photography magazine, as one does. Featured was a guy who took photos of a fat woman's bottom half as she leaned over in various settings. I got the impression that photographers can be creepy, and that has been reinforced many times over the years.

Impression?
[th.bing.com image 608x320]
[Fark user image image 648x494]

Guts impression? [media0.giphy.com image 500x375] [View Full Size image _x_]

I was riffing on Diane Arbus as played by Ally Sheedy in High Art washed through an impressionism filter. I don't know much about fantasy/manga/anime.

Arbus' photography is renowned for human subjects, more unusual than her predecessors, like the op.
In my imagination, Sheedy always answers her phone even if she's in a leotard in the middle of yoga exercises.


Check out Berserk. You won't be disappointed.
 
2022-05-25 11:15:12 AM  

EdgeRunner: frankb00th: bisi: EdgeRunner: The Finnish artist Iiu Susiraja makes photographs using herself as a model, but her images are less self-portraits than still-lifes. A deadpan protagonist-or a jarring centerpiece-she appears amid carefully staged arrangements of household objects, gazing into the camera with rich dispassion.

They're still self-portraits. They just involve staging, props, and familiar themes that she repeats. They can't sensibly be described as still-lifes unless TFA writer thinks she's dead and taxidermied.

Except when you actually read the quote you posted and realize that it describes her using herself more like a prop in the arrangement. She's not dead and taxidermied, but in most shots she might as well be.

Especially with that thousand yard stare. There is no joy to be alive in there.

Posing as if she were an inanimate object (and it's a subjective call by the viewer if that's what she's doing) does not make her an inanimate object. Per the extremely straightforward definition of a still-life, no composition that includes a living being qualifies as one.

Nope, not even promotional photos from Weekend At Bernie's. He was only pretending.


Jesus Christ, guy. The writer used the term for descriptive purposes. Nobody said "it's literally a still life. Expect the art police at your door shortly to change the definition in any text books you may have in your posession".
 
2022-05-25 11:33:08 AM  
And, speaking of definitions and to make it more clear:
"Still life can be a celebration of material pleasures such as food and wine, or often a warning of the ephemerality of these pleasures and of the brevity of human life."

So, it's still not a still life. But it is composed like one and the arrangement serves a similar statement.
 
2022-05-25 12:03:44 PM  

bisi: Jesus Christ, guy. The writer used the term for descriptive purposes. Nobody said "it's literally a still life. Expect the art police at your door shortly to change the definition in any text books you may have in your posession".


TFA writer's description is absolutely equating the photos with still-lifes, and it's not as clever a description as you seem to think. Photographers have been taking photos damn near forever where a human body is just another object in the composition, no more or less important than anything else in the frame, but we don't refer to those photos as still-lifes because the term primarily refers to the difference of technique in capturing a live subject versus an inanimate one. Models move and breathe and involuntarily shift position, while a vase is lifeless and still. That's the distinction. It has nothing to do with whether movement and sentience is or isn't implied. A picture of a dummy in a wax museum is a still-life, but a photo of someone standing in a wax museum pretending to be a dummy is not, even though both pictures might be indistinguishable to a casual viewer. Similarly, a wax dummy could be posed to imply dynamic motion and appear very lifelike in an image, but that image remains a still-life.

But if you really have to have a technical win, a photo itself is a lifeless thing, and a collection of photos arranged on a surface would constitute a still-life. By that reasoning, photos displayed on a webpage are also still-lifes, so you and TFA writer can be happy and correctly claim that yes, every image by this photographer is a still-life.

Just don't pull that crap on an art school exam. They won't buy it.
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.