Miss Aniela Photography

The first in a series of lifestyle images for Life water and definitely my favourite. I’ll upload the rest of the campaign onto my blog when it is complete.

See the full original pic here on Flickr…

www.lifepurewater.com

Above image from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/apprentice/videos.html

Warning: this post has nothing to do with photography. Yippee!

I think I am losing respect for Sir Alan Sugar. Throughout the previous three series of The Apprentice, one of the most enjoyable and stimulating programmes I have ever watched, I have always trusted Sir Alan to act as God on Judgement Day to pluck out not only the unworthiest candidates in the business sense, but those who have literally acted as Judases.

The Apprentice clearly works in black and white: those who make money, and those who make less than the other team; hence who has ‘won’ and who has ‘lost’. Alot of the time, characters who have contributed to a task in non-monetary ways are fired because their performance didn’t translate into direct cash. Those people may include highly-emotional people, certain women who have stumbled on the emotional side of the experience (such as Adele in the first series) or men who simply desire to make their efforts more ‘artistic’ than simplistically hard-sell. I’m thinking of Raef from the current series, fired a few weeks before the final.

However, the first three series impressed me because Sir Alan always managed, through the eyes and ears of Nick and Margaret, to dispatch the ugly-minded and intolerably arrogant candidates; some of those candidates who may have fared well up right up the final, but whose selfish intentions suddenly become exposed in the last stages and trip them up before the boss himself.

The final of the current series see four business people, three of which I am hugely disappointed to have made it, making a three out of four chance that I will be thoroughly unimpressed with the winning ‘Apprentice’ next week. There is the cocksure and overly-defensive Alex, whose habit of referring to himself in third person makes my skin crawl. For the record, he most definitely does not win my female ‘he’s gorgeous’ vote as other gigglish women viewers seem to be doing, so much so, that I would go as far to count Nick as a more attractive specimen of manhood. Besides, what’s being attractive got to do with it? This is The Apprentice, not Big Brother. A carnal attraction to Simon in episode 3 made the viewing a little more pleasurable for me, and it was pleasurable enough considering that episode was the photography task, but it was the fact that he wasn’t an arrogant plonker and that he preferred to practice rather than preach, that made me disappointed that he didn’t get anywhere near the final. Sir Alan seems to have (uncharacteristically) ignored the schoolboy-like tact Alex took up in the last episode when he petulantly exposed Lucinda and the doubts she aired (in confidence) to the others during the interviews. Neither was I impressed when a few weeks ago, Alex joined in the verbal gangrape of Sara (Zara?) following her escape from the firing line. Only Raef had a streak of gentlemanly conduct in him and came to her defence, and yet Raef was fired for making a subtle one-time mistake with the advertising task. Contrast that to the many chances Sir Alan decided to give Michael ‘I’ll trod on anyone!’ Sophocles , and I’m even more baffled.

Lee McQueen (who also sinisterly refers to himself in third person, and who was also part of the aforementioned verbal gangrape) is also in the final. He narrowly escaped losing the respect of Sir Alan when it transpired he’d lied on his CV last week. Somehow he got confused and, erm, couldn’t remember whether he had spent 2 years, or four months , at university. I dislike his shouty mouth-spitty manner, slightly insane expression, and most of all, his sales technique in the car task. Saying ‘Help me out here’ in order to close a sale with a customer is pretty pathetic in my book! He’s not the worst candidate but certainly not as impressive as I found the likes of previously-fired Raef.
I’m not quite sure what Helen Speight is doing in the final. To my sister during conversation I like to refer to her as Helen Speightful, as my impressions of her had been fixed during the photography task when she bullied technophobe Lucinda into working (or not working) a laptop whilst mulling round with a cup of tea as a self-professed technophobe herself. Not only that, but what exactly has she done during the series? I have only seen her mull in the shadows of tasks, sucking figurative lemons, coming to the camera only to swear her ugly Northern mouth off (I am Northern so I can say that, ha ha) about making her way in a male-dominated environment and how she takes no nonsense from anyone. Don’t all women have to make their way in a male-dominated environment, me love? Highlighting a supposed personal difficulty, one that is part of every woman’s experience in the world, is weak.

Then there is Clare. She is the only one I did expect to see in the final, and the one I don’t mind winning, unlike the rest. To me she is a strong candidate, in the Ruth Badger sense (her from Series 3), only with an eternal squinty smirk on her face and the slight smudge I see on her character from being a slack twerp in the first three episodes. Since then she has improved, as everyone can see. However, I’m a bit bored by the constant accusation that she talks too much. Her voice might be droney with that mono-intonation but there are times when her mouth’s been clapped shut and Sir Alan still manages to throw the Clare ‘motor mouth’ cliche at her.

Watching something like The Apprentice makes watching Big Brother a bit like drinking diluted Robinsons after having a glass of freshly squeezed orange. I have to use an analogy there that not only sums up how The Apprentice is a much more wholesome and substantial programme, making the watery meaninglessness of people-who-have-done-nowt of Big Brother more obvious, but I also want to express how unhealthy and less enjoyable a programme like Big Brother is compared the business lesson one receives whilst watching a reality programme with probably just as much enjoyable bitching.

So, Sir Alan, your godly gaze upon your contestants may be as strong as ever, but please do not direct it toward the ones cannot even swell up a vestige of modesty to be the one next chosen to sit at your right hand side. I’ll watch the final through the gaps between my fingers…

Tried to upload a picture here (of me looking shocked) but it won’t work. I’ll try later.

In This Week’s Magazine: Sepia No More by The New York Times.

Warning: its ignorance and snobbery might be too overwhelming. Hang on to your contact lenses - they might just blast out.

I wrote this response which should appear on the Comments of the article shortly. I even put my swear word ’shit’ with two stars so they’d better publish it.

——
Wow, how much snobbery and ignorance can be packed into one article?

The stance Heffernan takes on photography couldn’t be clearer; true photography is, of course, made by ‘art-school photographers’ who ‘continue to shoot on film, embrace chiaroscuro and resist prettiness’. Anything that has been near a computer is ‘not quite right’.

Dare I say it, I am a “photographer”, because I create, using a digital camera (gasp!) and varying amounts of Photoshop (gasp!) - or what you might dub ‘digital tricks’, that is, if you were the most resolutely anti-modern snob who doesn’t realise that Photoshop is in fact a tool like any other “production mischief” used in the sacred darkroom, and just as challenging to utilise.

Like others I see emerging through Flickr, my photography career started with being, yes, “proficient” at “how to create images that would look good shrunk in “thumbnail” form” and how to “flirt with Flickr’s visitors in the comments area to keep them coming back”. (By the way, the way the writer has used the word “flirt” to describe Rebekka G’s process is not sexist at all, is it?)

It is amazing how the writer casts off the Internet as a medium in its entirety - apparently, it’s only a place for “failed” or “out of step” artists. That is a laughable suggestion when I consider how many artists would never have got into photography nor felt encouraged to keep creating more work had it not been for the encouragement they receive from a worldwide audience on the likes of sites like Flickr. Flickr does not make these artists. There is no such thing as a “Flickr photograph”. All kinds of people use Flickr, but I know that fine artists use Flickr as tool to gain feedback on their work and showcase it for wider external publicity, the quite unshameful and really quite fascinating equivalent of physically trolling one’s portfolio round galleries.

According to this article, Flickr viewers “pretend” to have “expertise” in photography, their comments are “naive”, “gushing”, and don’t recognise real photography when they see it, even when posted as a spoof. Does this mean - gasp! - that perhaps the majority are having a say about what actually is exciting imagery? Could this be a forum for everyone to express their opinion on art, in this case photography, whether they are educated at art school or not? Could this be a blurring of high and low art; could Flickr represent - shock horror - democracy?

What exactly is wrong, other than defying the nature of “real” photography from Arbus and Bresson, with artists who work at “abandoning realism”? With, what the writer dubs, “creamy fantasy pictures”? With anything that isn’t “rawer and grainier 35-millimeter photography”? Who has the right to say what “photography” is or isn’t? Why should photography be subject to such elitism? Why isn’t the writer welcoming to a medium that helps make these changes?

Heffernan should get over the fact that this is simply no longer an age where the artist needs “elaborate deference to institutions, hard-won group shows and expensive years spent in unnoticed toil” as “the only way to success.” And all the better for it! Sites like Flickr don’t make it any easy to get your work seen, if anything, they make it more competitive, all it means that the artist does not need to be a first rate, first-degree snob to get anywhere near an appointment with a gallery.

Without the Internet (Flickr) I would never have created the wealth of images I now have in both my online and physical portfolios; and without Photoshop, I would never have been so stimulated by photography to start with. I would not have had two exhibitions, including a current show in Madrid, been featured in the Tate Britain, had publicity with the likes of the BBC, El Pais, La Repubblica, and art magazines internationally and be selling work, nor would I be invited to speak at an important Microsoft photography event later this year.

I would find it hilarious (if it wasn’t so exasperating) that the writer does not see how precious the internet and Photoshop are as tools to the artist today, even when she is consciously discussing Rebekka G’s Toyota commission that resulted from building her impressive portfolio on Flickr. Of course, we have to shit all over pictures that have used anything but traditional processing means; so it’s wrong to be impressed by Rebekka’s really quite impressive early pictures (only a certain social group should be able to say what is worthy of praise and it’s all down to how it was made.) Not only are Rebekka’s 4 million views incidental, but the external recognition of her work by art galleries and by the Toyota commission itself just simply can’t mean anything. All because she used Photoshop. (And her “movie-star eyes” must be mentioned because they must make her self portraiture soooo much easier).

It is quite stunning how uneducated this article makes the writer look. Digital photography: “forced, intense, contrived, juvenile”? Might not be your cup of tea Ms Heffernan, but don’t slag off the many artists who choose to embrace technology as part of their artistic process that is as dignified as any other. Is true photography about ‘resisting prettiness’? If so, my work, and that of an array of talented emerging artists showcasing their images on Flickr, is rendered worthless. I certainly will never accept that value, and I think only a few thousand million people, including an increasing amount of gallery directors whom you thought had the same notions as you, wouldn’t either.

Above: nice pic taken by Matthew!

Before the opening of my exhibition on Thursday evening I was interviewed by two TV channels, TVE2 and Atena 3. The first one was aired on Wednesday night (16th) at midnight on La 2 Noticias, which I am sure will be on the net at some point, so I’ll put a link here as soon as it appears, unless someone has taped it and can somehow transfer it to YouTube. The other interview is a pilot for a new programme that will be on in a few weeks and I haven’t seen the finished edited article yet.

Above: interviews

I fully enjoyed the TV interviews, it’s watching them back that is slightly painful, as is normal for people to feel!

My brainwave whilst I sat on the transfer coach on the way back, is to have a go at making a film of myself! A professional (but informal) one with an interview structure, edited and soundtracked to a good standard (made with a proper film camera) but one that I have as much control in as I do in my self portraits. Maybe I want to show a bit of the real silly me. I don’t know when I will do this but I want to do it soon, and there’s always the new Flickr video feature waiting for it ;))

My exhibition ‘Self gazing’ opened on Thursday night (17th April) at Camara Oscura in Madrid.

The publicity for the event was excellent; there has been coverage by El Pais, Yo Dona (in El Mundo), and I was interviewed by two TV channels - one, La 2 Noticias, which aired on Wednesday night (16th) on TVE2, and the other which will be Antena 3 at some point. As soon as I can find out how to show these interviews on the internet I will post the links in a blog entry, along with some candid pics and a bit of reflection on the experience.

The press coverage has served to bring my Flickr photostream an aggregation of 100,000 views in only three days, and my website views have quadrupled this week. On Wednesday, my feature in El Pais brought 3000 unique visitors to my site (the usual is an average of 400!)
However, each press feature has varying degrees of what some viewers have interestingly highlighted as a misrepresentation of my work. I’ll leave that to the individual to decide. I just find it very interesting how one’s interpretation of my images, the focus they put on detailing the ‘nudity’ and if indeed they emphasise the notion of ‘nudity’ (my strongest supporters/friends don’t seem to identify categories across my work according to the amount of clothing I wear) says more about that person, that journalist, than necessarily me. This can be applied to the work of any ‘artist’, female self portrait artists I think in particular. Perhaps.

Anyway, here are images from the evening! All images taken by my Mr Lovely. Thank him for the excellent shots!

Above: ‘Self-gazing!’

Above: excitement building..? or something!

Above: The visitors on the evening

Above: To my right - Teresa Lugo (from the gallery), and her friends

Above: Teresa again (on the right)

Above: By ‘The Chase’

Above: By ‘The deaths’ with a journalist from art mag LaPiz

Above: a viewer…

Above: Ligeia Scabbia (Eva) and Patricia Ossietta from Flickr! We all met for the first time that evening!

Above: me with Eva and Patricia!

Above: unruly bra strap. i signed two autographs - autographs! haha.

Above: looking on at Sea View…

Viewers by ‘Stretch’.

Above: poser shot by ‘South by southeast’ (my fave print of the exhib)

Above: Camara Oscura Director Juan Curto and journalist from LaPiz.

Above: wine, people, ‘Memoirs of a woman of leisure’

Above: Visitors

Above: and… had to share this funny random shot!

Thanks to all those who came along, and if you live in Madrid or are visiting, the exhibition is open until 31st May, so come and visit. Prints are available in editions of five and if you are interested get in touch with the gallery or myself to find out more. The exhibition has only been open a day and already has sold work. Pretty good going!