Is Livvy perceived as more vulnerable than Kimball? Livvy and Kimball have similar background stories. Both were removed from their biological parents for drug use. For Livvy is was opioids, for Kimball, meth. Both were adopted in to loving and stable families.
What is my intended representation of these children? Is Livvy also more vulnerable because she is wearing a dress and interacting with animals? Vs. Kimball's and his more dominant (and male) role.
The girls featured in my images often wear dresses intentionally, purposefully (and voluntarily). I strongly disagree with the idea that a girl must be presented in a more male-dominant role or attire to envelop power. Presenting the idea of girl power in the form of male imitation intrinsically demeans femininity at its core and underlies that there is not power in womanhood in its own right. So I will continue to allow the girls to be represented in dresses if they choose (or otherwise if they so desire).
But how they are gazing is an interesting phenomenon and something I will take a closer examination to in my images and project.
On the other hand, I wonder if the expression impacts the interpretation: for example here is Livvy's face up close:
Figure 3: Slade 2018. Livvy 1 (cropped by photographer)
Figure 4: Advert found on www.carsforvetrans.org
So it appears that perhaps it is not a hard and fast rule, but can effect how an image is consumed combined with other elements.
Figure 1: Brenda SLADE 2018. Livvy 1. [photography]. V&A [online]. Available at www.brenslade.com
Figure 2: Brenda SLADE 2017. Brave. [photography]. V&A [online]. Available at www.brenslade.com
Figure 3: Brenda SLADE 2018. Livvy 1. [photography]. V&A [online]. Available at www.brenslade.com
Figure 4: Advert V&A [online]. Available at www.carsforvetrans.org
Figure 3: Brenda SLADE 2018. Livvy 1. [photography]. V&A [online]. Available at www.brenslade.com
Figure 4: Advert V&A [online]. Available at www.carsforvetrans.org




No comments:
Post a Comment