Hairy issues.

A friend recently mentioned one of my old posts (from an old, extinct blog) that I wrote about criticism I received concerning a model I photographed that had underarm hair.  Below is the image and my original response to the criticism.  I still love photographing models that chose their grooming practice they want, not what is expected of them. 

What the fuck?

Katie - 012314

I just got on my post about working with Katie. Some anonymous cowardly hack wrote:

"She needs to get a razor. Yuck!"

I almost didn't publish it because of how disrespectful it was to Katie. I decided to publish it because this type of ignorance / stupidity / ... grrr. I am running out of adjectives I am so mad. I understand if you have a critique about my photo, (too dark, too light, lousy composition, wrong model for the setting, bad exposure, wrong media, etc.) but what the fuck are you getting at?

Is your view of beauty only limited to women of Maxim and Playboy that do not have an extra hair anywhere and where they have hair, it is in the absolute perfect place?? While I appreciate those types of photos, they are not the only types of beauty in this world. You are missing out on seeing so many beautiful people if you feel this is the only type of beauty.

I think the trend for women to be completely shaven is one of choice. While it is the current trend, I find great beauty in shaven women as well as "natural" women. When did we get so narrow minded?? I am so pissed right now. I am going to go for a walk after posting this.



Followup post

Got Hair??
In continuation to my "What the Fuck?" post yesterday, I am dedicating today's post to women who choose/chose to keep their hair. Somebody wrote a rude comment about a model I photographed that did not shave her armpits or pubic hair. Here are some more photos I am sure commentor will not like, but I find are beautiful.

A friend mentioned a very famous photo of Tina Modotti in her comment. Here is Tina photographed by Edward Weston. Tina was also a great photographer as well as writer, model, actress, activist and role model. She was also very beautiful.

Tina Modotti
Edward Weston

Edward Weston took a number of photos of his wife Charis. This very famous photo has some interesting history because her pubic hair. After the photo below was released, Edward and sons Cole and Brett were nervous about sending prints due to laws concerning obscenity sent through the mail. They took out a magnifying glass and had to see if any pubic hair was showing and if so how much due to the laws. If you look closely, she also has hair on her legs. I am glad Weston captured her beauty in this photo.

Nude, 1936
Edward Weston

So, I tip my hat to everyone who controls their bodies and how they choose to celebrate their beauty. If you are happy shaved, hairy (armpits, pubic, head, anywhere), tattooed, pierced, or any other form of free choice, I support you... and I would really like to photograph you to show how uniquely beautiful YOU are, not what the popular culture thinks is beautiful.

Good-fucking-bye 2013

Thistle - 010714

For the past three holiday seasons, I've spent them in my new home in Las Vegas.  A few days after the New Year started, I would have to make my nine hour drive back to the Bay Area.  As I drove south on I15, past the M resort, I would look in my rearview mirror and would say goodbye to Las Vegas with a bit of sadness to leave it.  2013 is something that I would have tried to run over if I didn't fear that it would hang on to the bumper and spill over into 2014.  I have never had a year as bad as it.

Since January 1st, I've read many Facebook friends sharing their relief of seeing 2013 pass.  I just read a friend's blog that expressed it as well.  At the water cooler, many coworkers shared the same feelings about it.

There are two parts of my hatred to 2013.  The first is witnessing my aging father in-law and mom both go to the hospital from nasty falls and their health slip.  Both of these well-spoken, brilliant people are shells of their former selves.  It saddens me how something like a fall can so quickly hasten a spiral down that doesn't seem recoverable.  Both are now in assisted care homes.

Jacqui- 010714

The second is of my own creating and living through.  I got myself into a crisis and had to claw my way out of it.  It was my own stupid arrogance and greed that got me there.  Even worse, I hurt others that I care about and lost a good friendship.  It took a many months of therapy and licking my wounds to start to feel human again.  By the end of December, I realized and owned how I ruined and lost a relationship and permanently tarnished the other ones.  I am finally starting to get back into creating art, but it still feels hollow and tarnished as well.

My hatred for 2013 was for witnessing the quick frailty that takes over people at the end of their days and for which I may live to see in my loved ones and die from myself.  I can't control the aging of loved ones, so it is my uselessness that hurts in that case.  My other pain is both self-inflicted and that which I inflicted on others.  This is what I hate most.  I hate that I caused the hurt.  Once again in my life, I have to deal with the fact that I am not the good guy.  I hurt others and was "that guy".  It sucks being the asshole.  I have to keep reminding myself though that as sorry as I feel for myself, I need to make right by the others and not wallow in the self pity.  Guilt hurts, but complaining about it doesn't feel right either.

I know 2014 is not a promise that the future will be sunshine, roses, and all beautiful days.  It will probably hold the last days for some people close to me, my continued stumbling movement toward healing, and other hardships.  On the other hand, I hope that through the wisdom I am gained that I wont be the cause of pain again.

Fourth time is also a charm.

Candace Nirvana - 010214

Late last month I got the opportunity to create with Candace Nirvana again for the fourth time.  She has moved to the Bay Area and owns/runs the studio, Lighthouse in Berkeley.  On top of setting up many Meetup events with a focus on education and art with nudes, she also is behind the camera creating amazing work much more often.   I am blessed to have her model for me since she is getting very selective of her work in front of the camera.

Candace Nirvana - 010214

I have a number of photos to push through.  You can also see a few more from this shoot at my partnership blog, Shadows Exposed.

Happy New Year everyone.

Candace Nirvana - 010214

PS - Candace is the first nude model that I've worked with four times.  I greatly appreciate her quiet grace and elegance she always shares with me.

Ageism - scientifically speaking.

You are too old/too young to participate.  Sorry.

Unique Forms of Continuity in Space - Umberto Boccioni - MoMA  - 122813

In my last post a about Santa and Dollars, I wrote about many of the "isms" and the hope that they are fading away.  Friend UL wrote about an often overlooked type of discrimination - ageism.  It made me think upon a recent example of ageism I learned about that is part of science and clinical trials of medications.

As I've mentioned before, I work for a large pharmaceutical company in the pharmacovigilance (PV) department (Drug Safety).  We are the group that makes the list of all those nasty side effects that you hear listed in prescription drug commercials (e.g., dizziness, nausea, oily discharge, liver damage, etc.).  Most of these lists come from what is discovered as side effects during the three phases of clinical trials for the product.  When conducting these clinical trails, especially phase 3, you have to have very tight controls on subject selections so that  the product is being tested against the disease and eliminating outside variables, as much as possible.  To determine who gets the treatments (and depending on the target population of the medicine), you have to create a list of the Special Populations  of those that will be excluded from the study.  For most studies, the first two groups most often listed as special populations are pediatric and older patients.

Scientifically, it can make sense to exclude these two groups.  For too long, children were thought of as little adults when it came to medicine.  You just adjust the dose for the body weight.  This was a big mistake since the metabolism, brains, and organ systems of children are developing and are much different than adults.  In the past few decades, the FDA and other health regulatory agencies (MHRA, EMEA, SFDA, Health Canada, etc.) have increasingly emphasized the need for special clinical trials for children.

The older excluded group is a different issue.  Older humans tend to have multiple issues that can affect/draw questions to the clinical trials.  At 44, I am starting to age out of some studies.  That can be attributed to my needing two different asthma medications along with being on the verge of high blood pressure and cholesterol.  If I start taking meds for those, it would further complicate any clinical trials because of the potential issues of drug interactions and other pre-existing conditions becoming exacerbated.   As we age, we become more medically complex.  All of this can make medical testing very tough and is understandable for filtering out during clinical trials, but on the other hand...

The other hand is that by excluding these special populations, we don't learn what health issues the new product can introduce to the populations.  It may greatly help them, hurt them, or do nothing at all.  The danger can come though when the drug is approved and it gets out to the general population, which includes these special populations.  We often learn more about the side effects of drugs for these groups from reports of adverse events from marketed drugs than those in clinical trials, especially for special populations.  Sadly though, that meant a sick patient had to live (hopefully) through the adverse drug reaction.  Because we didn't test on these subjects, we may not know the issues caused by more-complex health profiles of children and our older communities.

When practicing PV, we don't only list the side effects, we build up a benefit/risk profile for the product.  We want to help the prescribing physicians, patients, and other healthcare providers by giving them the best and most current information on the drug.  This enables them to weigh the benefits and the risks of the product.  Many risks can be reduced or mitigated by taking special actions, so this knowledge is crucial for making the correct treatment plans.  To truly understand this, we must include special populations in the clinical trials and determine how the medicines work within them.  Sadly though, this isn't done, mostly due to the cost and time.

Currently it costs north of a billion dollars, not including production/manufacturing costs, to get a drug approved by regulatory authorities.  With the short trademark life on the product and that it takes 8+years to get approval, doing further clinical trials aren't deemed cost effective or time efficient.  For many products, warnings go out stating that data for special populations is incomplete or missing and that doctors should be very careful prescribing to them or should avoid prescribing them at all.

We (industry, regulatory authorities, insurance companies, advocacy groups, patients, etc.) need to determine a way to require further clinical trials that include special populations to ensure better data across all patient populations and yet makes it financially feasible for the drug companies to do so.  I think all sides need to be flexible and working toward a solution rather than trying to protect only their own interests.

Santa and dollars. What is real?

If you are under 12... you shouldn't even be reading this blog until you are 18

It happened on Easter Sunday when I was seven.  My family was staying at our Montana cabin out in the woods and my older brother and I were looking for all the goodies that the Easter Bunny had hidden for us.  At one point I had stopped looking and started playing with a toy when my mom said, "I bet the Easter Bunny would hide something behind that chair."  She pointed her finger and I ran off too check it out and found another small toy.  As soon as I picked it up I looked at my mom and the whole belief vaporized into myth.  

"Mom.  You are the Easter Bunny, aren't you?"  I asked with a sudden flush.

Her shoulders dropped and she said, "Yes.  I am."

It all hit me then and I kept asking and she, my brother, and my dad kept replying.

"Tooth fairy?"

"Yes."

With the biggest hesitation, "Santa too?"

"Yes."

She then told me not to tell any of my friends because I shouldn't ruin these things for them. The trip back home that day was quiet.  I had the last of my magical loot in the seat beside me and I felt suddenly much older.  The magic of belief and the belief in magic had evolved into knowing neither magic nor belief existed.  The fences going by and the telephone poles were more real than anything else that day.  

I don't judge the value to perpetuate the myth of Santa and his gift-bearing siblings.  It is up to parents to decide if they want to keep these magical myths going.  I wonder though why we create a *magical belief that is so rooted inside our culture to uphold.  If I say there is no Santa, people shush me and look to see if any kids are around.  It feels like I almost said "fuck and rape" by the responses and dirty looks I get.

Santa is based off of Saint Nicholas of Greece.  Over the years, he has morphed into his current version (and even that is changing with stupid debates over his skin color and his portrayal of obesity) that we perpetuate.  Along with him, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny continue to evolve and give better inflation-rated gifts over the years.

So again, why does our culture need these magical beliefs?  Are there other similar beliefs that we hold so true in our hearts, even as adults? 

I started thinking of things that once were not true, but now have become believed as true over the years.  I also started thinking of things that once were beliefs that are now gone or fading away.  Here are some of the first that came to mind.

• Inferiority in intellect/moral fortitude of a gender, sexual orientation or race.  (Probably everything racist, sexist or homophobic is part of this)
• Fear mongering of the enemies of a nation over the years - Communists, Soviets, Muslims, etc.
• The sins of sex
• Dick Clark never aged.

Along with all of these I came upon the biggest magical belief that almost every country holds.  It is so pervasive that our existence holds its value to be so important that wars, murder, and mayhem go crazy over it to hoard.  It is the dollar, yen, euro, pound.  It is money.

I have an old twenty dollar bill from the 1950's.  On the front it states:

This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United  States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.

If you look at one printed now it says.

This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private. 

As many of you know, American money was once based on the Gold Standard in which the paper money was representative of actual gold held in reserve as the backer of value.  At one point though, this was done away with.  That new twenty dollar note is not worth that much because the paper it is printed on is not made of expense materials.  The ink is pretty cheap as well.  It isn't a note that can be directly exchanged for gold stored as proof of value.  That twenty dollar bill is only worth twenty dollars because we have ingrained it into our minds that it is worth it.

If I went to the store today and bought twenty dollars worth of groceries tonight and still had forty left in my wallet and then the zombie apocalypse hit, which could I use to exchange for other goods or services, the left over money or the groceries?  The can of spam would be worth much more than the piece of paper with $20 on it because it truly would have value as a consumable.  In that moment, aside from fighting off zombies, everyone would have the same realization that I had at seven about Santa.  Money isn't real.  Fence posts and telephone poles are real.


I started to see this a few years ago during the recession.  My 401k dropped in value by 75%, as did my home.  One month I had x dollars invested, the next I had 1/4x.  I didn't see any of this stuff happen.  It just disappeared.  On the other hand, my home was still there.  Even though it was worth much less money than it was a year before, I didn't lose an actual 75% chunk of it.  It is still 1410 square feet, two stories high, with a detached garage.  It is the magic-belief-paper-money value of it that was lost.

It is things we truly consume that have value.  Food holds value.  Shelter is valuable.  Medicine is pretty good too.  What about jewelry?  That depends on whether its beauty is valuable or its components hold value for use and in other modes.  What about ideas?  Good ideas are valuable, such as the idea of better way to build a wall to keep zombies out.  That would be worth some spam.  Good music would be valuable as an escape and reprieve from existence, as well as books and other arts.  Friendship, family, and human bonds would be worth much too as our ancestors learned by living in communities.  Of course the value, and trade, of the world's oldest profession will never change.

In this season of giving, stop the craziness of thought that the price tag behind the gift makes it better.  I know it is trite to repeat the cliche of "It isn't the gift, it's the spirit of the gift that counts", but it is true.

I had a coworker look at me, mouth agape, when I told her I was getting my wife a massage and making her dinner for Christmas.  She then stated (semi-joking), "There had better be a Gucci something beside that dinner."  I just smiled and walked away knowing that for us, a relaxed and nurtured body massaged of stress and filled with amazing pot roast is worth more than something sold at Bloomingdales.

*I am not addressing issues of faith and religion with this post.

Fundamentals, essential elements, and tennis balls.

Krysta Kaos - 110513 - SideB

Photography and art lifts us up, makes us feel, think, believe, tear us down, change us, challenge us, and make us live our humanity.  All of that is much of the lofty stuff that makes us aspire to creating art and expressing ourselves.  This stuff is crucial to an artist's soul, but to be honest, it isn't the only thing that makes the art.  An artist also needs to keep in mind the fundamentals of craft, classic elements of art, and then going out and doing it, doing it again and doing it better, then repeat.

I recently picked up an issue of of Popular Photography that reviewed the fundamentals of photography such as rule-of-thirds, tonal range, etc., to make your photos better.  Even though all of it was very basic, it reminded me that sometimes I neglect these fundamentals  because I assume I am that good and don't need to be cognizant of them.  One recent example came from a portrait photo shoot where for half of the photos I forgot the golden rule of ensuring the subject's eye closest to me must be in focus.  I should have remembered my fundamentals.  So padawans, learn your fundamentals. Once you master them, you can transgress them, but you must master them first.

A few years ago I enjoyed the opportunity to take an art history course.  We discussed many of the essential elements of art.  Composition, color theory, motion, narrative, perspective, etc.  It made me look at art with an appreciation of the artist's mastery of fundamentals and using the essential elements (and bending them) to create works that transcend the brush strokes and colors to become overtures of emotion, thought, message and life.  So padawans, learn these essential elements and study the art of those who have created before you.  Take those lessons and make your own voice from their inspirational notes.

You know what a coach says about what you have to do to get good at tennis, hit a lot of tennis balls.  Same is true about photography.  You have to take a lot of photos. - Mentor Ron

Creating art is an exercise.  Like the runner, the gymnast, the swimmer, you don't become a great artist instantly and with little work.  You must get out their and create, show, get feedback, create more, refine, explore, and create more. 

As a photographer, you must go out and shoot.  This practice must not be indiscrimate shooting, but with the intent to learn, explore your art and craft, and to create your own artistic voice.  Once you  captured the image, you then have to go and finish the art through editing and printing.  You may do this in a darkroom and grow your ability to create master prints from printing hundreds or thousands of times to learn the craft.  As a digital photographer you must keep learning the tools (i.e., Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) and then practice, push, and practice more. 

I've found from my own experience I learn a new technique (adding digital vignettes was one of my first) and initially over using it in all my art.  After time and practice, I hopefully grow in subtlety and power as I let it enhance the art, not take over it.  This is a normal evolution of any growth.  Exuberance and excitement on the new power and then a deeper learning of how it applies to my art.

One of my greatest weaknesses in art is that this an exercise that needs... exercise.  Like running, it is easier to not do it than do it.  All I can say is that if you want it to be important to you, you will have to get the discipline to keep creating and doing it.  Hopefully your artistic need to create quality and the rewards and lessons will also be motivational to getting off your ass and creating with intent.  So padawans, put down your excuses and make some art, then make  more and more. 

"Hey sexy, nice ass..." and other objectifications

Earlier this year I posted photos from my other blog, shadowsexposed.com, about an art series I created titled, I objectify women (IOW).    In it I present my thoughts on how I objectify women through my art.  For me, there are many different types and degrees of objectification of another human.

IOW Jacqui - gel transfer onto old cotton shirt - 102413

This morning I read an article at Slate.com about the artist Hannah Price who photographed men that cat-called her while she walked the streets of Philadelphia.  I suggest you look at the photos and read the article.  I found that her photos are brilliant in how they transgress the sexist boundaries of cat calls by not returning them with a sharp retort.  She both humanizes the cat callers and also objectifies them in a way.  From what little I learned of her series she engaged the cat callers in dialogue and took their portraits.  I wonder if this has changed their attitudes about their verbal outbursts?  Hopefully.

IOW Jacqui - gel transfer onto old cotton shirt - 102413

Ms. Price is exposing one of the many types of objectification.  Cat calls can be range from pretty subtle (yet in their way still very intrusive) like, "Smile for me, beautiful" to horrifically vulgar, degrading and threatening.  I guess that is true of many types of objectification.

All of this makes me wonder on the intent of the objectifiers.  I think there are a few major categories of objectifiers.

1. They (and society) know they are doing it and it is accepted as normal by most.  This is the most common with advertising, movies, television, etc.  There are dangers still, but until society shifts, it will be there.

2.  They know what they are doing even though it unacceptable to society.  This may be porn, cat calls, comments on forums, jokes, created art, materials, etc.  Much of this stuff has to be kept underground or on special interest websites.  Depending on the content, it may be protected under free speech, but maybe considered dangerous or directly threatening to the "othered".  Some are ashamed they do these things, others do it blatantly and may have ill intent behind them.

3. They don't know it is objectification (both at the individual and societal levels).  I am guilty of this.  Many times it is subconscious, yet pretty pervasive (and may also be perverted?).    Examples of this are the male (and female gaze), unconscious thoughts, jokes, and other subtle and not-so subtle manifestations.

I believe that objectification will always be part of our world and that not all forms of objectification are bad.  Sometimes they are necessary filters to get information quick and make decisions.  The major danger though is when they become the only form of information we gather about the objectified and also how we treat and interact or act upon them.