Article: Porn Stars as Art

G

Guest

Guest
I like this idea and would love to see the actual gallery show. - Perdita

A noted photographer takes before and after pictures of Jenna Jameson and other XXX performers. - Pete L'Official, Salon.com

Nov. 9, 2004 | Timothy Greenfield-Sanders made his name photographing luminously iconic portraits of the artistically and intellectually accomplished. Andy Warhol, Jasper Johns, Orson Welles, Toni Morrison, Sidney Poitier and Hillary Clinton have all appeared before his camera. His photographs manage not merely to capture but also to powerfully radiate with the intensity of his featured subjects -- their personalities pour forth from the frames.

Greenfield-Sanders has now re-focused his lens on a whole new crowd: porn stars. His latest book, XXX: 30 Porn-Star Portraits, released last month by Bulfinch Press, features 30 startling diptychs of some of porn's most famous performers, gay and straight, shown in their day clothes and their birthday suits. (The photos are also on display through Dec. 18 at the Mary Boone Gallery in New York.) Jenna Jameson, Ron Jeremy, Tera Patrick and Gina Lynn are among those who strike twinned poses for the photographer, in some cases revealing far more confidence in the buff than in their blue jeans. The book also features 15 essays, both erudite and eccentric, about pornography and culture from a remarkable group of writers, thinkers and performers, including Gore Vidal, Francine du Plessix Gray, John Malkovich, Nancy Friday and John Waters.

Porn stars were a radical change of pace in many ways for the photographer, who'd never photographed nudes before. But with the subject of porn becoming increasingly visible in popular culture -- Jenna Jameson's well-received autobiography being one recent example -- it became not only impossible to ignore, but also fascinating enough for the photographer to study. Though pornography has long existed in various forms, it may take the bright key lights of the mainstream -- or of a prominent photographer for that matter -- for us to honestly look at those who produce it. As Sunrise Adams, one of the porn stars who posed for Greenfield-Sanders, says in "Thinking XXX," a documentary about the making of the book that recently aired on HBO and is set to return to regular rotation soon: "Everybody's fucking somebody to get somewhere in life. We're just doing it on film." Salon recently spoke to Greenfield-Sanders by phone:

What made you decide to put together this book?
Years ago, I saw "Boogie Nights" and was struck by how interesting porn stars were, and thought they'd be interesting for a portrait series. I never thought of doing them nude. And it developed over the years, the idea. Eventually I met a porn star, and I did the pictures. He posed nude at the end, and I was shocked and didn't know what to do. The next day when I saw the pictures, they were so striking that I realized that this was a great way to shoot them because they were equally interesting both as people and as nude studies. That really was an idea just for a gallery show. I never thought of it as a book until I started to meet the porn stars and realized how interesting, how diverse and how exceptional they were.

How do you choose your poses?
You have to really remember that there's not just that single portrait there, but a whole, and the whole is 30 portraits, so you don't want to do the same pose over and over again, even though 10 or 15 people might look great in that pose. So as you use up body positions, you've got to find a new one or a new way to make someone look good. The trick was to get everyone to be different in some way, and at the same time look powerful, and interesting, and look like himself or herself.

You've said that your photo of Briana Banks was inspired by a Cézanne painting of a young boy. Were many of the other poses similarly inspired by works of art?
I have a B.A. in art history, so my thinking is always art historical. I look at a pose and think, "Oh, that's the pose of George Washington with his hand up at his chest," or, "That's Mona Lisa." I think the Cézanne painting of the bather is such a great pose, and it was an interesting start-off point for her.

Goya is mentioned in the introduction to your book as one of the primary inspirations for the diptych form you've chosen, primarily his "Maja, Clothed and Nude" paintings.
When Goya did the Maja paintings, those were radically controversial. [Labeled "obscene works," they were seized by the authorities.] I think in some parts of this country, there are probably people who feel the same way about my book. So while in some ways a lot has changed -- these porn stars can be nude and confident, and powerfully nude -- there are people that still view it as they did 300 years ago.

What did you learn about porn stars from working on this project?
I was very lucky to pick porn stars to pose for the first nudes I've ever done because these are very accomplished people in front of the camera. They're great at posing, so it was easier for me than it would have been with another group who wasn't really comfortable with their bodies. These people are very exhibitionistic and very at ease this way. It's empowering to them.

full article w/links and pic - gallery photos (click on clothed pic for nude)
 
Dita,

A question, only kinda related to the article, but when did photography become art? I know some of the first use of the camera that got wide audience appeal was pictures from the american civil war by Mathew Brody.

I can think of a couple of artists whose primary medium was the camera, like Maplethorpe, but I was wondering if you knew when it became an acepted art form?

-Colly
 
Sorry, Colly, I don't know. Will try and find out though. P. :)
 
Colleen Thomas said:
I can think of a couple of artists whose primary medium was the camera, like Maplethorpe, but I was wondering if you knew when it became an acepted art form?

Don't wanna hijack the thread but ... you don't think photographs are art?

CA
 
I'm kind of disppointed that in the link, the clothed pictures are very small, and the nude shots are bigger.

I'd like to be able to see their faces while they're clothed. In the nude pics they all have a hint of challenge in their faces, which I guess makes sense, but I'd like to see if their faces look softer when they're clothed. It's hard to tell.

It reminds me of an article I read too by some aspiring writer who decided he wanted to try his hand at writing porn movies. Porn movie plots being so awful, he decided maybe he could bring some class or at least some wit to the scripts.

His adventures among the B-level porn people and the story of how they completely corrupted his script was really interesting. It really is a business.

---dr.M.
 
In regards to when photography became an art form, I'm sure you could ask 20 different art historians and get twenty different answers. I'm not an art historian, but I'll tell you what I know. Photographers will tell you that some of the original photgraphers (especially William Talbot) had a very strong interest in artistic exploration, and that it was an artistic medium right from the beginning. Of course, the art world was much more slow to accept photographers into their world than photographers were to include themselves in it.

I think some of the Pre-raphaelite painters who had a great interest in realism and in composition (as opposed to technique) really embraced the idea of photography.

I'd say by the early 1900s, though, it was a respected form of artwork, particularly with the movement away from the Photographic Society into the Linked Ring and the Photo-Secession movements. Photographers in these movements included Alfred Stieglitz, Clarence White and Alvin Colburn. They were some of the earliest photographers to be exhibited in established art galleries as artwork.
 
porn films

dr_mabeuse said:
... It really is a business.
That's the rub, Mab. I would love to see some good writers or directors insert a bit of wit into porn. No big deal, they could do it the way The Simpsons slips in entendres and film and literature references. It doesn't take away from the intent of humour or that it's 'just' a cartoon, but it attracts a bigger audience than the stuff that's on Saturday mornings.

Perdita
 
Fog, I appreciate your response to Colly's query. It was difficult finding info online but this little site gives some important facts. I agree that the beginnings of the acceptance of photography as art began at the beginning of the 20th century. - Perdita

"The word photography, which is derived from the Greek words for light and writing, was first used by Sir John Herschel in 1839, the year the invention of the photographic process was made public. During the previous decades perhaps as many as ten individuals had tried to make a photograph. At least four were successful: Joseph Nicephore NIEPCE, Louis J. M. DAGUERRE, and Hippolyte BAYARD in France, and William Henry TALBOT in England."
 
Re: porn films

perdita said:
That's the rub, Mab. ... No big deal, they could do it the way The Simpsons slips in entendres and film and literature references. It doesn't take away from the intent of humour or that it's 'just' a cartoon, but it attracts a bigger audience than the stuff that's on Saturday mornings.

Perdita

I think the problem is precisely that it is a big deal. Anyone can fuck, and being able to fuck on camera is definitely a skill that some are better at than others. But being able to fuck on camera and play double entendres (except the most obvious) requires an amount of skill and understanding that might just preclude a career of fucking on camera.:(

Even among more enlightened (or open-minded?) film audiences, such as some European nations, explicit sex is rarely incorporated into films that aren't created primarily for titillation.

I'm not sure what else to say, except "that's the way it is."
 
Perdita,

I know little about photography and even less about art, but it strikes me (from the gallery on the linked site) that these photographs just aren't very good.

The concept is brilliant, I'm just not sure it's been very well executed.

I presume the stark absence of background, setting and context is deliberate, asking us to look at the person and little else. But there seems to be no thought going into how the individuals are posed. It would seem to me that the photographer was deliberately trying to get us to view the clothed individuals as "ordinary" and the nudes as "challenging and graceless". If so, it was achieved but was a fairly dumb trick.

I think the photographer showed he can't photo nudes very well, and certainly appears unable to make a point with his work, in the way that, say, Maplethorpe did.

Speaking of which, wasn't Maplethorpe subject to a legal challenge in Cininnati, which looked at whether photography (his, in particular) was art or not?

Just my five cents'.
 
Back
Top