Dear Reader,
Early in my career, i became aware that many women have a strong desire to look like professional models. After working for numerous studios and commercial photographers, i developed special techniques for a boudoir portrait style in order to evoke the same kind of viewer response generated by advertising photography. This special boudoir style is both marketable and highly recognisable, and in this book i share it with you.
Boudoir photography: the fantasy exposed
Mario Venticinque
ISBN 0-8174-3562-X
So begins Mario's How-to book on taking flattering photos of half-naked bogan chicks.
You know the sort of thing.
Mousey, small-breasted young women with flat hair and faces like paper plates put down their Winnie Reds for ten minutes, slap on some lacey lingerie, throw a pout at the camera through their theatrical make-up, and there you go: boudoir photographs suitable for any wallet or pool room.
Is That Really You?
What is the impulse that drives this industry? Well, according to Mario:
Today's women want to appear as glamorous and elegant - and as sensual - as they feel, and more than ever before, they want to be photographed and remembered that way. Boudoir photography offers special techniques for capturing and enhancing a woman's perception of herself.
Mario was writing in 1986, and, back then, there were a number of ways to make today's women look as sensual, glamorous and elegant as they felt. Among them:
- Fur is naturally erotic, and because of its weight and bulk, it's an ideal material for camouflaging major figure problems.
- Pantyhose are excellent for correcting and covering leg problems, such as cellulite on the hips and thighs.
And so on.
Nowadays, a large proportion of boudoir photography is labelled as 'Make-over' shots, and there's some sort of Cinderella thing going on in the heads of the folks who pay for this mass-media-styled soft core porn.
There's also a lot of heavily pregnant women out there who want to remember how glamorous, elegant and sensual they were as heavily pregnant women. Cue black lingerie, pantyhose, fur, and bulging belly.
And good on them.
My problem is not with the folks who have the photos taken. Not at all.
Fifteen Minutes of Half-Naked Fame?
My problem concerns what happens when Michelle from the bottleshop has some photos done that evoke the same "viewer response generated by advertising photography", and then those shots escape from their rightful place in boyfriend Davo's wallet/poolroom and end up in an album of samples out the front of the shop that took the photos.
Advertising photography, by definition, is exploitative, both of subject and viewer. Are the young women who have these shots done aware that they are not being turned into Cinderella, but rather that they're being commoditised?
Does it taint the faux 'beauty' that these girls experience, the fact that they end up as just another pawn in the game of capitalist endeavour?
Or is it the logical conclusion of the process?
This One Particular Girl
There's this one particular girl in this one particular album out the front of this one particular make-over photographer's shop at this one particular shopping centre...
Yes, i was looking.
I have a technical interest (no, really) in these sort of shots, and i can't resist flipping through and seeing how effective the techniques employed have been on all those mousey, flat haired girls in their push-up bras and clown make-up.
Well, when i saw this particular girl's pics, i found myself experiencing exactly the sort of "highly marketable" "viewer response generated by advertising photography" that the boudoir industry promises.
That is to say, i thought to myself, «Whatever she's selling, i wouldn't mind getting some of it!»
Or that's what my penis thought to itself, anyway.
But what was she selling?
SHE was selling herself, to herself, and to her loved one.
THE SHOP - however - was using her as an advertisement, to sell their service to random passers-by. And their penises.
The difference was, it *wasn't* an advertising photograph, was it! It was a photo of some real girl, not a model. She was not there selling a photographic make-over service, but, rather, she was selling, as i have noted, herself to herself, and to her loved one.
Her image was misappropriated, in my humble opinion, and i found myself in the uncomfortable position of acting as an uninvited (?) voyeur in what was essentially a private moment between the girl and her real audience.
Maybe Bill Henson Should Do Boudoir Photography Instead?
I'm not suggesting that this is the same as the recent flurry of outrage that surrounded Bill Henson's photographs of naked pubescents, but i am suggesting that there's some sort of collapse of moral fibre going on here somewhere.
After all, it's not art we're talking about, with all the self-righteous arguments that go along with that. Oh, no. It's just business.
And if there were allegations of exploitation attendant upon the Henson case, then they too should be present here, where the whole enterprise is exploitation.
And no, consent is not sufficient to excuse this; how informed is the consent that Michelle gives to the photographer? Has she thought it through?
And age is not relevant: even if she were 54 and semi-naked photos of her were being used to further the profit margin of the business that she had hired to perform a service for her, and used in a manner that debases her initial intent for having the pictures taken in the first place, well...
I reckon that's just plain wrong.
In my humble opinion.
Yours photogenically,
Gullybogan