Form and Pressure wrote:
I find the images interesting to an extent...

Your titles and explinations are needed, for without them I didnt find the images very religious or very erotic.

But I did find them somewhat interesting.

Got it, thanks.

pixpal wrote:
I like your images but can't categorize as religious.

They come across as dark weird erotic.
Devils are often depicted as males.

Thanks.  I think the images are more of a comment on religious heritage, which, like everyone, I have.

THe devil image can be read a couple different ways. The red bits and the large eye are from a sculpture of the devil at the erotic museum in Paris. In a more complete depiction he was definately male.

Rays Fine Art wrote:
The pictures are interesting and very well done.  The concept (combining religious and erotic imagery) I think can be fascinating but I don't think you've fully explored it yet.  Mainly, I think, because  other than in the first one, I find any religious message to be pretty obscure, at least for me, and other than in the second one, I really don't see anything even mildly erotic.

Simple nudity does not equal erotic, nor does the mere fact that a picture or a portion of a picture that is associated with religion make the picture itself religious once it is transferred to another image unless the religious statement is inherent in the final picture.

Even so, I think you're on to something here.  I hope you'll be continuing to develop the concept.

All IMHO as always, of course.

Ray, Thank you for the response and for your thoughts. I agree that the subject matter is vast and that these are rather early, and somewhat tentative works. I think I will explore this area some more in the future.

As for the statement that "simple nudity does not equal erotic", that's one that I've found rather more complex than anything that reduces to a simple statement or formula. I'm well aware of the particular formulation of the concepts of nudity and eroticism that go along with the statement and the whole tradition of the figure in western art in recent centuries. However, I find as i investigate this particular theme that I'm becoming interested in some other, and less clearly delineated ways of framing depictions. In short:  I think simple nudity can be erotic to people, either in view or in creation, in varying amounts, depending on what the viewer and the artist bring to the image.

With the religious, I'm more interested in combining imagery from, contrasting, and commenting on  the visual depictions of the body in my religious heritage I don't think my primary purpose is religious, nor do i think that any of us can ever be totally removed from such purposes. It's our shared culture and heritage, and one which impacts and informs our current concepts of the body and sexuality.  I'm just pursuing a narrow and personal investigation, of which these are some initial sketches.

I'm especially interested in Contamination and the erosion of categories - these images may be no more than confused, I'll work on it.

Thanks for the encouragement, I'll keep trying.

Eyesso wrote:
Cool....#2 is my favorite, there's a lot going on there, it's a visual puzzle. 

I think I prefer the abstraction element of #2.  The other two are great as well, but the large faces end up distracting my eye and sort of reducing the abstraction element....so, maybe fade the faces a little bit?

Thank you, and you bring up a point that is interesting as well when you suggest adjusting the images. I see your point  and should explain why this is difficult with the way I work.

These images are composites on film, there are no digital laters to adjust. The way that the images are arrived at is by running film rolls through the camera multiple times, often years apart, and in very different environments. I try to keep each pass of the roll through the camera to one theme, thought or inquiry with notes to keep track of what the idea is. The rolls function as a storage for images and the ideas behind them. After several, most commonly four passes through the camera the rolls are sent off for developing and then I work with whatever chance combination of images result.

I can, and do, change aspects of the images in Photoshop and am slowly getting better at using the program, but it's almost exclusively a "paint" type of operation, so, something like darkening a face takes a good bit of time and effort. No reason not to if it's the right thing to do, but not something I'll do as a quick experiment.

Kirino wrote:
I think the work looks lovely... it is clearly in the evolution stage and that is just fine.  What does concern me somewhat is what seems to be your desire to "qualify" the images (long descriptions, titles, etc.) 

If you feel a need to explain to the viewer what they are supposed to see you are either dealing with a weak image or a concept that you are making too precious. 

For me the greatest complement you can get as an artist is having two viewers arguing over what an image is supposed to be about. The purpose of art is to evoke emotion.  Let the work stand on it's own and allow viewers to go on their own journey.

Thanks, and a good point, so I'll leave it at that.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
I think you are on the right track with these images.  You are creating some great stuff.

Thanks, I'm kind of liking how they don't work.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
These images are composites on film, there are no digital laters to adjust. The way that the images are arrived at is by running film rolls through the camera multiple times, often years apart, and in very different environments. I try to keep each pass of the roll through the camera to one theme, thought or inquiry with notes to keep track of what the idea is. The rolls function as a storage for images and the ideas behind them. After several, most commonly four passes through the camera the rolls are sent off for developing and then I work with whatever chance combination of images result..

Well, now I'm amazed....the compositions are great!  To have the images line up years later, not knowing what you are shooting, how the pose was....unless you kept  a logbook, these are composed purely on mood and broad brush strokes.  Fantastically creative!

Eyesso wrote:

Well, now I'm amazed....the compositions are great!  To have the images line up years later, not knowing what you are shooting, how the pose was....unless you kept  a logbook, these are composed purely on mood and broad brush strokes.  Fantastically creative!

Thanks, no logbook, a lot of reliance on chance. I work at doing certain things like trimming the film leader after each pass, masking the front of the lens, and keeping track of basic composition and exposure changes to maximize chances of getting usable material. Mostly though its the conceptual combinations I'm after.

Dan K Photography wrote:
great stuff. I especially like #3.

Thanks Dan. The model for that image, Lilith Noir, is very interesting and quite good, well worth the effort to shoot if you happen to be in the same area.


The other model for that shot is some centuries removed, so,  apparently we've missed the opportunity.