f a d i n g n o t e s . c o m
The New York Times (9/28/2003 issue) did an review by Philip Gefter of Reagan Louie's photography exhibit currently on view in SF MOMA. The title of the exhibit is "Reagan Louie: Sex Work in Asia".
According to the review:
and:
MR. LOUIE did not take these photographs to titillate viewers. "The photographs of these sex workers were collaborations," he explains. "I was very aware of the nature of the relationship I had with the women, the power I had as a man and as an outsider, and the power of photography. I wanted to make clear to these women that I was photographing them for reasons other than sexual gratification. How much they understood or believed this would be evident in how willing they were to step out of expectations and present themselves as people."
You can clicking the thumbnail on the left to see a larger version. I was surprised at how the photographer made it seem so clean, smooth, and... yes, young. It is merely another occupation. Similar to other white collar women going to work. They dressed maybe a little sexier, but not obviously so, considering today's fashion trend. There is a matter-of-factness in it. They are selling labors and skills just like us "skilled labors". If they, themselves, don't associate lots of emotional or morality bagadge with their job; what's there for us to say? Is there any reason for us to feel superior? Look at them, do they need to be saved? or to be pitied?
But then again, is it just the photographer's point of view? Is he only letting us see what he intended us to see? Is he only seeing what HE wanted to see, what he wanted to believe? Or is it because he is a man, so this is more of a man's point of view?
Posted by Jean at September 30, 2003 12:00 AM | Category: Photography