‘CC I was wondering about this with the Washing-up 2000 series because it is such a simple subject, almost too simple. I wondered if the series is an example of where it wasn’t a concept when you started but a close-by subject that developed into something
NS It’s a very close-by subject and a lot of my work and the subjects I choose are because of this. It’s what I know.
CC These are photographs of things that only you saw and inpart that means that these inanimate objects read like a diary of the events of your life – of what you eat, who you meet, what these places look like.
NS Sometimes I see old photographs and what’s interesting to me are the things on the edges that are not meant to be there -the soap packet, the bit of litter, the things that we can relate to and hold that everydayness. I like it when something has been photographed in a simple way.
CC I’m very suspicious of the idea of ‘non-subjects’ in photography, I don’t think there are such things. As in the case ofWashing-up 2000, there are subjects that are not very obviously subjects until they are photographed, regardless of whether that was the intention of the photographer or not. There is a feeling that the significance of our lives is implanted in these subtle and everyday occurrences.’
Nigel Shafran and Charlotte Cotton interview [2004 ]
Fig 1. Washing-up (2000)
Did it surprise you that this was taken by a man? why?
Was this question written by a man? The question is implying that wash-up is a woman’s subject and therefore the viewer may be surprised to find that it is the work of a man. That certainly isn’t my thought at all. I’m wondering if the photographs are viewed in a different way because they are taken by a man? I’m trying to think back to my first thoughts when initially viewing the above photograph and I was trying to find the artistic merit. This didn’t come until viewing ‘washing-up’ as a complete project when I could see the shifting changes of time. The tinsel, a subtle indication of christmas time. I didn’t assign a gender to the subject of ‘washing up’ in my initial thoughts and I wasn’t surprised to learn it was the idea of a male photographer, I see it as genderless.
In your opinion, does gender contribute to the creation of an image?
I’d like to think that gender isn’t a contributing factor as we are all capable of the same things whether they are physical or emotional, we are all capable. However, society has assigned these roles to specific genders, women deal with emotions and men deal with physical aspects. This notion can be further encouraged by the elements so far studied in this section of the course. We’ve looked at Francesca Woodman, Elina Brotherus, Gillian Wearing, Trish Morrissey, Nikki S. Lee, Tracey Moffatt and I’ve written a feature on Dita Pepe. All female photographers or artists who’s works are a response to feelings and emotions they’ve experienced with the exception of our opening autobiographical self portraiture feature of a former OCA student. Keith Greenough’s self portrait shows three images of himself in the same pose, same background with different identifying clothing which as a series culminates into the fact he is an ironman. This leads me onto a male stereotypical representation as in Greenough’s self portrait the only other male, Nigel Shafran has chosen to photograph ‘experiences’ i.e. washing-up, a physical representation of an experience.
I would say that women are more open and don’t have the emotional restrictions that most men seem to suffer. More women photographers expose their inner most thoughts through their photography than men do but thats not to say it doesn’t happen. Charles Latham created a series of photos that showed him harming himself and posted them online causing a string of heated debates. This was in response to a relationship breakup which evoked such strong emotions to want to photograph the harm and expose himself to the world. This resulted in a project ‘Cyrus’ in 2006, where Latham included an alter ego in his self portraits which represented his self loathing.
Fig 2. Cyrus (2006)
So in response to the original question, I don’t see how gender plays a specific role in catergorising photographers work. As with all art it’s an expression of the individual and not their given labels.
Gender can be used as an advantage in certain genres and in that case will contribute to the creation of an image but not always.
What does this series achieve by not including people?
When we view portraits we tend to judge the person based on how they look and the environment they are in. By removing people from the washing up series were able to look more at the inanimate objects for clues on the narrative. It gives us the ability to make some unbiased deductions about the person or people who are washing up. For instance we’r not making assumptions on how old these people are but instead where looking at how they live, what do they eat and drink, what other clues are present to suggest an occasion or activity. Without people present we are forced to look deeper and use our imaginations until we decide what the photograph is about.
Do you regard them as interesting ‘still life’ compositions?
I wouldn’t really think of the washing up series as still life compositions due to the nature of the activity. Washing up piled up indicates life, someone used the dishes, someone put them there, someone washed up and they’re waiting to be put away. The photo taking is bringing life to the mundane and telling a story about what happens in that space. As a series the shifting changes of washing up, different day, different lighting, different crockery, gives the illusion of things moving, objects be put away and different ones used. I don’t see anything still about the series at all.
Fig 1. Shafran,N. (2000) washing-up At http://nigelshafran.com/category/washing-up-2000-2000/ (Accessed) 23/05/17.
Fig 2. Latham, C. (2006) Cyrus At https://mattsparling.com/2011/04/24/charles-latham-whatever-happened-to/ (Accessed 24/5/17.)