CULTURAL DIALECTICS december 1997 / planet of the arts 23 Entrepreneurial Practices in Contemporary Art the artist as pimp by Jonathan Lander ex is often used to sell products. And the debate on how to differentiate pornography from eroticism has been with us for decades. Floating up to the surface of these murky grounds is Greg Friedler’s book Naked New York. Sex and the ambiguity between eroticism and pornography are the book’s main marketing tactics. Naked New York is a series of seventy-five diptychs. Each diptych consists of two 4” x5” negatives contact printed on a single piece of photographic paper. In the image on the left stands a clothed subject, and on the right the same subject stands naked. Like the design of Robert Frank’s classic The Americans, each diptych in Naked New York is intended to be viewed free from any distractions. We are directed to com- pare each person clothed versus naked. The diptychs are printed on the odd numbered pages, while the even numbered pages are left blank. The book’s design is rough and stylized to convey a lost-and- found, take-it-or-leave-it aesthetic that so stereotypes New York City and its inhabitants. All four edges of each contact print are roughly torn or cut unevenly with scissors, and below each diptych is stuck one carefully dog-eared punch tape label indicating the profession and age of the subject, complete with typos X’ed out and left to stand. This hard-edged motif is reinforced by the worn brick wall, complete with peeling paint and exposed water pipes of the warehouse studio that serves as the common backdrop to each photograph. The whole effort seems highly contrived, and thus insincere. One design problem in this book is the arbitrary changes in sub- ject-to-camera distance and camera angles that vary from one image to the next. Variances like these result in some subjects portrayed larger and from different points of view compared to their own relat- ed image, as well as to other images. These inconsistencies introduce extraneous visual cues that detract from the main comparison Friedler sets out for us to make. In his introduction, Friedler briefly describes his intention in the following way, “Photographing someone naked is about trying to get at some kind of truth, whereas photographing someone nude is linked more to sexual gratification, eroticism, or our conventions of beauty.” This simplistic justification is an attempt to distance himself from both pornography and erotic art. It doesn’t wash. The term nude may very well be associated with the erotic, but naked is certainly related to pornography. By categorically defining ude as politically incor- rect, and naked in a loosely defined category justified by the Truth (with a capital T), Friedler tries to deny the possibility that his work falls into the realm of pornography. He tries to position Naked New Friedler’s Pretense: Nakedness = Truth York as ersatz sociology-art — a pseudo-scientific art form of social comparative study. According to Friedler’s Naked Truth theory, there are two sides to each person — the public side and the private side. He writes, “The clothed version is only part of the truth because we only have one sense of a clothed individual. Nakedness, on the other hand, reveals people the way they are. We can focus on a naked person and not on the expectations that clothing produces about their occupation or their place in society.” The idea that nakedness equals the Truth is too simplistic to be accepted blindly. Is Friedler implying that the Truth about an indi- vidual can be visually conveyed by their combined clothed and naked appearance? If so, then the portion of the truth concealed by clothing must be completely revealed when the clothing is removed. However, in real- ity this is not the case. Clothing is not the only device that we use to create identities for ourselves. Body tattoos and piercings (which are not stripped away in Friedler’s images) achieve similar results. Friedler’s New Yorkers are not neces- sarily portrayed “the way they are,” as he theorizes them to be. The psychology underlying the subjects’ willingness to participate is also addressed briefly by Friedler. A self-described “complete stranger” to his subjects, he hypothesizes that their desire to be photographed naked by him (knowing that their image would be mass produced in published form) stems from their being starved for attention, their need for a temporary confi- dant, their passion to do something different from their regular rou- tine, to fulfill some form of sexual gratification or exhibitionist ten- Friedler’s Logic: Naked + Camera = Cash dencies, or to record their existence in a certain place and time. But it is in fact Friedler who is at the centre of all of these desires. One of the questions art-makers repeatedly ask themselves is “What is my purpose for making this?” After reading Naked New York, we are prompted to ask ourselves this very same question on behalf of Friedler. It is hard to take at face value Friedler’s skimpy description of his intentions. Friedler describes his reason for making Naked New York as an “intense curiosity” to “document the various types of people who exist within humanity.” He makes no mention, however, of the crucial issue of exploitation that art-makers must deal with. Has he specifically gone out of his way to avoid talking about this issue in relation to his work? Anyone who is versed in fine art discourse will quickly recognize that Friedler’s Naked New York images objectify his subjects. His setup reeks of opportunism and manipulation. His catalogue of naked people has an inherent quality of voyeurism and sensationalism. There is nothing terribly significant or meaningful about any of Friedler’s individual photographs — they do nothing in the greater name of Truth or Beauty. The result is that Naked New York is most appropriately compared to pornography magazines. Pornography showcases naked bodies in provocative sexual ges- tures and poses. Naked New York repeatedly slips in and out of this format through a number of the subjects being recorded with come- on looks and other contemporary devices of voyeuristic sexual grati- fication. Friedler’s images of disaffected, blasé youth mimic the Gen-X style sexual imagery used in advertisements by the Calvin Kleins of the fashion marketing industry. Other images of plain-look- ing people posing naked probably appeal to the same market for amateur pornography. But is Friedler’s sexual objectification purposeful or accidental? Without knowing Friedler personally or asking him, we can only speculate. According to his bio on the back cover of the book, he has an MFA from the School of Visual Arts in New York City. With that in mind, we can presume that he has had extensive training in visual literacy and culture, and is aware of contemporary issues in photog- raphy and fine art, such as objectification and exploitation. His fail- ure to acknowledge these issues leads me to think that he is in it for other motives. Two come to mind: fame and cash. If Friedler wants fame, then he’s not going to get it from Naked New York. The art world would laugh him off as a sixth-rate photog- rapher feebly attempting to address issues in photography that are fif- teen years out of date. He will go unnoticed by the larger public unless he’s lucky enough to attract the attention of a Christian funda- mentalist politician intent on eradi- cating immorality. But Friedler’s photographs come nowhere close to those of Mapplethorpe or Serrano in challenging social norms or breaking taboos. Cash is the other motivator, and a strong one. In a world where pornography is a huge industry and fine art-making is unlikely to provide a person with financial security, it is not surprising to see some art-makers going for a cash grab. Sex and pornography both sell. And sometimes they sell under the guise of fine art. A cash motive is hard to deny when looking at Naked New York. Its appeal is mainly that of unglamourized voyeurism. It is a one-off book with no place else to go. A book such as this one reminds art students that there is an even more entrepreneurial option than selling out one’s creative intelligence — rather than simply prostituting your dignity you can act as a pimp and peddle the dignity of other people for cash. Calling it art is a proven way to deny its pornographic intentions and to justify the cash rewards that accrue from people’s willingness to pay to see others degraded. Pretty-sad. Oo) Images from pages of Greg Friedler’s book Naked New York. CULTURAL DIALECTICS december 1997 / plonet of the orts 23 Entrepreneurial Practices in Contemporary Art the artist as pimp by Jonathan Lander xis often used to el products And the debate on how to differentiate pornography from crticia has been with 1s for decades Floating upto the surface of these murky grounds is Greg Frieder’ book Naked New York. Sex and the ambiguity betwcen eroticism and pornography are the book's main marketing tacts. [Naked New Yori series of seventy-five diptychs. Each diptych consists of two 4°" neatves contact printed ona singe pice of Photographic paper. Inthe image onthe eft stands clothed subject, and on the right the same subject. stands naked. Like the design of Robert Frank’ asic The Americans ‘ach diptych in Naked New York is intended to be viewed free from any istractons. We are directed to com pare each person clothed versus naked. The dipyehs are printed on the odd numbered pags, while the even numbered pages ae Tet bank, The book's design is rough and stylized to convey 2 lostand: found, take ior leave-it aesthetic that 0 stereotypes New York City roughly torn or cut unevenly with scsors, and below cach diptych i stuck and its inhabitants. ll four edges ofeach contact print ‘one carefully dog-ared punch tape label indicating the proesion nd age ofthe subject, complete wit typos X'ed out ad eft to stand “Thishard-edged motifs enforced bythe worn brick wal complete with pesing paint and exposed water pipes ofthe warchouse studio that serves asthe common backdrop teach photograph The whole lor scems highly contrived, and thus insincere ‘One design problem in this book isthe arbitrary changes in sub ject-to-camera distance and camera angles that vary from one image to the net. Variances lik these result in some subjects portrayed larger and from diferent points of view compare to ther own rela ‘ed image, a8 well soother images. These inconsistencies introduce ‘extrancous visual cues that detract from the main comparison Frieder set out for us to make. In is introduction, rider briefly describes his intention in following way, “Photographing someone naked i about trying to get at some kind of tut, whereas ph linked more to sexual gratification, eroticism, or our conventions of tagriphing someone nude is beauty c both pornography and erotic art It does wash, The ter s simplistic jsifcation san tempt to distance hil from nude may ‘ery wel e associate withthe erotic but nak is certainly related to pornogeaphy. By categorically defining mule as polly incor rect and naked in 3 loosely defined category’ justified by the Truth (rit a capital), Frieder tres to deny the possibilty that his work falls into the real of pornography He tiesto postion Nate New Friedler’s Pretense: Nakedness = Truth York as ersatz sociology art ~a pseud-scentifc artform of socal comparative study According to Fiedler’ Naked Truth theory there ae two sides to ‘ach person ~ the public side and the private side, He writes, “The clothed version is only part ofthe trath because we only have one sens of a clothed individual. Nakedness,on the other hand, reveals people the way they ae, We can focus on a naked person and not on the expectations that clothing produces about their occupation oF ‘hei place in society The ida tht nakedness equals the Truth is too simplistic to be accepted blindly I rieler implying thatthe Truth about an in dual can be visually conveyed by their combined clothed and naked appearance? If so then the portion of the truth concsled by clothing must be completely revealed when the clothing is removed. However in real lity this is mot the case. Clothing snot the only device that we use to «reat identities for ourselves. Body tattoos and piercings (which are not stripped away in Fridler’s images) achieve similar results Frieler’s New Yorkers re not neces sarily portrayed "the way they areas the theorizes them tobe The psychology underlying the subject wilingnes to participate is also addressed biel by Fiedler A self-described “complete stranger” to his subjects, he hypothesizes that their desire to be photographed naked by him (knowing that ‘heir image would be mass produced in published frm) sts from ‘heir being saved for attention, thir need fora temporary conf dant their passion to do something diferent from their regu rou tine, ofall some form of sexual ratification or exhibitions te Friedler’s Logic: Naked + Camera = Cash