single women # 8 ~ Hobson + ....
Friday, February 18, 2011 at 11:23AM 
Buying a new cell phone ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenAs the single women series builds some mass, it has occurred to me that a companion single men series would be a nice fit.
However, the problem is I truly believe that making pictures of single men is beyond my ability to pull off. The thing is, I don't know how to look at single men. Not that it would make uncomfortable in any way, it's just that I don't think I know what to look for or, in other words, how to see men.
IMO, seeing men might well be handled better by, you guessed it, a woman. Nothing sexist about it. I just think pictures, made by a woman, of single men would better compliment my pictures of single woman which are, of course, made by a man. So, as you may have guessed by now, I am casting my net for a female picture maker who would be interested in pursuing the subject in conjunction with my endeavors.
For quite a few years, picture makers have been teaming up to make pictures. Most often, pictures that are made by both individuals acting together to produce each single picture in a body of work, as opposed to what I am suggesting - each team member making their own pictures which would eventually be exhibited together. Even though the pictures would be exhibited together, there is no problem with the picture making styles of each picture maker being radically different from one another.
All of that said, are there any interested female picture makers out there who might be interested in such a project? If not, does anyone out there know of any female picture makers who might be interested? If not, will anyone out there with the means - a blog, website, camera club newsletter, etc. - be willing to help me get the word out.
BYW, the female picture maker can be located anywhere on planet earth. At least, that is, as long as there is a readily available supply of single men.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Larry asked/wrote: "How does this inability fit into your sense of "place"? There seems to be a gap here.
my response: Larry - I don't understand, re: the "gap" you are questioning. If you give me a bit more direction to go on, I'll do my best to give an answer.
Reader Comments (4)
I guess Amazonia is out. Anyway… have you mentioned this to "Eyeball" girl?
How does this inability fit into your sense of "place"? There seems to be a gap here.
I presume this is another candid snap? It's pretty gutsy: the lady seems to be less than 3 metres (yards) from you and is also facing you!
I don't have the stats to hand, but I'd guess most street-style shooters are men. Would you expect your female photographer-in-arms to also shoot candids?
I often take pictures of my male and female friends (usually in the context of bush-walking or another social activity). These can be group shots or individual. On reflection, there is a difference in the style I use for the individual shots. For the women, it's posed (to varying degrees) and flattering. For the guys, they are usually doing something goofy or amusing; for the latter there might be a bit of re-enacting or staging to make the shot.
On a whim, I did a quick search for "women street photographers" and stumbled onto these sites.
http://www.allengeorge.com/2008/06/09/street-photography-is-not-voyeurism/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157622479224034/
http://bernardyenelouis.blogspot.com/2010/06/pictures-by-women-history-of-modern.html
I will take a stab at it. My understanding of your discussion on "place" meant that one was intimately at home in that environment and I would think, the occupants of that environment. That would mean to me that the sexuality of the occupant was of no particular interest, but rather the interest is in expression, gesture, light or color of the subject matter. Personally I think that women are much better at photographing women and children than men are able to do. Women photographers are less threatening if only by virtue of being a woman. So the gap I am referring to is in your statement about inability to photograph men. It should not matter to your language of seeing and place if you are in your "place". I noticed some entries back that you made a point of referring to the chef as gay. Why was that an important observation that needed to be shared with your readers? I would suppose that the best art whose subject is male were made by gay men.
"IMO, if one hopes and wishes to make pictures of place rather than just pictures of a place, one needs to understand a place. And, to address Matt's question, re: "people who are rooted in their 'home' place are often able to capture/understand/interpret other places", I wholeheartedly agree. Once one develops the insight to "understand" one place, it's much easier to "understand" another place, even if that place is very different from the one you first learned to "understand"."