# data[].attributes.body
In both of these images, the body is being portrayed in an objective way. As something beyond a body, a part of whatever is near/on/around them. Parts. To me, this is a little more obvious in the De Sana photo I've selected, as you can barely see the woman's head. We see shoes on her arms, which, is not a 'societal norm.' It becomes an ambiguous figure left open for interpretation. Although the body is positioned to give more indication of which body part is where, as we see a visible bra / pantyhose, and a clear image of a posed leg, the shoes on the arm instantly turn the entire body into an object that blends in with the rest of the background as her body is stretched out as long as the couch. In Mapplethorpe's image with the whip, we see how Mapplethorpe combines himself with the whip in an unusual way, being a continuation of the object, in turn, objectifying his body, being visual with a way in society that a lot of the world is afraid to see. Both turning the body into a continuous object in different ways. One of the biggest being that in Mapplethorpe's image we can actually see a face, indicating more so that it is 'a body,' in which an emotion is being expressed. In De Sana's image, the body is more objectified as the face is hidden. Both with a 'corprealist' experience of considering the body as just another object.

# data[].attributes.body
This, to me, was one of the overall messages / themes I noticed throughout the film. With these selection of images / text, you can see how progressively, Faye Richards goes from scenes as 'The Watermelon Woman' and a Mami, to who she really was, Faye Richards, not someones worker, but a vivacious, and seemingly always smiling woman. To me, the 'dig deeper there's always more' that I put over the text speaks not only to Cheryl, and her curiosity, that lead her to know the biography of Faye Richards, who she was, what she stood for, etc., but that there is always more than meets the eye, going along with the 'never judge a book by its cover' cliche. Someone  who was not even respected enough to be credited in a white film, had a completely vivacious story. Something to tell and share that no one knew. People she loved, and who loved her. How she loved to sing, where she got her start, and all that was in between. This phenomenal woman who was only ever seen as someone else's worker, was a magnetic force of her own, living a life no one even knew of, until one day, Cheryl saw her beautiful charisma, and got curious to dig deeper.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout the film, Cheryl's close friend Tamra began to slowly tease Cheryl about her growing love for Diana. Even though in the beginning she supported her going after someone, and even thought Diana was attractive, she becomes more and more bothered by her. There were arguments as to that Diana 'thought she was Black' when she had been exposed to the culture, but regardless it was all just talk to Cheryl. This was someone who she cared for, and was intimate with. Cheryl was also surprised when Diana had said that she's had multiple Black lovers before. They expected something different of her, but to me it was great that once Cheryl asked, she said, oh yeah of course I have! I think it normalizes interracial relationships, and that's something I wanted to capture.

# data[].attributes.body
While Cheryl had gone to address Martha Paige's sister, her sister was not only in denial of the love between Faye Richards (The Watermelon Woman), but as she is becoming hostile and refusing to listen / have discussion, her worker comes in, who happens to be Black. This to me, as I was watching, was a 'woooow, of course' moment. She had perfectly fit the stereotype that her attitude was giving off. No wonder why refused to believe her sister was able to love a person of color, in this visual, besides the attitude, it was easy to see in some way, she thinks her and her sister are above them.

# data[].attributes.body
With this assignment, showing what watching this as a viewer in 2020 was like,  I have gathered a few images from the film, and have written with text over them, of which I think were important moments / messages.

# data[].attributes.body
In the work by Weston, we see a nude woman in a window frame. We see her in a shelter of sorts, posted up where the sunlight perfectly kisses the building. There is a little shade above her, just covering the upper half of her face, with her cheek being exposed to the sunlight. She is more of a stereotypical female traditional build, sitting in position with her arms crossed, covering half of her body. From this image, it’s clear that the woman is seen more confined within the walls of the building she’s in, exposing herself into the sunlight. She is separate from the building she’s in.

In Aguilar’s work, we see a nude woman (Aguilar) laying on the ground, somewhere in nature. Due to the landscape, including the rocks, grass, and abundance of sunlight, the viewer is able to distinguish that she is outside. From this image, it’s clear that the woman (Aguilar) is not confined within walls of a building, but the smooth lines of her body actually look like a continuation of the land she is on, looking like she is (if not already) becoming a part of it. The cracks in the land blend with the lines illustrated by her body, even the shapes created by the position she is laying in presenting themselves to look like the rocks in the foreground of the image. She is one with the land she is on.

Within these two works, we see similarities in composition, but a difference in understanding, of which one feels more ‘natural’ than the other.

In terms of similarity, the images are both choosing the human body as the subject of image. Both are black and white depictions of the human form, playing around with sunlight. They are both forming a sort of expression within the viewer. They’re both involving elements of nature, both from the earth, and human nature.

Where we see great contrast is within the differences, even though initially the photograph’s look surface-level similar, especially within their feelings.

When we look at Weston’s photograph, we see a stereotypical image of the female figure, indoors. She is facing forward as the subject in the window, a sort of objectification. It is her separateness from her surroundings we notice: a human in a building. What we see in Aguilar’s photograph is what Perez write’s is ‘a portrait of herself [Aguilar] backwards- which is countering the classic artistic trope of the female figure being enveloped within nature; she is neither the stereotypical male figure mastering nature, nor the female figure sprawled passively within it.’ Her body, facing backwards, is ‘an invitation to sit besides the subject and gaze outward’. Her work is a ‘refusal to conform to an established gaze. Even though she can be perceived as the subject, she is not objectified. It invites the viewer to think, ‘what actually is the subject? The body or the land? Or the message we get from it not being all that clear?’ She is not ‘the object’. Instead, we see how the form is blended with the nature of it’s environment/surroundings, and get the feeling of how the figure (Aguilar) is one with the land, through the collocation of shapes and lines from the land to the human form. Whereas in Weston’s work, there really isn’t any room for questioning which the subject is, the eye is drawn to the human form as it’s the subject in focus to the natural lens of the eye.

In Weston’s work, the figure of the body is a little more definite, and literal. It is beautiful, composed great, and something to admire. It was easy to see how after reading his work, he would’ve thought to create this image. However, in Aguilar’s work, taking those same technical skills that Weston writes about, Aguilar is able to still take the literal, and give it more depth. The figure of the body serves as an ongoing exploration of form and meaning.

# data[].attributes.headline
DECONSTRUCTING APPROPRIATION // WENDY RED STAR

# data[].attributes.subject
DECONSTRUCTING APPROPRIATION // WENDY RED STAR

# data[].attributes.body
In this photograph from her ‘Mythic Being’ series, the indexicality of this image points to a physical relationship between the man or Mythic Being photographed and the resulting image being one of theatrics. It is one of performativity, in which, there is ‘realness’ and authenticity to the photo because that character was present in the photograph, but more performative because it’s the idea of the Being’s existence in physical form itself that is the message, because that ‘Being’ is not factually in existence, but more so exists to bring about a message or conversation around identity by drawing in spectators in hopes to make the viewers contemplate/reflect upon his reactions and innate biases/stereotypes.

In this image, Piper is seen sitting relaxed and comfortable, with something lit in hand that is being smoked, with a casual attire, moustache, aviators, and an afro. Tapping into male dominated psyche of the Mythic Being, we easily see a demonstration of sexual psyche, in which she would be sitting more like a male, with her legs open. The energy carrying from this photo is more dominant and laid back, a sense of ownership and ‘this is my place’ or a feeling of being extra comfortable in one’s skin/space. If portraying her normal female self, she might be photographed sitting more properly, legs crossed or closed, perhaps closed toed shoes and a little bit more ‘put together’ attire.

The Mythic Being is the divine masculine side found in the artist, Adrian Piper. The ‘Mythic Being’ is physically manifested as a male character, that is the male side of Piper, in male attire, and even an afro wig. However, it’s not that the Mythic Being is a reflection or even ‘stands for’ Piper’s psyche, but that the Being is her, and a psychological entity/identity, rather than the ‘even fleeting material one’. It’s almost as if two consciousness’ live within the same body, and the second has manifested into physical form.

Piper’s performative art is unique, and not something that can be exactly reproduced or mass produced, instead of a financial value, for example, what would be a final photograph as the art, that has the potential to make profit and be sold, she is more focused on the production value of what she does, considering the process of the photo a performance, that arguably holds more value than the final product. The performance is something that is freely accessible to anyone, and has no chance of being misunderstood due to failure of communication between the art-educated and non-art-educated that she knows and believes to exist from dissonance in socioeconomic discrepancies that exist between the rich and the poor.

The impression Piper leaves performing this role for the camera of self-awareness- knowing both sides (with potential of being way more) of her consciousness. Masculinity and femininity are found within each of us, systematically enforced/thrusted upon us to identify with either gender role since birth, causing some to consciously or not suppress their opposite psyche. For Piper to fully be aware of, speak about, let alone embody, her society viewed more ‘dominant’ masculine half, is beyond powerful. Being unafraid to explore identity, being a pioneer for self-awareness and expression is a gift she is bestowing upon the world through her performativity with her art.