… especially one as controversial as Araki?
The 2nd and 3rd sentence I somewhat agree with. The 1st sentence is nonsense. Given the role models cited in the 3rd sentence, one senses that there is a certain blinkered sexist bigotry in that photographer’s mind that condenses women to ONLY 3 roles in his life.
Yet another gatekeeper in photography
I don’t think the world of photography needs another gatekeeper, though he can probably find a good enough audience on Petapixel. He’s just a photographer who got famous because he shot controversial subjects in a society that seems to treat women as objects, not entitled to their own names, not entitled to keep a job after they marry, easily exploitable for good or gratification…
The why of shooting
The only question one has to ask is: does he rise above those norms and treat the women in his photography as human beings or does he treat them as mere objects of gratification, like human dolls that other photographers pose in life size positions? Judge for yourself (NSFW).
When we wield a camera, we’re subject to ethical choices of what to shoot, who to shoot and how to portray the persons we’re shooting. Are we critiquing or recording what we point our camera at? Are we contributing to the oppression of the less fortunate or seeking to elevate their position in society by exposing society’s shortcomings? What is our role in clicking the shutter and sharing with the world?
“He treated me like an object”
When an Erotic Photographer’s Muse Becomes His Critic – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Is an architecture photographer a 3rd rate photographer because she shoots buildings? Is a landscape photographer 3rd rate because she shoots the mountains of Iceland? Is a nature photographer 3rd rate because she shoots animals in the wild? Of course not.
Claptrap bilious nonsense
Advertising the photographer’s prejudices, peccadilloes and photograph piety for all to see doesn’t help win new audiences, especially audiences that don’t see women as mere chattels.
Ignorant throwaway comments that the publisher has chosen to quote (or misquote) are designed to increase controversy and sell books. They do nothing for photography, little for the models and a disservice for Araki.
Is Araki trying to set himself up as a gatekeeper to photography? That is incredible to me. But such is photography. Anyone can be a gatekeeper, just spout nonsense, take a few snaps, make a few books, and… boom! Gatekeeper you are! And it’s way less controversial than the other more modern parasite: influencer!