Julia Peirone: More Than Violet [signed]

Image culture, identity and the photogenic . From the publlisher: In this age of networked images, identity is increasingly constituted by images, both self-generated and produced by the media. We can experiment and play with our appearances, creating our own image of ourselves. The tradition of studio portrait photography on the other hand, has in general aimed to capture the sitter’s best self. In Julia Peirone’s intriguing images these two approaches intersect and collide. She shoots hundreds of frames, but eventually only selects the failed and usually discarded ones. Using the studio environment and context she undermines the idea of the photogenic. Technically perfect, but imperfect as portraits in the traditional sense, there is no “essence” of the portrayed in these images; they defy all conventions of how to conduct oneself before the camera. The viewer’s expectations in looking at young girls are also challenged here. Geared up for a studio portrait, long-haired and pale in their shimmering make-up, the girls could be regarded as beautiful, but their supposed beauty eludes the viewer; we are not allowed to get a good look at the girls. Their eyes are half closed mouths half opened, some are obviously chewing gum - indifferent yet aware of the gaze of the viewer, and thus paradoxically,a perfect depiction of teenage girls. Being a teenager is being in the in-between. Julia Peirone was born in 1973 and has had numerous exhibition in Sweden and abroad. From "Looks Like Teen Spirit" a text by Michael Famighetti: "In the early days of photography, having a portrait taken could be traumatic. Sitters, who had to stay still for long exposures, were often dismayed to discover what they actually looked like. Unlike Narcissus who fell in love with his image reflected in a puddle, the detailed likeness produced by the camera could undermine a person’s vanity. The American writer Nathaniel Hawthorne remarked that he was “startled at recognizing [himself] apart from [himself].” However, in the age of networked images, when identity is at least in part constituted by images, both self-generated and those absorbed through media, we can play a fast and loose game with our image and photogeneity. It is normal to shoot endless images of ourselves, playact for the camera, and experiment with ugliness. Some iPhone apps work like an old carnival’s house of mirrors, allowing us to distort, contort, and pinch our faces, or even show us what we might look like bald. Imagining ourselves as grotesque provides pleasure. In a culture that places great stock in beauty, we can safely undermine our looks. The process might even make us feel better about what we actually do look like. This contrasts with the tradition of studio portrait photography that, generally speaking, has aimed to capture a sitter’s best self. Even if the studio has functioned in a wide variety of ways, as a site for fantasy and invention, the result has usually been either a flattering image, or at least a clear description of a face. The subject poses, and despite intervention from the photographer, chooses, to a degree at least, how she wishes to be seen. But what does it mean for a photographer to make formal studio portraits and then through her editing undo the subject’s role in posing and making the picture?"