Laurel Nakadate

artist_sequoia · 21-11-09 19:15:56

Recently I watched a vbs art talk interview with this lady:

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/art-talk/laurel-nakadate

I think her work is awesome, no more exploitative than porn or even the feck websites in my opinion, but the comments seem to say otherwise.

What do you guys think?

aven frey · 21-11-09 22:19:03

Oh great find Sequoia. This is really interesting. I do love the ideas here but I don't think they give us enough information about the process for me personally to decide if it's ethical (which I know is not the question, unethical is different to exploitation, but I think that's more important to me). I think it depends on how much the men understand about how they are going to be presented. However having said that when I think of comparisons to porn I have to agree it's definitely not more exploitative then that, not necessarily for the same reason.

Hmm I wonder if there can be ethical exploitation? What I mean by this is these individual men, if they have not been explained the implications of being in this video are being exploited. But then you could say on the other hand that the artist is contributing to the good of the greater society with her contribution to ideas and discussion which makes her motives and ends good, therefore ethical. Any takers?

You could also say she isn't contributing to the good of anything but if the work made you think then she probably is.

ngaio · 23-11-09 07:53:08

Wow, that was really interesting. To be honest, my initial reaction was and still is (to some degree) something like disgust with the artist but that only served to make her work more interesting to me.

Things become really tricky when you bring people into film in a way where they are presented as themselves - documentaries, current affair programmes that edit a film together to show a person in a certain way... sure, they may have consented to be filmed but were they informed of just how they would be presented?

I can't imagine these guys were given any real understanding of what was done with their image and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, maybe they knew exactly... I don't know enough about this artist to be able to say. I'm going to have to look into this more and think about it for awhile.

For now, suffice to say I'm uncomfortable... and I think that good art often SHOULD make people uncomfortable and question things. However, it's my personal belief that this probably shouldn't come at the price of others. What that means, precisely, I'm not sure just yet. Like I said, I need to think.

artist_sequoia · 24-11-09 23:14:26

bobby wrote:

I do love the ideas here but I don't think they give us enough information about the process for me personally to decide if it's ethical (which I know is not the question, unethical is different to exploitation, but I think that's more important to me). I think it depends on how much the men understand about how they are going to be presented. However having said that when I think of comparisons to porn I have to agree it's definitely not more exploitative then that, not necessarily for the same reason.

I also found this article on her work: http://www.believermag.com/issues/20061 … w_nakadate

From my understanding, Laurel is a normal chick that goes about her daily business and gets hit on by older men (as we all do at some point) when she's out and about and I think from there she decides whether or not they would be a good subject for a video and invites them home to make one. Mostly likely she'll have them sign a model release.

When I was in mainstream porn, I signed away my rights to my images and later on would see them plastered all over the internet with misogynistic comments and other things. I think for any type of video work you need to have a sense of humor and not take yourself too seriously.

LN: In general, I wait to be approached. I want to be the one who’s hunted, I want to be the one who they take interest in—because if they’re not interested in me, they’re probably not going to be interested in being in a video. I also like the idea of turning the tables—the idea of them thinking that they’re in charge or that they’re in power and they’re asking me for something and then I turn it on them, where I’m the director and the world is really my world.

I don't like the interviewer in the VBS show, I think she sides and empathizes way too much with the men rather than grasping what the main idea really is.

Afterall, these men are the ones approaching her, hitting on her and she invites them into her world to make a video. How is that any different than IFM? Here we're invited to make videos that capture one aspect of our humanity, in Laurel's video she's playing with them.

artist_sequoia · 24-11-09 23:23:12

ngaio wrote:

Wow, that was really interesting. To be honest, my initial reaction was and still is (to some degree) something like disgust with the artist but that only served to make her work more interesting to me.

Why disgust?

I honestly don't understand how or why someone would be disgusted with this type of work. I know that the way some people approach me with pick-up lines I feel disgusting about, yet it continues to happen all the time. I think her vids are great because like she said, she's turning the tables on that, they want something from her and she wants to make art with them.

I think with these videos as well, there's a very distinct undertone of humiliation, almost in a BDSM type of way. A lot of the men reminded me of some of the guys that call me on Niteflirt for small penis humiliation. Is that unethical too?

ngaio wrote:

Things become really tricky when you bring people into film in a way where they are presented as themselves - documentaries, current affair programmes that edit a film together to show a person in a certain way... sure, they may have consented to be filmed but were they informed of just how they would be presented? \

I think that's the point of a model release. When I make stuff for IFM or ISM, at the end of the day, yes I contribute to the piece a lot more than regular porn, but I don't get a say in what its named or how its edited or what specific photos are used. How is that any different?

richard · 25-11-09 03:18:47

artist_sequoia wrote:

I think that's the point of a model release. When I make stuff for IFM or ISM, at the end of the day, yes I contribute to the piece a lot more than regular porn, but I don't get a say in what its named or how its edited or what specific photos are used. How is that any different?

You do, in fact we love it when contributors name their own work because it makes our job easier. You're completely welcome to give us direction in how you want your work edited, of course it needs to fit the sites' objectives. We presume you wouldn't submit any photos to ISM you didn't want used, and we then edit on technical standards, variety etc. Some contributors nominate certain images they want used and we do, unless they're really technically bad. Some folios are just used in their entirety.

Also most releases generally don't say anything about how you will be protrayed, and that's how so many people get stitched up. Look at sascha baron-cohen's work (Borat) for example, he's being sued left, right and centre for taking the piss. He operates by neglecting to mention it's a comedy piece. We've been approached by TV programs for interviews and they talk it up, make it sound like a positive piece, but what comes out the other end is totally under their control. We pulled out of a 60 minutes interview and when the story went to air, it was obvuious we'd made the right decision. They totally didn't disclose the tone of the story, or the context (the other 'victims' interviewed). Have you not seen journalists do hatchet jobs?

artist_sequoia · 25-11-09 03:20:49

richard wrote:

You do, in fact we love it when contributors name their own work because it makes our job easier. You're completely welcome to give us direction in how you want your work edited, of course it needs to fit the sites' objectives. We presume you wouldn't submit any photos to ISM you didn't want used, and we then edit on technical standards, variety etc. Some contributors nominate certain images they want used and we do, unless they're really technically bad. Some folios are just used in their entirety.

That wasn't a sting against Feck or anything, just a simple evaluation of the similarities of the processes.

aven frey · 25-11-09 13:14:28

http://www.open2.net/ethicsbites/art-ce … ality.html

I think this is a great perspective about art and ethics and a little relevant perhaps to this discussion, which I have to say, I wish more people would contribute to.

Cate · 25-11-09 22:51:13

It's hard to tell much from such a short clip and assuming she informs them of the basics of what she's filming and where/how it'll be shown it's not exploitive. I'd have concerns if she were making significant amounts of money from the work and not reimbursing them in anyway. I do not think it is ethical though, and I think she comes across really poorly. She claims to be seeking momentary connections and intimacy but once they're over she's quite happy to deride and allow others to belittle the men she had these connections with. I don't see the derogatory statements made in the interview as part of the artwork but more revealing of her lack of engagement and lack of empathy. This is definitely no worse than what happens with a lot of porn and images in general being re contextualized to change meaning but that doesn't make it an alright thing to do. I don't mind the videos but I am repulsed by her manner of speaking about the men. Unlike Ngaio it doesn't make me more interested in the work. I see the work as timid, failing to fully and deeply engage with her and the mens motivations in having these encounters.

I do not mean she has any obligation to these men after the film work as she does not, but what kind of person is proud of saying nasty things about people who have engaged and given themselves in such a way.

Edited for spelling.

Last edited by Cate (26-11-09 07:03:14)

artist_sequoia · 25-11-09 23:00:43

Cate wrote:

I do not mean she has any obligation to these men after the film work as she does not, but what kind of person is proud of saying nasty things about people who have engaged and given themselves in such a way.

I never heard her saying anything nasty about the men in that video? Even in the interview I posted, she says she shares a connection with them. Who was belittling them? The interviewer was calling them sad and lonely, which is very much an assumption.

Why does art always have to be a positive thing that makes people feel good?

How does BDSM fit into the art realm? Am I the only one seeing the likeness between the two?

Cate · 25-11-09 23:19:10

She joined in the interviewer stating they were, sad, pathetic etc and never an acknowledgement of how much they shared and gave her work. Her work is dependent on them and she does not seem to respect them once she's left their homes.

I've never claimed that art has to be positive or make people feel good. It's not the cynicism of the work it's the lack of sincerity I don't like. I do not think her works are sincere, I see them as quite hollow and shallow to me she does not take it far enough as afterwards she shows herself to be completely disengaged from the mens experience.

This is all judged from what was in the video interview and reading exerts of the interview related to these particular video works though so I'm probably getting a completely different idea of them than if I saw them at a gallery.

BDSM in the fine art realm, I've not given it much consideration. There is a lot of artwork out there that deals with and represents BDSM and it's broader issues especially I believe those to do with humiliation and control.

aven frey · 26-11-09 00:38:15

Cate wrote:

I've never claimed that art has to be positive or make people feel good. It's not the cynicism of the work it's the lack of sincerity I don't like. I do not think her works are sincere, I see them as quite hollow and shallow to me she does not take it far enough as afterwards she shows herself to be completely disengaged from the mens experience.

For me it's this dynamic that I find to be powerful. The way the insincerity and cynicism clashes with what seems like melancholy but could be something else. I actually do not find this work in particular timid at all, I think it's uncompromising, as is her treatment of these men which is for me where both the issue and the interest lies. I actually find her apparent lack of engagement with her participants experience although discomforting, a little little refreshing, it's in a way actually very sincere as it would be easy to wax lyrical about various complexities (as so many artists do) but she really doesn't give a fuck and even if one thinks that is unethical she doesn't seem to be claiming otherwise.

Cate · 26-11-09 01:15:34

I don't like the lack of engagement with the men as the work is completely dependent on them. They initiate the process by hitting on her in the street and without their loneliness and needs they would probably not agree to be filmed in such a vulnerable position. I see what you mean that the continuing disregard for them is a form of sincerity, she doesn't just switch around and pretend to care but I think I mean something completely different by sincerity. I can't really explain what I mean, I need too many hand gestures and 'you know's. What's missing yet seems so clear in the video exerts, is what she needs from these men, not just in order to make the films but personally. I gather from the written interview she has made films that deal with her own loneliness but I think it needs to be seen in relation to these men and how she manipulates and controls them through shame.

Edit: I don't really find the dynamic of involved subject and removed artist very interesting as I seem to see it everywhere in art, film and literature. Artists that act as leeches profiting from others experience.

Last edited by Cate (26-11-09 01:17:13)

artist_sequoia · 26-11-09 01:22:12

Cate wrote:

I don't really find the dynamic of involved subject and removed artist very interesting as I seem to see it everywhere in art, film and literature. Artists that act as leeches profiting from others experience.

How do you know she's profiting? Maybe from recognition in general but I hardly think she's making a ton of money off of her projects.

Cate · 26-11-09 01:26:27

Sorry I should have clarified, by profiting I mean a whole variety of things, subject matter and meaning in her case.

I do think she deserves a better interviewer, neither ask questions that actually probe the work but instead just give her space for a general overview.

richard · 26-11-09 03:57:44

I don't see any artistic merit in this. She recognises the power that a pretty young lady can hold over a lonely awkward man and goes on to demonstrate, but once you get it, what's left but to cringe? I would say with a fair degree of certainty that these men don't know or understand the context in which she's using the videos, and I would be surprised if any of them had seen any of her work before agreeing to take part. If my assumption is correct, and their only reward is the brief entertainment of taking part, then this is highly exploitative. One can call oneself an artist to gain impunity for ones mischief but I would give this much more credibility if it were just presented as a social experiment and left at that.

artist_charlotte_v · 26-11-09 05:30:13

I must be a seriously horrible person because I don't see anything exploitative about her work.

artist_sequoia · 26-11-09 05:33:07

artist_charlotte_v wrote:

I must be a seriously horrible person because I don't see anything exploitative about her work.

Thank you, another reason why I love you.

aven frey · 26-11-09 07:42:12

Cate wrote:

I don't like the lack of engagement with the men as the work is completely dependent on them. They initiate the process by hitting on her in the street and without their loneliness and needs they would probably not agree to be filmed in such a vulnerable position. I see what you mean that the continuing disregard for them is a form of sincerity, she doesn't just switch around and pretend to care but I think I mean something completely different by sincerity. I can't really explain what I mean, I need too many hand gestures and 'you know's. What's missing yet seems so clear in the video exerts, is what she needs from these men, not just in order to make the films but personally. I gather from the written interview she has made films that deal with her own loneliness but I think it needs to be seen in relation to these men and how she manipulates and controls them through shame.
Edit: I don't really find the dynamic of involved subject and removed artist very interesting as I seem to see it everywhere in art, film and literature. Artists that act as leeches profiting from others experience.

I think I know what you mean by insincerity. Is it something to do with her being insincere about her approach to her art making and the complexities involved in what her work is about etc, which makes for bad art? I find her actual work (as appose to her attitude towards it) dripping in insincerity, most obvious in the her interactions with the men. All the pretend in such an earnest context (be it situation or the art) is disquieting and awkward.
I'm also interested in your last statement. I feel like I tend to see the opposite in contemporary arts (including film and literature), there is a genuine intention to not exploit others experiences in an unethical fashion. These things exist because of experience even if it's not the artists (producer what ever) own. I also think it's a different thing to make art about it rather then for it to just happen.

Richard I see far more compelling complexities then what you've outlined here (pretty girl, power) which is perhaps even evidenced in that part of your response. I think it has artistic merit for many reasons (which I would explain if I didn't have to catch a train) but not least it's ability to illicit such strong reactions (which of course on it's own I don't believe is enough to make art).

nihpuad · 26-11-09 21:23:12

I never want to play the part of online grammar teacher/editor, but I thought this

bobby wrote:

...ability to illicit [instead of elicit] such strong reactions....

...was just too amusingly apt not to applaud it!

blissed · 26-11-09 23:43:46

Ha ha *applauds* that's better than my William the conkerer.

.

#1 21-11-09 19:15:56

Laurel Nakadate

#2 21-11-09 22:19:03

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#3 23-11-09 07:53:08

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#4 24-11-09 23:14:26

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#5 24-11-09 23:23:12

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#6 25-11-09 03:18:47

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#7 25-11-09 03:20:49

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#8 25-11-09 13:14:28

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#9 25-11-09 22:51:13

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#10 25-11-09 23:00:43

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#11 25-11-09 23:19:10

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#12 26-11-09 00:38:15

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#13 26-11-09 01:15:34

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#14 26-11-09 01:22:12

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#15 26-11-09 01:26:27

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#16 26-11-09 03:57:44

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#17 26-11-09 05:30:13

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#18 26-11-09 05:33:07

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#19 26-11-09 07:42:12

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#20 26-11-09 21:23:12

Re: Laurel Nakadate

#21 26-11-09 23:43:46

Re: Laurel Nakadate

Board footer