Latest from Runway Australian Experimental Art

I am proud to announce to the release of our latest issue #24 ISLANDS!

Our launch was a huge success with a small exhibition and a performance by Sumugan Sivanesan. The new issue is up online now: http://runway.org.au/

We're also slowly releasing the archive of all of our print magazines. We put up issue #14 FUTURES a while ago: http://runway.org.au/archive/futures/ and are working towards releasing #15 LIES. Extracting text and images from the original design files and contacting previous contributors is a slow process, but will be well worthwhile once we have all the previous issues up and an amazing directory of artists, arts writers and editors on our website. I'm on there too, of course.

We're really getting into a rhythm of callouts, launches, releasing issues and thinking ahead to future issues. I'm very excited about the theme of issue #15 which I won't reveal yet, but get excited, because I think it will be really astounding.

It is a pleasure to thank the Australia Council for the Arts who have funded our next two issues.

Runway Australian Experimental Art - goes LIVE

Runway is a niche artist run magazine of which I joined the management in February this year. We've been working all year on relaunching as a free, online journal rebranded as Runway Australian Experimental Art, and expanding our audience to an international readership in order to promote the work of Australian contemporary artists both at home and overseas.

I was elected secretary of the management board, was part of the website design subcommittee and have been running the social media platforms.

The website <http://runway.org.au/> goes live as I'm typing this in 27 minutes - I'm so excited!

Here is my board member profile page.

And here is a blog post I wrote for the news section regarding another project I've been working on.

And here is the launch poster if you'd like to come along. The Sydney launch is at Archive Space in Newtown at 6pm tomorrow.

The apparent downsides of being this beautiful.

 *Image from dailymail.co.uk

Many, many of my posts so far have come across the issue of self esteem, especially among women in today's society. I am a firm, strong advocat that everybody deserves to have self esteem, feel good about who they are and the way they look. However, that is not the same thing as arrogance.

I think the idea of having a "swelled head" has been an acute fear in the last several generations, and therefore, led to what could possibly explain some of a lack of self esteem among the younger generations of today due to those fears manifested in parental behaviours.

My point is, that there is a happy medium, and I do not think Samantha Brick's recent article falls within it. I can understand her point of view - there is indeed something violating about having a car toot or someone whistle at you walking down the street. But to take it to this article and complain about several events far outside the realm of sexual harrassment which would probably flatter many women, seems a little arrogant.

An interesting fact is people generally don't like the company of others who are overly sure of themselves because it makes them feel self conscious. And that's exactly what Samantha is talking about in her article - the problem is, if this is truly what she is objecting to, her writing it on a world arena multiplies her problem! (As shown by the some 5,000 people who commented negatively on the article in just 24 hours' time.)

There have been many reponses to her writing, including this review, and a beautifully satirical survey comparing her to the character of Derek Zoolander which I found amusing and very relevant to my current field of research.

Don't get me wrong - I don't criticise someone for feeling good about themselves, nor for embracing the change that comes with ageing. I just feel like putting it out there so strongly makes others feel a little hopeless. Perhaps Samantha Brick could do with a little bit of a reality check - perhaps wear a fat suit and some daggy clothes and she may face a whole different set of prejudices.

Body Image Magazine Covers

I just thought I'd document here a few case studies I'm looking at in my dissertation.

Recently the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK has called for laws to be introduced that forces magazines and newspapers to mark advertising images that have been airbrushed, thereby protecting the vulnerable who may not understand the impossibility of aspiring to a digitally enhanced physical perfection.

It's a bit of a catch-22 really, because advertising in itself is about projecting a dream in order to sell its merchandise. Again we come up against the devil consumerism - what is the value of a person's self esteem?

There have been a few interesting magazine covers in the last few years to tackle this issue.

Jennifer Hawkins bares all on the cover of Marie Claire 2010

Image Reference: Marie Claire

Jennifer Hawkins’ cover shoot was done to support the Butterfly Foundation, a charity which provides support to Australians with Eating Disorders and negative body image. I really wonder whether the foundation really thought this one through. Jennifer Hawkins is Miss Universe! I mean, next to her, even naked and unairbrushed, who isn't going to feel inadequate? I can maybe see a few uneven skin tones, that's about it. I don't even really see why she needs airbrushing. It uses beautiful lighting, and she still has on make up and either a really good fake tan, or a genuine one. I know the article inside went into huge detail about how hard she works to look that good. But that is her job to do that. I certainly don't have the time or money to look that good, so how am I supposed to feel comforted by this image? I don't really get it.

Sarah Murdoch, untouched on the cover of Women’s Weekly 2009

Image Reference: The Age

This particular one was done to show that there can be beauty in ageing (I believe one of my previously mentioned mentors Mia Freedman was actually part it). We can discern a few of Sarah Murdoch’s wrinkles, but she is still extremely beautiful, and even Helen McCabe the editor said, “The one point I have to make is that this is possibly one of, if not the most beautiful woman in Australia that I've done this to, so the risk is not that high”. That kind of annoys me, I mean, maybe we should be taking risks!

Both these magazine covers have caused quite a bit of debate and personally, I can see how they could kind of be interpreted as patronising to hear these women feel good about who they are. I mean, why shouldn't they? Who wouldn't want to look like that?

But, at the very least, these initiatives do raise critical thinking about the fanstasy created by airbrushing, and raise awareness for companies like the Butterfly Foundation, as well as hopefully making the odd middle aged woman feel okay about a few wrinkles around her eyes. Ageing is a process that happens to everyone, and it seems to me, that putting all your energy into fighting it makes you look a little less classy than someone who embraces their age and does it gracefully.

Katter vs Katter

This is the image that has sparked so much controversy in the lead up to Queensland's election next week. It was used in a television advertisement by Bob Katter of the Katter Australian Party against Campbell Newman. The photograph in question was taken by a photographer who had no idea his image would be used to discriminate against the friends of his he was photographing,

I believe this quote sums it up correctly:
"this is not about political correctness. Katter did not get permission to use this image of these people. Why? Everyone knows you cant publish without a consent release - and this goes to the core of the issue - Katter doesnt see gay men as real people, as worthy of getting their consent...it shows how lowly people like Katter think of gay people and its this level of disconnect which also explains why people like Katter just dont understand gay marriage. Katter is the issue here not gay marriage or being politically correct."

Bob Katter's half brother has responded to the issue with this advertisement, which I think is extremely calm, reasonable and educated:

I think of this issue in light of other recent events. Namely the terror against minority groups in Iraq and  the graffiti attack on the office of Labor MP Curtis Pitt.

To be honest, my initial response was to think that people for gay marriage are organising rallies, and support days, and people against gay marriage are making illegal attacks, and taking advantage of situations that have no merit to their politics to get ahead in polls. I know which side I'm taking.

*Videos and images embedded from respective websites.

Maybe she's born with it (no, I'm pretty sure it's Fotoshop)

There's been a lot of talk lately about teaching children from a young age that the standards of beauty in magazines and media are unattainable because they are simply not real. The extent to which irresponsible journalists and sensationalist tabloids will go to edit images into anything they like is coming to light and challenging whether our ideals of beauty are even possible. With some hope this could alleviate problems many teenagers (mostly teenage girls) face with regards to self esteem and eating disorders.

[Image Sourced]

I came across this link on headspace's facebook page. I think it is witty, perfectly ironic and extremely true.

After all,

 

[Image sourced]

This form of photo manipulation for consumerism is quite clearly obvious and irresponsible. But I take issue with advertising further. Fashion advertising (and, actually, most of advertising) all by itself is designed to specifically make you feel inadequate about yourself or your life so that you will be convinced to buy clothes, or beauty products or gadgets in order to somehow be successful and happy. This is the less obvious side of manipulation, but if you think about some of the latest advertisments you've seen, you'll find this absolutely everywhere. With the frequency that I saw them, last season I found myself wondering if Jennifer Hawkins and Miranda Kerr are the only people at all who look good in department store clothing. My ideas are substantiated in Bodies Talk, an article by Caryn Frankline written during London Fashion Week 2010.

Is it really enough to be happy to be blonde, thin, wearing an extravagant hat and gambling money on horses being mistreated?

[Image Sourced]