Written evidence submitted by Be Bold Be You boudoir photography at Studio 1825 (IBI0014)
In regards to this call for evidence I will be focusing on the following points asked by the committee:
Throughout this call for evidence I’ll be focusing on what I feel are two contributing factors when looking at the above points and these are social media [D1] and image manipulation [D2]. I’ll be providing an insight into how both areas are linked to “communication” peer to peer and across a wider population through advertising and promotions. After conversations with our clients, at our professional photography studio, we feel that these areas need addressing urgently, with both care and patience, if we want to create a healthier attitude towards the natural body [D3], regardless of physicality.
This document is written from the experience of running a photographic studio, alongside my husband. Both James and I pride ourselves on the high level of customer care we are able to provide alongside creating quality portraiture. We have a positive reputation, locally, amongst our clients and nationally within the photography industry. We believe this is due to being able to create a unique atmosphere that fuses our two specialisms together, with James as Photographer and my own background and expertise in Therapeutic Arts. We both hold Honours degrees in our respective areas.
A huge part of our studio work is creating imagery of women using the genre of Boudoir. Amongst much of the general public and the media, Boudoir [D4] seems to have a stereotype attached to it which mimics that of “page 3”. It needs making clear that this archaic view – quite simply – is not the reality. Many of those who come to us, at our studio, have experienced a form of trauma. Reasons for this might be illness, surgery, relationship breakdowns, various types of abuse or mental health issues including depression and body dysmorphia. It’s important to note, at this point, that there are opinions that state that photography feeds into the realm of art therapy, as it can be used by qualified therapists as a form of exploration. I feel it’s fundamental, within our own studio work, that we do not break the boundary between what can be classed as therapeutic work and what we have to see as a commissioned photo shoot. Neither James nor I are qualified therapists and it would be wrong of us to profit upon an individual’s own needs for self review and/or scrutiny as we are a commercial business. What I feel we have carefully, and successfully, created is a customer journey that allows us to promote the genre of Boudoir as a way of celebrating a moment in an individual’s life. By using this positive, reinforcing, language it encourages the individual to recognise when they have achieved a milestone and celebrate that moment through a professional photo shoot. The way we both prepare and educate the client, in the build up to their own shoot date, creates a boundary in which the client is able to focus on the milestone that they have chosen to celebrate. This means that, once in front of the camera, they know that this is a moment in time to embrace rather than a scenario in their life that they need to explore. This is a moment in time to embrace rather than a scenario in their life that they need to explore and it’s the exploration that I feel would add the therapeutic effect – a service that we would be unethical in attempting to provide for our clients and it would be wrong to profit from.
From our experience in the studio, and from both working and talking with our clients, both
James and I would argue that there is a lack of “self care” [D5], including identifying with an individual’s own body image. There is a lack of ability to be able to identify manipulated imagery [D6] and, subsequently, disconnect it from themselves and true body shape and/or image of both themselves and others.
When looking at an individual’s “body image” it is essential to note the importance of exploration, in terms of verbalisation, observations and subsequent emotions. This human nature, I believe, is integral for mental health. There are various theories, using psychodynamic psychology [5] [6] as its base, to conclude that when an individual is observing another human, there is a natural instinct that seeks to compare. When looking further, the psychoanalytic approach [7] [8] [9] focuses much more on self as the mind, body and psyche is looked upon as being one, functional, unit and these are two theories I have used as foundations for our own customer journey, when catering for individual clients needs throughout their time(s) with us.
Since the turn of the century there has, undeniably, been a shift in human behaviour since the arrival of digital media [D7], including social media platforms. According to Hootsuite – a social media management platform founded in 2008 – 95 million photos were shared on Instagram, every day, throughout 2021[1]. When relating this to the UK, research from Statista found that this country “…was home to 53 million active social media users as of January 2021. That translated to a social media penetration rate of 77.9%of the population of the UK”, going on to state that “…Social media penetration sits well above the global average of 45 percent, and puts it 22nd overall worldwide.” [2]. Furthermore, when Statista released further research in July 2021, it was found that 54% of the UK based social media users were using Instagram, alone [3].
Social media platforms including Instagram, Facebook and TikTok, predominantly encourage their users to use photography and/or video as a tool to communicate what they want to say and/or show to their online community, whether that be a personal profile or a professional business based page, for example. For the purposes of this call for evidence, I’ll be focusing on personal usage. I believe that one of the major issues we have within our society, when using social media, is the inability to read a scenario due to not being given all of the information. Once again, when using principles from the psychodynamic and psychoanalytic approaches, we – as human beings - are unable to observe effectively resulting in a limited use of our senses and psyche to fully engage with a scenario being put forward to us via an image and/or video. This is because the lens is only showing one angle of a situation, overall creating a very narrow view of what is being seen however our natural instincts are to presume we have all of the information from what appears to be a factual image. When putting this into the context of body image there are many instances where imagery is being manipulated to create a different state – most commonly referred to as filters, by general public. The differences created by image manipulation tools such as filters are not always seen by those who are exposed to them, with only 60 to 65% of imagery being identified by users as digitally altered [4]. Sadly, filters are not just used by members of the public but also by the photographic industry, both commercially and for portraiture.
The background to an article titled “Can people identify original and manipulated photos of real-world scenes?” [4] focussed on a photojournalism contest – The World Press Photo Contest. In 2015 the author of the article reports 22 entrants were disqualified for “manipulating their photo entries”. This action, and subsequent debates that followed, led to the World Press Photo organization publishing a “code of ethics” stating that entrants “must ensure their pictures provide an accurate and fair representation of the scene they witnessed so the audience is not misled”.
As someone who works within the commercial portrait photography industry, it concerns me greatly that there are absolutely no guidelines in place for accurate and fair representation in imagery amongst the six main industry governing bodies in the UK (BAPP, RPS, MPA, AoP, The Guild & The Socieities/BPPA). Out of the bodies mentioned, only two check your credentials before allowing you to join. A key point here, though, is that Photographer’s do not need to prove their selves as “professional” before advertising their “skills” in a commercial and/or profiteering way. This means that anyone can shoot any genre – from animal to boudoir to newborn babies. I would strongly welcome that the ethics of this, alone, is looked into as I have personal concerns for women’s safety within the realms of Boudoir photography due to it’s stereotyped nature of photographing women in lingerie. So long as they’re over the legal image of consent, it seems “OK” to photograph young girls in this genre, with very little law and/or legislation protecting the subject being photographed.
Having said this, it was pleasing to see the GDPR legislation of 2018 give subjects in the image the personal choice of whether an image can be used promotionally, by a photographer or not. Incidentally, at time of the GDPR legislation being published – back in May 2018 – photography was not confirmed as being a part of the legislation or not and clarification was made after the publication. I am sure that not all photographers know where they stand in regards to taking photographs and rights in relation to GDPR.
As stated previously, I believe professional photographers have a duty of care to all those who come through studio doors, to create imagery that is authentic to both the look and feel of a client as well as allowing them to explore a moment in time that they are wanting to commemorate through the art form of photography. Sadly, I feel that the UK photographic industry itself seems to have an overall reluctance to both acknowledge and look into the importance of both power and effects of photo manipulation, in terms of post production, editing and what seems to be referred to, commonly, as “filters”. As an example I once had one a World renowned, British, Photographer whose work predominantly focuses around the use of human models refer to our studio work as “brave” because he stated that we published “unfinished” imagery under our brand. When I asked what was meant by unfinished, it was made clear that this professional photographer believed we should be editing out smile lines, wrinkles and excess body fat – in other words, the parts of the body that commonly have a negative connotation attached to them by our western culture. I believe it is an absolute insult to change a person’s appearance, through the use of digital media, so that it can be deemed as more “aesthetically pleasing”. Sadly, however, this is the current state of the UK photographic portrait industry.
Out of the six, main, bodies attached to our industry, listed earlier, four of them allow anybody to join and it can be argued that this puts the credibility of our industry into disrepute with the general public, who – in my opinion – are more and more lacking confidence in booking a “professional” photographer. The photographic portraiture industry needs a regulating body. This would create a code of ethical standards to help to protect the public from false imagery and damaging personal reflection. If individuals are allowed to set up as self-appointed photographers who simply seek to profit out of what they perceive to be socially acceptable, often driven by social media and celebrity images, the skill of the fine art photographer is ignored and the reality of so many people struggling with this area of mental and physical health is prolonged and encouraged. Finally, I’d be naïve not to acknowledge the realm of fabulous, photographers who are fully capable of both creating quality images & good customer service: They deserve better recognition. I believe this recognition would also have a positive impact for the wider public too, as they would be able to access a regulated and, therefore more professional, empathetic, service.
Throughout this call to evidence I hope to have highlighted:
The theories I have, briefly, listed and/or discussed have a, mainly, holistic based approach. I recognise that this is because of my training and subsequent background in Creative Expressive Therapies, alongside the use of therapeutic arts. I would not be putting these ideas forward, to you, if I did not think there were links that need to be identified, acknowledged and debated in further detail relating to our own industry and body image. There is a need to reflect on how a more holistic approach could promote a better understanding of body image. To quote, Siegal (a Dance Therapist), “because a person lives with, in and through the body their total being is affected by life’s bodily experience” [10]. Therefore, the way to recognise self is to be through our own body. To have a healthy body and mind – what I would refer to as self – we must have an open, honest and positive relationship with our own body.
Kirsty Corbett
Co-founder
January 2022
DEFINITIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CALL FOR EVIDENCE
[D1] Social media: Applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking, focussing on image using platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat
[D2] Image manipulation: Digitally altering a still image from it’s original state, using filter based apps and/or photo editing software
[D3] Natural body: a physical, human, body that has not been altered through image manipulation, cosmetic surgery and/or non-surgical cosmetic procedures
[D4] Boudoir: a genre of photography that celebrates an individual human body’s physical look, including shape, size and/or scarring
[D5] Self care: the practice of taking action to preserve or improve one's own health
[D6] Manipulated imagery: Photograph manipulation involves the transformation or alteration of a photograph using various methods and techniques to achieve desired results.
[D7] Digital media: a communication tool that can be created, viewed, distributed, modified, listened to, and preserved on a digital electronics device.
REFERENCES