£12k portrait prize winner

if you just type "My British Wife" into google with the safe search off the first 2 lines of images say it all really and 5 of the thumbnails are of this picture but it doesn't look out of place with 5 of the others either

note, doing that is NSFW
 
Re #2 - not often you get an omelette and a badly packed kebab in the same shot !
 
I have been disappointed with the majority of responses in this thread to the selected winning photographs.

From what I can tell, there is a feeling that the photographs that were selected to win where of a lower standard than what was to be expected of such a prestigious exhibition, and that a lot of the photographs where chosen for not the narrative that is expressed through the photograph but rather the story that is supplied with them.

When evaluating these photographs it is important to acknowledge that they are being displayed in a gallery and that viewing them in person, full size will give you a different appreciation for them. I would like to make a note at the point that I myself haven not seen the exhibition yet, but am planning to. I will feed back my thoughts on particular photographs then.

It is also worth acknowledging that these photographs are to be viewed as art. Therefore any meaning that is to be taken from them is not so much embodied in the picture it self but is supplied through interpretation of the picture.

On the matter of the background context which the photograph was taken, I believe that it is relevant. For example if the picture was to be judged purely on the technical composition then it would make the competition very clinical with a large selection of photographs making it to the final round because they could not be technically faulted.

I would like to ask by what standard would you judge this competition by; surely you would not just pick the photograph that you thought was most aesthetically pleasing?
 
hahahahaha what hidious photos, i mean what the hell is number 2 all about, just go and buy a copy of readers wives! i cant stand it when people go on about arty farty stuff in a picture when its just a run of the mill snapshot lol
 
Hadley said:
I have been disappointed with the majority of responses in this thread to the selected winning photographs.

From what I can tell, there is a feeling that the photographs that were selected to win where of a lower standard than what was to be expected of such a prestigious exhibition, and that a lot of the photographs where chosen for not the narrative that is expressed through the photograph but rather the story that is supplied with them.
Click to expand...


Interesting. Without seeing the whole exhibition it does seem that the winning shots shown were of environmental portraits. As for the story that's told, then we've seen that often before in other comps, like the shot of the snow leopard in 2009's wildlife comp. The shot itself wasn't as stunning as others, but it was rewarded for the 3 months work in getting the shot of the rare creature.

Hadley said:
When evaluating these photographs it is important to acknowledge that they are being displayed in a gallery and that viewing them in person, full size will give you a different appreciation for them. I would like to make a note at the point that I myself haven not seen the exhibition yet, but am planning to. I will feed back my thoughts on particular photographs then.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that. Having been runner up in a national comp, I was surprised to see how much more powerful the images presented large in an exhibition. One of the winning shots which looked average was stunning when shown almost lifesize.

Same goes for this years wildlife exhibition which is currently touring. Some of the shots are simply stunning when presented large.

Hadley said:
It is also worth acknowledging that these photographs are to be viewed as art. Therefore any meaning that is to be taken from them is not so much embodied in the picture it self but is supplied through interpretation of the picture.

On the matter of the background context which the photograph was taken, I believe that it is relevant. For example if the picture was to be judged purely on the technical composition then it would make the competition very clinical with a large selection of photographs making it to the final round because they could not be technically faulted.

I would like to ask by what standard would you judge this competition by; surely you would not just pick the photograph that you thought was most aesthetically pleasing?
Click to expand...


This is sometimes the part I struggle with. You do get the feeling sometimes with Art that the artist spent significantly longer on the accompanying text and explanation than they did on the art itself. There's also the feeling that they'll always be some form of controversy as it promotes the competition/sponsors name.

No one is saying about judging purely on technical merits, that's impossible to do with photography and as such opinion will always differ.

It's interesting as well that so far I've seen lots of comments about the wife's exposure, but nothing about the racial slur against british wives.
 
Byker28i said:
It's interesting as well that so far I've seen lots of comments about the wife's exposure, but nothing about the racial slur against british wives.
Click to expand...

WTF?! :shrug:
 
Hadley said:
I have been disappointed with the majority of responses in this thread to the selected winning photographs.
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed with the lameness of the winning photographs, how underwhelming they all are, even the stories, I've spent longer looking at the photos on my Guardian Eyewitness app on my iPad than the ones shown on that site.
 
My first thought with the uncropped 'British wife' was it was an insulting portrait. Some Greek sounding named bloke takes a picture of his wife with her bits hanging out and disarray around her. Look at her, british wife. Hairy armpits, not done the washing up etc. Whether he means it or it's a pastiche on the Greek idea of the good wife or he had no notion of the negative interpretation we can't know. If he'd have called it 'My wife' it would have had a different feel to it altogether.

I didn't mention it as no on else did so I assumed it was just me that though that and that everyone else saw it is a good portrait. Cropped, to me, it is just a holiday snap with annoying light and shadowy bits everywhere.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I just don't mentally sub-divide white Western Europeans into "races", I leave that kind of thing to Eugen Fischer...

I never understand how people want to invent "more racism" when the world is full enough of much more serious issues with that label already.

Anyway, I digress, sorry.
 
desantnik said:
Maybe I just don't mentally sub-divide white Western Europeans into "races", I leave that kind of thing to Eugen Fischer...

I never understand how people want to invent "more racism" when the world is full enough of much more serious issues with that label already.

Anyway, I digress, sorry.
Click to expand...

no, you're right, the two posts above claiming this to be a racist shot are quite frankly ridiculous
 
This sort of contemporary documentary photography will always be a contentious issue. In a way its great, it means photography is a lot like art in that it has lots of expressions that not everyone loves.

Personally I love the winning portrait, her expression and her posture are fantastic and I loved it just as much before I read the words!

I was reading an interview with Martin Parr recently about the Brighton Photo Biennal and he was saying that contemporary photography today is all about the research and the theory before even picking up your camera. Its much more about the meaning behind the photograph than the technical merits.

Personally talking about lighting or strobist bores me so I would much rather look at this type of photography. Different strokes for different folks!
 
I struggle to get to grips with the concept of photography as 'art'. Art, for me, has some creative input from the creator, and with photography it may be all sorts of things. Most of these pictures appear to be little more than snapshots, so where is the creative input? In the words about them, perhaps, as has been said. That awful 'British wife' photographer says the "portrait as Independence and Love, Devotion and Freedom". What tosh. I've seen some brilliant photographic works that fit the category of art, but for me none of these do. Even the one that is apparently a fashion photo, for Elle, is nice, but the model is slap bang in the middle of the shot. Most of 'em are slap bang in the middle of the shot. Is this the new 'fashion'? I'll have to remember that when the next judge slags of a portrait of mine with the subject slap bang in the middle LOL

This exhibition is not essentially about documentary photography, its about portraits. So while I understand you need background to a project to appreciate a documentary photographic essay, it shouldn't be necessary for this event.

Did the chap win because he used Kodak 160VC 120 film on a Mamiya 7 II camera rather than a Nikon or Canon digi?
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
no, you're right, the two posts above claiming this to be a racist shot are quite frankly ridiculous
Click to expand...

Well that's your view and you're entitled to it, but why title it as 'my british wife'? Is it some implied sarcasm or racism that the photographer thinks that british wifes are lazy, easy, slovenly.

If, as art, we are expected to look more into the photograph than just the photograph and the title and accompanying text are equally important, then this issue starts to make you question these items.

I find nothing wrong with the nudity at all. After all we see much worse on the internet every day. I had to search for UK mag explanation on models on purestorm for example.
 
Last edited:
And just for balance, I found an article by the photographer written in the Times

Look, there's nothing erotic about my wife with no underwear; MY WEEK
PANAYIOTIS LAMPROU The photographer defends the intimate picture that
has caused a prize stir

PANAYIOTIS LAMPROU. Sunday Times. London (UK): Sep 19, 2010. pg. 21

SO INNOCENT I can honestly say that nobody has issued a warning about
one of my photographs before -- let alone a leading British art
gallery. Why would they? Among other things, I take a lot of pictures
of interiors and beautiful, quiet landscapes.

The picture that's causing all the fuss, though, is a portrait of my
wife. It was taken last summer when we were on holiday with our two
children -- aged three and four -- on the island of Schinoussa, in the
Aegean Sea.

That afternoon, we were sitting at a table after lunch. Christina, who
is British, was wearing a sky-blue Laura Ashley dress with small red
flowers, and feeling very relaxed. Her left arm was resting on the
table, and her right foot was perched up on her wooden chair.

Although her legs were apart and she wasn't wearing any underwear, she
had a look of innocence about her. I knew straight away that I had to
capture this intimate and beautiful moment.

SHE WANTED IT Afterwards, I showed the picture to my wife and
children, and they all loved it. The kids know what their mother looks
like ***, so it seemed perfectly natural to them. I didn't, however,
show the picture to a single colleague or friend.

But when I heard about the Taylor Wessing prize, just a month before
the submissions deadline this summer, I knew that it was time to
reconsider. After all, if I won, my photograph -- which I've called
Portrait of My British Wife -- would be displayed in the National
Portrait Gallery, which is world-renowned for its portraits, paintings
and photography.

I discussed this with Christina, and then sent it in. Like any woman,
she was glad to have the chance of being the subject of an award-
winning photograph.

It was only when we found out two weeks ago that it had been selected
for the shortlist that we suddenly started to wonder how people would
react to the element of nudity.

Well, the shortlist announcement was made on Thursday -- and we soon
had our answer. No newspaper has featured the image in its entirety,
and you can guess which part was cropped.

IT IS TRUE FEMININITY I believe passionately that every artist should
be given the space to express himself. On the other hand, everybody is
entitled to their own perceptions.

I can only hope that anyone looking at the entire picture will realise
that the nudity of the woman is not important. What is far more
important is the character of the image. If it had been vulgar, then,
yes, it would have been pornography. But in my photograph, the woman
portrayed is clearly elegant, kind and beautiful.

If you get a chance to see it, I'm sure you will appreciate both the
expression in Christina's face, and at the same time the freedom of
her pose. There is nothing sexual or erotic about it. This is a
photograph that tells you that Christina, a woman and a mother, is the
embodiment of true "femininity" . It expresses female power and
independence as well as my own devotion to my wife. Now that's
interesting, isn't it? DON'T CALL THE YARD As far as I'm concerned,
the National Portrait Gallery is perfectly entitled to put up a
warning to visitors about the picture. I doubt it will stop many
people. I would be far more concerned if a member of the public
complained to the Metropolitan police, because they have said they
would have to investigate if that happened.

If there were any chance of my portrait being taken down, I would turn
up at the gallery like a shot. I'm not sure what I could do, but I'd
certainly be asking the question: why? Why take up valuable police
time to mull over parts of my wife's body when we have a financial
crisis and a war in Afghanistan, not to mention the various moral
crises that are part of living in the 21st century? Is it a crime to
see beauty and innocence in a photograph? Is that something that we
have to deny ourselves? If so, then I throw up my hands: we should all
fly off to another planet, and leave this world in peace.

POLICE PORTRAITS Whatever happens, I plan to be in London on November
9, the day the winner of the prize is due to be announced. Perhaps
it's a good omen that it's my birthday the following day. In the
meantime, I'm engaged in a new project -- photographing Greek police
officers. With their clothes on. As told to Clio Williams
 
I guess it depends on your opinion of "creative". I was at a workshop recently with Magnum photos and they were debating wether photography should be called "arts ugly little sister"! Its a constant fight trying to get photography excepted as art and I think it should be. The British Wife to me says sexual freedom mixed with devotion but hey thats just me!

I dont see anything wrong with being slap bang in the middle but then again I dont like "composition" rules at the best of time, very boring ;) But you are right, slap bang in the middle is very common in contemporary photography, see Alec Soth, Rineke Dijskta, etc.

And the next time someone pulls you up about middle compositions just tell them its your "creative vision" :D
 
Why did he call it British Wife? Why not just 'my wife'? Her nationality is nothing to do with the picture. That's the point. Regardless of her nationality it's not a particularly nice picture. You could equally title it 'prostitute'!:shrug:
 
srichards said:
Why did he call it British Wife? Why not just 'my wife'? Her nationality is nothing to do with the picture. That's the point. Regardless of her nationality it's not a particularly nice picture. You could equally title it 'prostitute'!:shrug:
Click to expand...

Calling it his British wife is clearly meaningful to the photographer. In my opinion "british" is sometimes percieved as being very Queen Victoria in many european countries, very "british reserve". If I saw this image without the title, with the weather and structure behind her and her carefree pose, I wouldnt immediately guess this woman was british. Perhaps the photographer is making a point that middle class british women can be as sexually free as europeans.
 
Byker28i said:
Well that's your view and you're entitled to it, but why title it as 'my british wife'? Is it some implied sarcasm or racism that the photographer thinks that british wifes are lazy, easy, slovenly.
Click to expand...

Maybe because it's his wife .... and .... she's british?

I mean, I dunno, I'm not Colombo but that would seem like the most obvious reason to me ... but it's just a long shot I suppose :wacky:
 
srichards said:
Why did he call it British Wife? Why not just 'my wife'? Her nationality is nothing to do with the picture. That's the point. Regardless of her nationality it's not a particularly nice picture. You could equally title it 'prostitute'!:shrug:
Click to expand...

there could be a thousand reasons. Like;

It's a more interesting title than My Wife

He's not british, she is, much like I always talk about my wife as being northern because i am southern.
 
Vic said:
I wouldnt immediately guess this woman was british.
Click to expand...

It was the particularly hairy armpits that made me think :thinking:





You did notice the rest of the shot, right ?! ;)
 
Last edited:
the most ludicrous thing about claiming he was being racist in the shot is ..... IT'S HIS WIFE!!!

I'm pretty sure if I took a photo of my wife and wanted to portray that she was lazy and unkept or in anyway deliberately created a photo meant to put her in a derogatory way, then entered it into a competition for all to see ..... yeah, I'm pretty sure she'd divorce me.
 
If I took an upskirt shot of my wife with no undercrackers on, I don't think she'd stop at divorce - I reckon she'd nail my privates to the front door!
 
Maybe because we were expecting to see something spectacular, rather than 'mildly controversial' but technically safe...

I most like Jeffrey Stockbridge's shot of the two street-hookers Tic-Tac and Tootsie in Philadelphia and Claire Shilland's shot Merel, but I've seen better.

Like this shot by my colleague Steve Wood:
http://throughwoodyslens.blogspot.com/

AFGHAN+MAN2.JPG
 
Vic said:
Calling it his British wife is clearly meaningful to the photographer. In my opinion "british" is sometimes percieved as being very Queen Victoria in many european countries, very "british reserve". If I saw this image without the title, with the weather and structure behind her and her carefree pose, I wouldnt immediately guess this woman was british. Perhaps the photographer is making a point that middle class british women can be as sexually free as europeans.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's a much better response than Joes and helps with the discussion about/beyond the taking of the photograph, which is an area I often struggle to understand.
 
Sorry Joe,
It's just I've started a degree in photography and one of the books I have to read is full of this descriptive text beyond the photograph, so it's no longer the asthetic 'is that a nice photo' but as someone said above it's also about how/why it was taken, the thought behind it, the influences affecting it.

To be honest I'm struggling with that arty ******** hence why I'm questioning everything.
 
To me though, and it could just be my monitor, she doesn't exactly look comfortable and relaxed as per his explaination. She looks pained to be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top