This critique was extended at Matthew's request to include Garden Cream #3 See below.

Garden Cream 2 by Matthew Scherfenberg

Dear Matthew,

I would like to comment on this gorgeous image with your stated goal in mind: “My goal is often to present the human form as an aesthetic object. The head and face provide identity, which sometimes I'm trying to avoid”. Let’s take out the words “often” and “sometimes” and assume that in this particular photograph this is your goal. I also think that it’s safe to assume that hidden in your statement - “In this picture, which has a more sensual feel, the absence of identity helps people see what they want to see. some see a lover, some feel a caress, some see only a perfect shape, some see themselves” - are things that you Matthew can see and feel in this picture. So with these things in mind, let’s look at what I think may support and detract from your goals.

Obviously the creamy white skin and the voluptuous curves are the centerpiece of the image and will stop any passing viewers in their tracks. The way the leaves “caress” the form however add a romantic feel. And their deeper crimson color raises the piece to a level of sophistication above the purely erotic. The dewdrops on the leaves add freshness and give the feeling of a natural as opposed to a studio nude. I can easily identify with the leaves and wish that I too were touching the delicious form. I can also feel the vulnerability of this beautiful creature so it arouses emotions beyond base passion. One does not usually feel these feelings when viewing “aesthetic objects”

Edward Weston’s Nude 1936 is a classic example of a beautiful aesthetic object. [link]


Weston has hidden the face, which, as you smartly pointed out, obscures the identity and supports an objective approach to the female form. Weston, though a romantic and womanizer in his private life, kept romantic elements out of his photographs once he abandoned Pictorialism. He was focused on “the thing itself” and avoided any elements that would blur that focus. “Nude 1936” is what it is – a beautiful, sensual form with neither erotic nor romantic connotations. I think your “Cracked Again” [link] and other similar images in your gallery are fine examples of the objective, modernist approach to the nude figure.

“Garden Cream 2”, on the other hand is, for me, an image rich with romance and strong hints of love and vulnerability and could be strengthened by treating it as such. After spending some time with this photograph and getting past the initial attraction, I became disturbed by the way the shoulders and head were not only missing but felt dispassionately cut off. Even if this were purely an aesthetic object, the manner in which the frame slices through the sinuous curves of the shoulders weakens the overall sensuality of the form. I also think that by backing up a little and revealing more of the body it would prevent the image from being so bottom heavy. And referring to a previous comment regarding the black space at the bottom right, a bit more solid texture could support the weight of the figure’s bottom half.

So, as I hope you can see, I am torn between this delicious, creamy form and the desire for it to be a person with emotions and real blood flowing through her veins. I’ll enjoy her as she is . . . but only if . . .

Congrats on the DD

JT

Matthew requested a comment on #3 in the Garden Cream series

Much of what was said about Garden Cream #2 is applicable to GC #3. However in #3 you have taken a step farther and transformed the female form into pure abstraction (head or no head). When I first looked at this image it seemed as if I had been walking along and stumbled upon a Henry Moore sculpture lying in a garden. [link]

I’ve returned to your picture a number of times and am still adjusting to the contorted and distorted figure. This certainly is an “aesthetic object” but in this context it feels surreal. Wynn Bullock was interested in showing the dimension of time in his images by including different elements at various stages of decay. “Child in the forest” is a good example [link] (sorry for the small jpeg). When I first viewed this photograph about thirty-five years ago I was stunned by the counterpoint between the nude child and the lush forest. Here is a young girl imaged not as a child in nature but a child of nature –separate yet part of the whole. I’m feeling this same kind of counterpoint in your GC series. But here again it feels as if your sense of abstraction and your romantic tendencies are at odds and struggling to get aligned.

JT