Art: A Study in Context
by Racialicious Special Correspondent Latoya Peterson
What do you see when you look at this picture?
What things come to mind?
How would you describe it to someone else?
Hold that for a few minutes. Formulate your thoughts.
What is this picture saying to you?
Now, take what you thought and put the picture into context. This is the work of Kimiko Yoshida, an artist who takes fabulous and provocative photos and self portraits. A lot of her self portraits are bridal portraits, with inspiration taken from global cultures. Here is some of her other work:
Two questions:
1. What came to mind when you saw only the first picture?
2. Now that you have seen the rest of the artists’ work, have you changed your perception? What do you think about the pictures collectively?
All art by: Kimiko Yoshida
Originally posted on: Pink Tentacle
I found through: Tokyo Mango
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Doctor Nick wrote:
I thought that was a chocolate Statue of Liberty and I was like
“That looks DELICIOUS!!!”
Then I realized it was bronze and I was like
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 9:44 am ¶
justin wrote:
The first image looks like a chocolate advert.
Her images, collectively, are too playful and varied, in comparison to her theme so it seems like a gimmick. I would like her work more if she took pictures of Grace Jones.
I got carried away and invoked ‘the death of the author’ on the fortune cookie post . I think typically, the solution to that dilemma is sincerity. The way she is appropriating things is trivial and scattered. Is she invested in those cultures or is she just trying on various hats?
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 9:59 am ¶
Adrian Catao wrote:
the feminist message is strong, the cultural message seems a bit sticky (if not disregarded).
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 10:20 am ¶
Ike wrote:
1. I thought the picture was a statement on American liberty being built on black people.
2. After seeing the rest, I think the pictures collectively say that we are invisible and faceless behind racial stereotypes.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 10:22 am ¶
Cynthia wrote:
What IS the fourth picture? Looks like some sort of character that didn’t make it into the Star Wars movies.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 10:55 am ¶
Erica wrote:
In these pictures I think Yoshida is presenting a view of herself only to cut it off, a confrontational frontal pose with key parts of her face such as her eyes and mouth obscured in some way. What is she meaning to say by presenting stylized images of race, ethnicity, and gender identity? She might be making a comment on how we are only allowed to inhabit strict understandings of these different identity categories by oppressive power structures, and by doing so may stifle a full expression of ourselves. I say this because in each picture she is shown with seemingly highly culturally coded items that interrupt the connection between her and the viewer. Who terms what are acceptable and unacceptable ways of navigating a body through cultural space, and for what gain?
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 10:56 am ¶
Deuse wrote:
1. Personally I took the first piece to be a literal statement of black women’s contribution to the American Dream. A marraige of mind body and soul that has made America you and you America. And the eyes are representing this acknowledgement or truth.
2. I feel after seeing the next three that each could replace the other in the lineup. Meaning that even though one race sees themselves as an American it is inherent that within America’s culture certain people are simply blind to acknowledge this about their racial counterparts or sisters of another race.
Disclaimer: Being an artist I kinda peaked at the other three for a little guidance. But my initial thought is what I wrote minus the part about the eyes. After seeing the other three my thoughts became more developed.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 11:48 am ¶
Andom wrote:
I took the first one as a call for indigenous Americans’ rights…
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 11:49 am ¶
Jeffrey Landale wrote:
My first impression was that the picture was trying to make a point about the history of black people in America (slavery, segregation, racism etc.) overshadowing America’s outward image of being the land of the free. After I saw the others, I’m not really sure what her point is. I found it interesting that the background color is about the same as her skin color in all of the pictures. Something about individuality being blurred by racial stereotypes?
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 12:05 pm ¶
jd wrote:
My initial response to the first picture was that its purpose was to show the degree to which one thinks of the S of L as white, based on how jarring it was to see a POC positioned as Lady Liberty, even though bronze miniatures in a similar color are common.
I don’t know what to think of the series.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 12:05 pm ¶
Dan wrote:
If you like these, the work of Cindy Sherman will blow you away. Cindy has been exploring these ideas in more thought-provoking ways for decades.
After being exposed to many other great female photographers, these strike me as just average.
Its not even that original, America’s Next Top Model explored these themes in an ‘assignment’ last season.
Technically, the alien image bugs me because I hate seeing the reflection of a studio. It just brings any intended context down to reality. Its just a painted lady in a white studio with two lights pointing up.
Pushing forward…
Why aren’t there more well-known minority photographers? I can only think of one, Jeanne Moutoussamy-Ashe, Arthur’s widow. She is a photojournalist, historian, writer. She wrote “Viewfinders: Black Women Photographers”.
Who else should we be looking at?
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 12:55 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
> Why aren’t there more well-known minority photographers?
There’s also that Asian-American woman who does self-portraits where she takes on different characters/archetypes.
Her name escapes me now - can anyone jump in?
I’m not a big fan of her stuff though, I must admit. Something about it rubs me the wrong way - I’m not sure what.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 1:41 pm ¶
Cynthia wrote:
Re: few well-known minority photogs:
Would love to see a study regarding minorities, career choices and family influence. Would likely find that at least in the Asian communities, artsy careers are frowned upon (at least judging from who majors in what at a typical university) But who knows? Anyone know if a study like this is out there?
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 3:09 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
LOL - Damn, we all do have race on the brain. I love art, so when this popped up on my favorite Japanese culture blog, I didn’t know what to think.
I thought that the idea of a brown America was dope. That was my first impression. Then I saw she colored herself to match with the bronze. The rest of the photos I choose were cute, but not representative of Yoshida’s actual work - if you browse her website, you will see lots more photos of BRIDAL themes. This isn’t a statement on race at all.
Interesting how perception works, right?
I bet if I were presenting you guys these images on a gender blog, you would have had different reactions. (FYI, the Pikachu bride photo ended up on a major gaming blog.)
Carmen - Are you referring to Nikki S. Lee? I love her work and her various projects. You may not like her because she is heavy on concept, and not technique - everything is shot with disposable or basic cameras so that she doesn’t intimidate the subject.
Dan - Not sure. Is it possible that a lot of photography presentations now are collectives? One of my favorite collections, More Body, More Soul is shot by different people. So while the subjects are all gorgeous black men, the photogs are quiet, just a name at the bottom of these striking images.
Cynthia -
Maybe. Not quite sure. My friend Hae works in art, but she is considered an anomaly. Her friends are mostly doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, etc.
By the way, the silver thing was called Alien Bride, I think. She also had an astronaut bride.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 3:22 pm ¶
Mickey wrote:
I don’t claim to have any real understanding of art. I still look at at piece by Rothko and go: huh?
With the first picture I think about the sheer size of the Statue of Liberty. It looks beautiful in the water; very majestic and I can imagine people coming from other countries being awestruck.
But when you scale it down, it doesnt look all that impressive. While the Statue of Liberty may mean freedom to some, it didn’t mean freedom to all.
As for the rest of the pictures, the lack of face is common theme. Since her thing is bridal, I take it to mean that sometimes when woman marry, there is a fear of losing one’s identity.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 3:57 pm ¶
Jen* wrote:
i thought the first picture was of a dude. so i thought, maybe there was some kind of statement about how Lady Liberty didn’t look much like a lady, or something. or that anybody could be the symbol?
after the cut i just got the idea that the no face thing was her MO, and i figure out the first one is probably a lady. even though it still kinda looks like a dude to me.
i am so deep.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 4:21 pm ¶
natalia wrote:
But why the blackface in the Statue of Liberty piece?
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 5:11 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Natalia -
I was waiting for someone to mention that. I wanted to see if anyone interpreted this as blackface.
Keep in mind, she painted herself black in the 3rd pic, and silver in the 4th.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 5:14 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Latoya - yes! Nikki S. Lee is the woman I was talking about. Eh it’s not so much the technique I’m not enamored with, more the concepts.
It just feels a bit Tyra-esque to me: this idea of sort of going undercover to be a different persona.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 5:32 pm ¶
magnoline wrote:
I thought that in the first one the woman was supposed to depict the state of being left out of the American dream… the others make me think it’s more about how isolated we are by being defined by culture and race.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 6:26 pm ¶
Kismet wrote:
To me, the first picture looked something like what Ike said above: how America (via SOL) is built on the backs of black people. But because of the crown I threw in that it also affirmed that the basic principles of black politics are intertwined with and the same as so-called American principles: democracy, freedom of expression, speech, land of the free, bring me your tired and hungry, etc. So kind of a black Atlantic Gilroy mixture/commentary on modernity and the West being as much black as it is “white”
Then I saw the second.
I stick with my assumption on the first. Because the second looked like it had Asian undertones (Japanese maybe?) and seemed maybe a commentary on whitewashing of Asian culture in the West (or global), in particular Asian women while at the same time hyping them up because of their “exotic”
Really fascinating, especially all of the different comments. Thanks.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 7:07 pm ¶
Globalistgirl wrote:
What things come to mind?
How would you describe it to someone else?
Hold that for a few minutes. Formulate your thoughts.
What is this picture saying to you?
1. What came to mind when you saw only the first picture?
Confusion over why someone is holding a replica of the Statue of Liberty and particularly why the real person’s crown looks almost raytraced or as if it’s made out of paper. I was expecting some kind of close geometric symmetry or parallel between the person and the object, the kind of impact that street performers that look like statues gives.
I would have described it as a photograph in earthy tones of a man with bronze-brown skin wearing a replica of the crown the Statue of Liberty wears, holding up a small brass or bronze replica of the Statue of Liberty in front of him such that his mouth is covered by the statue’s head. That feature makes me associate to silencing and censorship, but I wasn’t sure if the photographer really intended such a harsh castigation of the US political situation as to imply that the government is actively silencing its people in the name of freedom.
2. Now that you have seen the rest of the artists’ work, have you changed your perception? What do you think about the pictures collectively?
The other pictures are wonderful plays on people disappearing behind their cultures and symbols of their cultures. Personally, I interpret that disapparance of clear identifiers as saying that anyone could be hidden behind the faces. The first picture still feels a little bit like the odd man out, perhaps because it’s not immediately obvious to me what the Statue of Liberty means culturally for the US. It feels a little like the other pictures have clear symbolism, but the US one doesn’t really say much about the US. Perhaps Americans see more clear symbolism in it than I do.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 7:44 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
The black people made have propped up America with our very hands, but we still don’t have a voice.
Then I thought…”Why can’t the women see? What does that mean?” I still can’t interpret it now.
Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 10:28 pm ¶
akhtar wrote:
Looking at the first picture, I didn’t have an immediate reaction. Looking at it again, the Native Americans plight due to the colonial idea of liberty for only themselves came to mind. I wasn’t sure if that was her point. But looking at the other pictures esp. the Japanese girl with the blond hair. I think she is trying to make a statement about racial issues that are overlooked.
Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 6:02 am ¶
bdsista wrote:
To be more simplistic, the first picture makes me think of how Black Women are Americans that are silenced by America. We strive to claim our place but our voices are blocked. We can be seen, but not heard. The second and third pictures to me seem to show different cultures of women, that at blinded and also marginalized. What I liked about both of these was that they were Japanese and African women, which makes a statement about women in general as society wanting them to be visually appealing, but bound. The last picture to me reminded me of Alien and looked more like a fashion shot. Although she is blinded as well, which could be a statement that even as an Alien a woman is bound and restricted. I had no opinion about the artists race vis a vis the art, I think it was more of a statement about womanhood and femaleness in the context of political and social power.
Posted 18 Jan 2008 at 9:25 am ¶