Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Darya Zhukova (12106365364).jpg

File:Darya Zhukova (12106365364).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2014 at 10:57:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Александр Каргальцев (Sasha Kargaltsev) - uploaded by Fæ
Support as nominator. Some participants at FPC may be offended by male nudity, I believe this photograph justifies that risk and worth consideration due to being an exemplar work of a well established LGBT artist, as well as for its educational value in relation to parody and protest of contemporary racism and a reaction by Kargaltsev to his own experience of homophobia.

Kargaltsev is a photographer and film producer known for his gay related artworks featuring the male nude, describing himself as a queer artist who fled oppression in Russia by emigrating to America. This photograph is both an interesting LGBT cultural work with historical and artistic resonances in the areas of American racism and the original Allen Jones' "chair" from 1969, along with being a political protest against Zhukova's recent racially offensive photograph. See the links on the image page for press impact of this artwork. -- Fæ (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sure there are folks here offended by any nudity. Cultural sensitivities differ. I think if we stop talking about the fact it is a nude whenever anyone nominates a nude it will be less of an issue. That aside, images here need more than just EV or a strong social commentary, although these certainly help. Images nominated at COM:FPC should be the finest of their kind and even where systemic bias may exist this basic principle is not waived. When I first looked at the thumb I was hopeful it would be good enough to have a legitimate chance, as it would be nice for FPC to be more than just butterflies, landscapes and architecture. As to the image itself, I noted a few technical flaws with softness in areas and the general lighting that make me think this will not stand up well against the guidelines. Using past FP images wasn't much help, as even the female form is well under-represented in the people category. I did a search in Google for examples of male nudes and this does not compare well. I finally asked myself if this was an image of two beautiful women and nothing else changed would I support and it was an adamant no. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a photograph and as a work of art, this has not achieved greatness: it has failed to provoke an original response, it is technically flawed, and imo it is artistically weak.
- EV: The photograph featuring Zhukova sitting on on a chair that looked like a contorted half-naked black woman was highly controversial and provocative (and publicity-forming for all those concerned). It generated a huge amount of comment in the press and online. Like it or not, this is what modern art does. The artist behind the chair (Bjarne Melgaard) is known for highly controversial and provocative works. And the original Allen Jones chair (with a white woman) in the Tate is itself controversial and provocative, though it causes offence for other reasons. So much deliberate provocation and controversy. So much building on or commenting on the work of others. So much publicity-seeking or advocacy-making. While Kargaltsev's protest has achieved a tiny amount of publicity, nobody is talking about the photo itself (beyond a perfunctory description). The news is merely that "a gay Russian artist" created the photo to make a point, for which he gets a moment to put across in his own words, before the news stories rehash the previous week's much more interesting story about the Russian oligarch's wife. So I see a "political protest" about Zhukova's photograph, which has been widely interpreted as racist, but I don't see "an interesting LGBT cultural work with historical and artistic resonances in the areas of American racism and the original Allen Jones' "chair" from 1969".
- Technically, the photo suffers from being just plain out of focus. If one looks at the floor, it is clear the focus is much closer to the photographer than either of the two subjects. It fails on that alone really.
- Artistically, the image isn't strong imo. We have two naked people in an awkwardly-held pose in a photographer's studio. Nothing especially new about that: the internet is, frankly, absolutely chock full of such pictures. What does the picture say? Why are they there? Why are they arranged like that? Without the accompanying explanation, one really has no clue what is going on here or why we should care. We know it wasn't just intended as a study of the male nude form. Compare that to the controversial Zhukova photo. One one level it is a fashionable and famous young lady sitting at a dressing table, smiling slightly for the camera. Then one notices the outrageous chair and considers if it is hers or why she chose to be photographed sitting in it. The awkward pose of the black "woman" and sat-upon situation makes sense [!] in her bondage attire and function as an actual seat. But strangely "she" appears to be happy and looking directly at Zhukova -- "her" eyeline linking the two "subjects". One wonders if the black chair is really a woman (it isn't) and if not, why "she" needs a rug to lie on. And the rest of the image, with the dressing table, the bare uncluttered room, and the three mirrors framing the subject are all carefully arranged. The Zhukova photo, no matter what one thinks of it ethically, is a work of art. Kargaltsev's hurried protest image, is not. -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad try...so with racism against racism. --Mile (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 15:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]