| Babies being babies. Crawling on the floor in naked purity. Fondling objects
for tactile pleasure. Inserting random objects into their mouths just to see if
they fit. Posing in animal positions: rump in air, peepee to the world, eyes huge
with gleeful amusement, with tongue extended, drooling, smiling. Dressed as rough-and-tough,
adventure-seeking cowboy with all the contingent accessories. Babies sitting,
observing, being curious, getting into mischief, absorbing life, and integrating
it.
Photographed by Matthias Herrmann and presented in Q.: And Babies?, his infant subjects enjoy a liberation few adults can remember or even imagine. No societal pressures or self-doubt. No deadlines, traffic, or currency. They are free from criticism. They don't suffer from employment anxiety and creative obstacles. They do not experience hatred, responsibility, nor intellectualized sexuality. They just BE. Babies represent commencement, purity not yet scarred by life's banalities. They symbolize the future, renewal, potential. Babies are life. What better way to exemplify life's spirit than through unfettered nudity? In the flesh, a baby is a baby. Perusing these pages, the candor of emotions these defenseless humanoids exhibit and the frankness with which they are communicated captivates just as Herrmann's other work does. Black and white images, formless backgrounds, the recurrence of a sole comcept - all of these elements seamlessly combine to form a simplicity of composure reinforced by the infants' nakedness. No cluttered messages here. And so what is the message? Cached in Herrmann's photography always lurks textured meaning, a signature subtlety. Consider the title, Q.: And Babies Seemingly benign, but not at all. Depending on who asks the question, its significance alters. Is it an admiring peer who contemplates, to his chagrin, that Herrmann has moved beyond sensual self-portraits, "And babies?," with an air of disbelief? Or a skeptical critic who ponders Herrmann's potentially erotic exploration of a new subject matter, "And babies?," with arched eyebrow? Or the contrapuntal religious fanatic who is reviled by Herrmann's perverse profanity of the pristine and shrieks, "And babies!?! Is nothing sacred?" Q.: And Babies? …a photographer flirting with controversy or the depraved antics of a man exploiting the boys of family and friends? Probably a little of both. I picture Matthias delighting in the ambiguity. After all, he did choose that overtly phallic vegetable! And Babies, what? And babies…as pornography? And Babies…as another medium to show beautiful, crisp portraiture? And babies…to elicit smiles from an audience. And Babies to celebrate the innocence of infancy. Yes. And babies, too.
|