*ooof*: S_x on Legs, Against the Wall

Hello again. Have you noticed my absence? Ooooh, that is a loaded question that one should better not ask, in case of replies in the negative… Anyhow, I was away for a weekend in the beautiful, dramatic West of Ireland (see some impressions here and here) and when I got back I saw that a new image by Ascroft had popped up over the weekend. But by the time I saw it, I was already out of the loop and the image has already been discussed – albeit in slightly different context – by others. Maybe at a later stage I shall come back to it. But for now, and just because I like to be contrary, I will give you another Ascroft shot that I have been longing to pick apart analyse.

I would’ve liked to have been a fly on *that* wall, says Guylty. And preferably at about bum height, straight behind *ahem*…
Richard Armitage shot by Robert Ascroft, 2012
Image sourced via RAnet.com

I have talked about the importance of the background in portraiture before – the choice of background is not coincidental and adds a layer of meaning to any image when it is discernably *not neutral*. And even though a wall is a wall is a wall, this background can hardly described as neutral. Some of that is due to its striking blue colour, but also to the texture and effect of the background. Our model has been placed in front of a brick wall. The wall must have been painted a few times, as evidenced by the peeling paint that reveals a coat of white paint under the blue and further down the red brick wall. It is only too fitting that the man standing in front of that flaky wall is dressed casually – in jeans and a white t-shirt. While contrast can work sometimes very well in fashion shoots (just imagine a formal dress modelled in front of a shabby chic, crumbling palazzo), it might look out of place to have Armitage dressed formally and placed in front of a decaying wall. Here, with his impressive arms exposed and casually dressed, the roughly textured background adds credibility and context to the look. While the background can be seen in detail, it nonetheless does not distract from the sitter. (The only thing I find mildly distracting is the fact that there is a line of slightly lighter peeling paint just above the head – but that is me being pedantic…)

The image, by the way, is definitely shot indoors. While the background might give you the impression that it is an outside wall, the shadows in the image give the lighting away. Ascroft has illuminated this shot with beauty lighting, i.e. the lightsource has been placed high up above the sitter, angled slightly onto his face, as visible in the tell-tale butterfly shadow under Armitage’s nose. This type of light is not called beauty light without a reason – not only is this used most frequently for beauty and fashion photography, but it also enhances the beauty of the sitter without much effort: By angling it from above onto the front of the sitter, it leaves very little shadow, lighting up the make-up in beauty photography and illuminating the clothes in fashion shots. At the same time it also very benignly drowns out lines and wrinkles. This is basically due to the laws of optics: The closer the subject is to the light source, the stronger he is lit up by the light. With the beauty light placed above the sitter, the light catches the forehead of the model first, effectively drowning out most of the lines. The photographer thus kills two stones with one bird (or the other way ’round) – a) he reduces his own post-production workload and b) he makes his vain model happy by making him look winkle-free(ish). (Excursus for photography nerds: Photographers use special equipment to create beauty light. The light contraption is fittingly called a “beauty dish” and consists of a flash light with a round, bowl-shaped hood. The inside of the hood is painted a reflective silver; the light source itself is covered with a disk. The light thus is deflected into the dish and then reflected by the sides of the hood and appears slightly diffused. It lights up the centre of the intended image and diffuses nicely into the edges of the frame. If you would like to see how it is used, click here  You can see evidence of Ascroft using a beauty dish in a shot of Ethan Hawke here.)

So here we have strong-man Armitage in a crumbling building. Has he just demolished a few brittle walls in a tenement and is taking a little break before returning to the sledgehammer? You’d be excused to be thinking that, but there is no evidence of even the smallest bead of sweat on Armitage’s immaculate forehead. Ah well, no he wouldn’t put his beautiful body to the service of building work. But as connoisseurs of l’Armitage‘s life we know that he has a penchant for DIY – how fitting is this portrait in the light of that??

Armitage’s pose is slightly defensive – with his arms folded in front of his chest, he is guarding his body from the gaze of the viewer. But the pose also serves another purpose. By holding his arms like this, Armitage involuntarily has to flex his biceps – and they bulge out nicely under the short arms of his t-shirt. We also get to see his hairy underarms, an unusual sight, as most of Armitage’s portraiture shows his arms fully covered to the wrist. Whatever for? This man has got beautiful arms, the charms of which female viewers will certainly respond to with a sigh, and which might also elicit muscle envy from a male viewer. They are evidence of Armitage’s fitness post-principal filming on The Hobbit, which finished in 2012. As we all know, Armitage trained extensively for his role as Thorin Oakenshield and was kept fit during filming even just by wearing his heavy costume. Also observe the perfect silhouette of the man with his narrow hips, and shoulders that are wider than the hips.

The overall message that this image communicates is that the sitter is a strong and fit man, a fine specimen. The “alpha male” vibe of the sitter is further enhanced by the facial expression that Armitage is sporting. While he is looking slightly downwards – I am coming to the point of believing that this is Armitage’s habitual pose; with his height he just towers over everyone almost all of the time – he by no means appears submissive. (Aside: His poor neck muscles must be so strained from constantly having to look down to everyone else – and the photographer in this case is obviously also a couple of inches shorter than Armitage, thus he looks slightly down while staring at the camera lens.) His gaze straight into the lens and the friendly open look in his eyes communicate confidence and comfort in the situation.

You may have personal preferences whether you like a man better dressed formally in a suit and shirt, or casually in jeans and t-shirt. In any case, an image like this has the ability to hit you straight in the ovaries. It displays the masculine attributes of the sitter perfectly – the exposed biceps, the hairy underarms, the V-line silhouette of narrow hips and wide shoulders, the hint of chest hair, just discernible in the V-necked t-shirt, the veins standing out on the back of his hand, the long thumb with its clipped nail. Do you feel the evocative pull of this image? It speaks to your heart much more than your brain. Or possibly more to your belly than your heart. Because which woman does not dream of a strong man, to hold and protect her with his powerful arms? Cavewoman is still very much alive in all of us! There is an unspoken promise of potency in this image, a latent sexual allure in the exposed skin, *despite* the otherwise completely non-sexual pose and context. This is sex on legs, leaning against the wall. Now, there is an idea… I bet you all thought about that, too. Ascroft gave you more than he bargained for. Or did he? We are grateful. Again.

~ by Guylty on April 23, 2013.