He’s been called “high-fashion’s dirty old man“, a misogynistic visionary with a love of lenses, limbs, and licentious ladies. Helmut Newton’s photography is world-(in)famous, his provocative, sexually charged subjects a regular feature in Parisian and American Vogue. His models were often stripped bare, long necks exposed, hands gently touching their faces or nursing a cigarette, or even more provocatively, a gun. The women are undoubtedly beautiful, but are they objectified beyond agency? Was Newton’s imagery counteractive to the sexual revolution of the 70s, when his work became so popular?

I recently came across this interview conducted by Leeta Harding on her Tumblr. She talks to Newton about his choice in models and his views on the female form. Everyone seems to have their own opinion on the controversial photographer, and as a fan of his photography, his rationale for creating the images is something I find you can’t ignore if you’re a photography student. You don’t just take images, you make them.

LEETA:  The women in your photographs always seem to possess a strong spirit. In a lot of other fashion photography, the models look so out-of-it and withdrawn.
HELMUT: I don’t like using girls who are already very famous. That way they don’t have a routine — which I prefer.
LEETA: What do you generally look for when you choose a girl?
HELMUT: It depends — my tastes change with the times. Every decade women’s bodies seem to be different. I remember when I first came to Paris in ’56, or ’57, all the models in the haute couture houses were little. They were five-foot six … and they were all French. Now you look at a French girl, and she’s like an American girl. It has to do with what they eat, working out, going jogging, bicycling. There’s an American influence on everything. Everybody looks the same around the world — sneakers and jeans.
LEETA: I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon.
HELMUT: Then there was a time, in the early ’60s, when women had no waist. Remember the sack and the A-line dress? Before that, when I was in Australia in the ’50s, if a girl could wear a dog collar as a belt, that was the ultimate. Then you got the Twiggies. You know who Twiggy is don’t you?
LEETA: Yes, the original waif.
HELMUT: And then the big Swedish, German, and American girls came on the scene in the ‘80s. They were built like truck drivers, which is a look that I like. It was the heyday of the super models like Cindy Crawford — Cindy had a great quality. Then it went back to this kind of zonked-out, anorexic girl in the early ’90s.
LEETA: What makes a woman sexy?
HELMUT: Ah! I think it’s nothing to do with beauty. It’s nothing to do with if she has big boobs, little boobs or no boobs. I think it all goes through the head. It’s intellect. I think that what goes on in the head of a woman is much more important than whether she’s blonde or brunette or whatever.

One of the main criticisms of  Helmut Newton’s work is that he shot for Playboy for 19 years. After being a position where portraying women completely for the male gaze was your only MO, one could argue that all his images are laden with misogynistic innuendo. I mean, it was his job to portray women as objects, right? Did his job at Playboy condition him to depict women first and foremost as sexual objects? His argument was that in positioning the models with front-on, pelvises thrust forward as they stare directly down the barrel of the camera lens, he was providing women with agency. These women aren’t hiding anything (not like those Supre ads you see on billboards). They’re almost defiant, in their (nearly) natural state, poised as if so say “what of it?” in regards to their nudity.

I’m not going to get into the semiotic codings of his images because I’m on a study break week from university and am saving my academic inclinations for my tutors, but I will briefly allude to a more contemporary controversy. Just as Newton was lampooned for creating demoralising art, I see a similar witch hunt happening on my own home turf. I remember the Bill Henson controversy of 2007. The contemporary photographer’s exhibition shut down because it allegedly sexualised children. I was talking to a girlfriend about this at the time (another Henson supporter) and I was so afraid to publicly declare my support for the photographer. But she said something to me which really made me wish I could be more articulate instead of fence sitting: If one takes a photograph with no intention of sexualising or objectifying the subject matter, are they at fault if someone’s interpretation deviates from their innocent actions? I guess it all gums down to whether or not that was the intent Newton had at the time. I have no concrete proof that Newton’s work is ultimately empowering for feminine sexuality, but I do know that when I look at his images I see something fierce, a raw sexuality that I haven’t seen anywhere else.
“I am superficial, my images aren’t deep. Good taste is the anti-fashion, the anti-photo, the anti-woman, the anti-eroticism. Vulgarity is life, is fun, the desire for extreme reactions.” – Helmut Newton