* |en| Art criric, edition of Thames & Hudson, titled “The Naked Nude“, by Frances Borzello on 9/2012
"… just as Manet’s “Olympia” did in 1863 with her part and individualized face and figure. Embarrassing. Shocking. Disconcerting. A terrific photograph. The ideal nude recycled for our times into the naked portrait."
* |en| Article at the U.K magazine “Professional Photographer”, by Editor Grant Scott, titled “Me, Myself and I” on 3/2011
"...Portrait of my British wife is one of his strongest, most confrontational images but very much within his personal photographic world view..."
"...And for one more reason: in order to start consolidating that in the face of the new puritanism and the everyday cliché, that uses the commercialized expression of the female genital as brash swearword, our society has conquered certain basic liberties, including the right to sexual freedom, as well as artistic freedom; and we do not intend to sacrifice them again at the altar of the new puritanism."
"...Therefore, the debate on “British Wife” should concern the artist’s gaze, i.e. the Ηuman gaze, on the naked woman; a gaze that runs through the history of civilization, from the pre-historic Venus of Willendorf and the classical Aphrodite of Milos, up to Tiziano, Rembrandt, Courbet, Picasso, Lucian Freud, D. Hockney, Marlene Dumas. And Pan. Lamprou."
* |en| Article at “Trébuchet” by Augustine Zenakos, titled “Vexed: Brief Points on Art, Voyeurism and Pornography” on 21/9/2010 (Text in greek / english)
"...The second problem with the question is that art and voyeurism are hardly mutually exclusive. More precisely, if we concede that something is voyeuristic, this does not preclude its being art. On the contrary, the element of voyeurism is crucial in countless Venuses and Magdalenes that we admire as great works of art. In the same way, the photograph is quite clear: the fact that this is the photographer’s wife renders our viewing act indeed voyeuristic, but this forms part of the artistic function of the work – it is not its opposite..."
"...What strikes me most about Lamprou's portrait – apart, of course, from its explicitness – is its apparent casualness. It has none of the heightened formal power of David Chancellor's portrait of a 14-year-old girl astride her horse with a dead impala. Instead, it looks, at first glance, like a holiday snap – but that, too, is part of its odd, and confusing, power. The dirty pan, the cluttered table, and the blurred chair in the foreground are all familiar signifiers of that certain feeling of relaxed torpor that descends on us when we settle in to a holiday. It's just that the eye is drawn elsewhere; we are given licence to look, to linger, to transgress the boundary between the accepted and the forbidden – at a cost, perhaps, to all of us, the photographer, the subject and the viewer … and to our ever-shrinking imaginations."
* |en| Reportage at the english newspaper “Times” by Jack Malvern “Gallery issues explicit warning over Panayiotis Lamprou’s intimate photograph“on 16/9/2010 (Text in greek / english)
“What we loved about Panayiotis’s portrait is that it’s wonderfully, intimately relaxed. It is so straightforward that it is, in a sense, unshowy. We thought very carefully about this. It shows the relationship between the subject and the photographer.”
< Back to all posts