You talk about a fantasy in the viewer’s imagination being created, of the subject as a person and their life, based alone on an anonymous hairstyle. How similar do you think different viewers’ fantasies and projections are when they look at the same photograph? To me what is interesting with this series is its anonymity yet affirmed stylisation. Here the fragmented bodies’ inertia asserts the preconceived idea of the perfect female form: Eve has taught the world of women’s faults; her flesh has left women in a quest for ideals. There are many ways in which women have answered this quest but hair has, since early times in history, been central to the expression of their appearance.
When I speak of fantasies I refer to the projections of a character associating to the type of woman she wants to see in herself, as well as a viewer projecting their ideas of femininity onto a woman portrayed from the back, defined only by her hair. I think this is something we do every day: we do not so much project on her personality and her life, but much more on the type of woman we think she is, whether we picture her as sensual or conservative. The images in this series are like the formulas to an iconic concoction: glamour icon, quiet beauty, innocent youth, garçonne, skinhead, free spirit or nymph, Elizabethan Queen… they all acknowledge the power of hair as a strong representational element, and are gathered in a build up to reveal all the notions that have created our idea of femininity through time.