-
Objectification of human subjects
I've been having a lot of conversations with my daughter about the objectification of women. SInce your title translates as "the false sun king,"
would these images work with male models? I don't want to get into a long discussion about nudes in general, please restrict the response to these two images.
-
Re: Smaller Fomat Nudes
Perhaps it would be better to engage in such discussion in a non image thread?
-
Re: Smaller Fomat Nudes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter De Smidt
Perhaps it would be better engage in such discussion in a non image thread?
Peter, I reported my own post to the moderators with a request to move it, but in a way that still linked in to the two images. I wanted to avoid yet another general discussion of female nudes. The catalyst, besides my two daughters, was Charles Blow's column in yesterday's Times, that suggested we all take a more active role in this issue (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/o...lege.html?_r=0).
-
Re: Smaller Fomat Nudes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Lewin
<snip> I wanted to avoid yet another general discussion of female nudes. <snip>
But that is likely what you'll get. Your question is implying that the two pictures you refer to are immorally objectifying the model, or at the least they might be, otherwise why would you ask the question in regards to them? "Objectification" is a reference to Kant's Categorical Imperative, one form of which states that we should never treat other people only as an object. The "only" is important. We are objects, whether wholly or in part. Everyone who takes a picture of someone is treating them as an object, as a physical things that interacts with light. The problem is that it's unclear what's needed to avoid treating someone "only" as an object. Minimally, it means gaining informed consent for whatever you want to do, and there's no reason to think that wasn't done here. What these discussions produce is people who like the image say that it's fine, whereas the people who don't claim that it's "objectification." That's not very enlightening.
Yes, we want to take a strong stance against sexual mistreatment, assault, discrimination.....but perhaps there are better ways to do this than by having another discussion about whether a photographic nude is "objectification." It'll likely lead to much heat but little light.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Per Peter Lewin's request, I've moved this to its own thread. Peter started the discussion with reference to these pictures posted in the small format nudes thread:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...=1#post1413897
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...=1#post1413898
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
The reason I wanted to restrict the discussion to Genfer's two images is that they used costume elements to relate to a ""false sun King." I wondered if the photos would work as well with a male King. When nudes are solely of a body, they relate specifically to gender. When the images relate to costume elements (and maybe even history or myth) I thought there might be more flexibility.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Lewin
When nudes are solely of a body, they relate specifically to gender.
Not true by any stretch of the imagination.
I can take a million different photos of subjects completely unclothed where you cannot determine their gender.
This whole question is just one person trying to impose his sense of propriety on the world in general.
Men like to look at naked women. That's the only reason the human race exists in the first place.
And it's probably true of all other species that have vision.
- Leigh
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leigh
Men like to look at naked women. That's the only reason the human race exists in the first place.
And it's probably true of all other species that have vision.
:)
Image 650x868 pixels: here. My sympathies to the objectified peacock.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Straight men like looking at nude women. Gay men like looking at nude men. We men are wired visually.
I think Leigh has a good point! ;)
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alan Gales
Straight men like looking at nude women. Gay men like looking at nude men. We men are wired visually.
You're absolutely correct, of course. It makes me physically sick to even think about looking at Michelangelo's David, and needless to say, I never would take a picture of it -- even if given a chance.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alan Gales
Straight men like looking at nude women. Gay men like looking at nude men. We men are wired visually.
I think Leigh has a good point! ;)
WTF? Who are you people?
Quote:
You're absolutely correct, of course. It makes me physically sick to even think about looking at Michelangelo's David, and needless to say, I never would take a picture of it -- even if given a chance. xkaes
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirk Gittings
WTF? Who are you people?
Naked men are repugnant to me too. I guess I'm a bit phobic. Attractive ladies... I can look at them all day. I can't help who I am.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xkaes
You're absolutely correct, of course. It makes me physically sick to even think about looking at Michelangelo's David, and needless to say, I never would take a picture of it -- even if given a chance.
You guys REALLY need to stay up late and watch Stephen Colbert or Saturday Night Live, one of these nights. How do YOU spell S-A-R-C-A-S-M???
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
The hypocrisy on this subect abounds. I just saw the teaser for today's episode of The Talk. The ladies preach ad nauseam about the objectification of females, but were practically drooling while gazing at the six-pack of one of today's guests. Although I have only watched a few episodes of the show, it's not the first time I have seen this behavior on their part in the exact same scenario.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
In the battle of the sexes one of the approaches taken by some women is the "all men are rapists" attitude. There may be a generation of generation women untouched by radical feminism for whom this is a new idea and a weapon they need to learn to control.
It could also be a form of crowd hysteria inspired by the recent spate of high profile allegations of sexual harassment at work, which also feeds into the "all men are rapists" myth.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Ted, the ""all men are rapists" myth" is a myth. There is no battle going on, but nevertheless, all men are sexist to one degree or another. That comes with the territory, it is bred into our social structure. It exists and growing up male in the USA, being sexist is inescapable. What we do is a different story. It is not crowd hysteria that we are witnessing, but a striking down of the shields that have protected gender inequality at schools, business, and gov't. It might get a little noisy. As a believer in equal rights, I see this as something that was a long time in coming, and I welcome it.
With the two images in question, the gender of the model brings its own meaning into the image, especially since a gender role seems to have been introduced in the title. So I see it not as a matter if changing the gender of the model will work, but will it allow the meaning the photographer intends? A male model might bring something deeper to the image, but certainly will not bring in as many views.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vaughn
Ted, the ""all men are rapists" myth" is a myth.
Thanks.
If you haven't walked a mile in a woman's shoes, you can't judge. OK, I know you will, but you shouldn't. Sounds like someone needs to read the book "Black, Like me" or "A Bunny's Tale". Go walk a mile in any oppressed person's shoes.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xkaes
Thanks.
If you haven't walked a mile in a woman's shoes, you can't judge. OK, I know you will, but you shouldn't. Sounds like someone needs to read the book "Black, Like me" or "A Bunny's Tale". Go walk a mile in any oppressed person's shoes.
I was kinda hoping you would like the double negative...especially after rightfully getting on peoples cases for missing obvious satire.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xkaes
You're absolutely correct, of course. It makes me physically sick to even think about looking at Michelangelo's David, and needless to say, I never would take a picture of it -- even if given a chance.
I have to assume there's no mirror in your bathroom either.....
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xkaes
Thanks.
If you haven't walked a mile in a woman's shoes, you can't judge. OK, I know you will, but you shouldn't. Sounds like someone needs to read the book "Black, Like me" or "A Bunny's Tale". Go walk a mile in any oppressed person's shoes.
Vaughn,
My comment was not meant for you -- in any way. I was thanking you. Sorry for the confusion.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulbarden
I have to assume there's no mirror in your bathroom either.....
All the mirrors in my house are on the ceiling.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulbarden
I have to assume there's no mirror in your bathroom either.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xkaes
All the mirrors in my house are on the ceiling.
Sadly, the mirrors in my house state, "Objects look smaller than they appear". :(
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
consummate_fritterer
Sadly, the mirrors in my house state, "Objects look smaller than they appear". :(
Once you get to my age (74 in two hours), you remove all mirrors from the house.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bloodhoundbob
Once you get to my age (74 in two hours), you remove all mirrors from the house.
Keep on doing whatever works for you, my Brother! Happy Birthday!
--
Jac, right behind you in years.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jac@stafford.net
Jac, right behind you in years.
Me too.
Happy Birthday.
- Leigh
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jac@stafford.net
Keep on doing whatever works for you, my Brother! Happy Birthday!
--
Jac, right behind you in years.
Thanks, Jac and Leigh. It's been quite a ride!
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xkaes
You guys REALLY need to stay up late and watch Stephen Colbert or Saturday Night Live, one of these nights. How do YOU spell S-A-R-C-A-S-M???
I'm the king of sarcasm and even I didn't get it. I don't think Stpehen Colbert is funny but I do watch SNL...perhaps I missed the pertinent episode...
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
The only thing I see in the 2 photos are photos I think are not particularly "good" or interesting. I might not be smart enough to understand them.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Sarcasm tends to be much less effective in a text-based forum than in person or on TV.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Limiting the discussion to women and sexual objectification is too easy, and feeling or feigning indignation has been reduced to a meme. Objectification (of diverse kinds) in photography, particularly street and documentary photography, is commonplace, as are the rationalizations therefor.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Here's a good 'sarcasm' emoticon>>> :rolleyes:
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wayne
I'm the king of sarcasm and even I didn't get it.
Well, maybe you're the Prince. How could anyone get "physically sick looking at Michelangelo's David"? Maybe you should check out Jon Stewart instead.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xkaes
Well, maybe you're the Prince. How could anyone get "physically sick looking at Michelangelo's David"?
There's all sorts of peeps out there...
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xkaes
Well, maybe you're the Prince. How could anyone get "physically sick looking at Michelangelo's David"?
That's the trouble with today's America; nothing is unbelievable any more.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirk Gittings
WTF? Who are you people?
Not a nude photography fan, Kirk?
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Nude photography yes when it is done well. Most isn’t. Most is cheesecake. Am I a homophobe? No.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirk Gittings
Nude photography yes when it is done well. Most isn’t. Most is cheesecake. Am I a homophobe? No.
I agree with that.
I'm just a little confused with "WTF? Who are you people?". I think you misunderstood me. I was just saying that we men are wired visually. How we act on that is another matter.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vaughn
It's a power thing...
+1
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jnanian
+1
+1 as well!
Isn't all photography an objectification of what's been photographed?
The Viewer takes visual possession of whomever or whatever they see.
If they buy the print (an object it's self) even more so.
One of the few things worthwhile in the "Reader" I was assigned to teach from in a college English 1A course offered a modernistic painting of Harriet Tubman presumably picking cotton---sorry I cannot recollect the artist's name---but it was a very powerful image. What made it powerful was the objectification of this grand lady as an implement Arms and legs were like the pistons of a machine, her head turned so that her face, her humanity was unseen. There was no hint of her femininity. No identity other than as a slave in a field.
The complete objectification of Harriet Tubman, the slave, was the Artist's goal and it made a powerful statement but it was objectification none the less.
Like all good Art the printing of Harriet Tubman in my Reader told a story. Photographs tell stories too. What stories do nude photographs tell?
I don't think they all tell the same story and that is where what is harmful (or what isn't) comes into question, no?
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John Kasaian
+1 as well!
Photographs tell stories too. What stories do nude photographs tell?
I don't think they all tell the same story and that is where what is harmful (or what isn't) comes into question, no?
In this day of #MeToo, where something like 1/3 of women feel that they have been objectified in real life (where that objectification varies from unwanted comments to obscene gestures to coerced sex), do nude photographs play any part, and if so, do we as photographers have any particular responsibility?
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Lewin
In this day of #MeToo, where something like 1/3 of women feel that they have been objectified in real life (where that objectification varies from unwanted comments to obscene gestures to coerced sex), do nude photographs play any part, and if so, do we as photographers have any particular responsibility?
Please correct me if I'm in error, but I've observed that Artists working in every media seem to have a modernist approach that their work is highly personal and therefore above reproach---and rightfully so until other people come into play---models, viewers, critics, the public at large. So many impressions on so many levels and all can be dismissed by the Artist---the creator of the work---in defense of freedom, in this case Artistic freedom. I think this is the crux of the issue because it removes the requisite of being responsible from an Artist's perspective. Images say something. They say something about the Artist, who creates or records the image, as well as what the image actually portrays.
An image can leave an indelible mark on one's memory, often with an accompanying burden (pornography) or an affirmation of a virtue (a newspaper photo of a heroic deed, or a mother's love for her child) among other things. In the current times where images can go viral in the blink of an eye, or preserved in perpetuity for all the digital ages----what is the responsibility of an image's creator (in this case, the photographer?) I believe the answer can be gleaned by studying classical Art. What ancient paintings and sculpture from the past are celebrated today? Certainly there was ancient pornography but such examples are obscured in the dust of archives unless paraded about by those with an agenda, only to be immediately returned to those archives and dust. Yeah so-called Museums of Pornography is a franchise supplying shock entertainment to tourists in major cities, neither art, nor museum and certainly an embarrassment to legitimate museums who share the same listings section in the tourist booklets.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John Kasaian
Please correct me if I'm in error, but I've observed that Artists working in every media seem to have a modernist approach that their work is highly personal and therefore above reproach---and rightfully so until other people come into play---models, viewers, critics, the public at large. So many impressions on so many levels and all can be dismissed by the Artist---the creator of the work---in defense of freedom, in this case Artistic freedom
It is helpful to remember that capital-A Artist is a relatively new thing. Before the 18th century artisans, skilled craftsmen, and artists were much the same and self-declared status was almost impossible. Works were appreciated for the image itself, the skill to create it and how the work served in its social context - and who commissioned it.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Consider this: in all of following scenarios, the photographer's intention is to create an image of the subject (naked) that is "artful": the piece is not intended to arouse the viewer. (Thus separating his intent from the making of a pornographic image)
Scenario 1) a male photographing a nude female
Scenario 2) a female photographing a nude male
Scenario 3) a male photographing a nude male
Scenario 4) a female photographing a nude female
Remember that in all four scenarios the photographer does NOT intent to incite sexual arousal in the viewer, but to celebrate the beauty of the human form, or use nudity as a storytelling tool. (for example)
When people view the resulting imagery, and are made aware of the sex of the two participants in the image making process, I guarantee that most viewers will imagine the relationship of the two people involved and come to certain conclusions about the nature of the relationship, the intent of the photographer, and the purpose of the work itself. Once you are aware of the sex of the photographer and the nude subject, it is almost impossible to avoid examining the motives of the photographer and applying judgements to their intent. This also speaks to the power relationship in any of the four scenarios, and each is perceived very differently.
That said, its not difficult to understand why there is controversy built into the act of portraying a nude female body, when the act has such a rich history in our culture, and its often a history that speaks loudly of the power relationship between a male photographer and a female subject. That relationship is very different from any of the other three scenarios (which are all quite different from each other as well), and the male photographer/female nude dynamic has often involved aspects of exploitation and objectification, and it is often assumed that this relationship benefits only the photographer, while the female subject is diminished or compromised in some way.
Its no wonder that there is a contingent of women who violently object to this power relationship and automatically find it objectionable, whether or not the female nude subject was treated as though they were implicitly the weaker in that power relationship. Its practically impossible to separate the history of "The Nude As Photographic Subject" and all its power dynamics from what we do in 2017 as "art" photographers. That baggage will follow us for a long, long time I expect.
I feel the need to add a PS before anyone makes any assumptions:
We are sexual beings. When we encounter another person we like the look of, our brain/body responds. This is an important part of who/what we are, obviously.
In case you read what I wrote above and imagined I was in some way "anti-erotic art" you'd be quite mistaken. The points I made here are intended to speak to the power struggle/imbalance that is often encountered in art involving nudity, and when the term "objectification" comes into the dialog. I have no problem with erotic art. If a photographer/artist/writer wants to craft a piece of work with the express intent of arousing the viewer, that's fine. But its also important - as others have said - not to conflate nude with sexually explicit. We have a terrible time separating those two concepts here in the west, it seems. Consider Sally Mann's experience following the publishing of Immediate Family, for example.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulbarden
...That said, its not difficult to understand why there is controversy built into the act of portraying a nude female body, when the act has such a rich history in our culture...
And generally speaking, a very sexually biased (sexist) culture...very heavy baggage indeed.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
People objectify others all the time. It's human nature. I can't help how I feel when I see a gorgeous sexy lady. I've seen many ladies, who claim to resent being objectified as sex objects, yet they do the very same thing regarding men they refer to as 'hunks'. It's often (not always) hypocrisy. They lust after well-defined 'six-packs' and wonder what's 'under the hood (bonnet)'. No one can insist that others not feel what they feel. To deny our impulses is shear BS. To refrain from being a jerk about it is imperative.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual desire. Nor is there anything wrong with intending to create sexual desire, whether by how one dresses, or in a photograph. Neither is there anything inherently wrong with finding someone sexually desirable. Without those things, after all, would you exist? What's wrong is treating someone poorly. Don't do it. Some on the left seem to conflate these things. That's a mistake.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
For the purpose of this discussion, I'm thinking a more accurate term would be exploitation rather than objectification?
While the term objectification certainly denotes De-humanization it's meaning is more ambiguous than what I think is intended in the current controversy, while exploitation gets to the point of being driven by power and money.
Just a thought.
-
Re: Objectification of human subjects
Here's a thought experiment: for those of you who do nude photography, (a) would you use your own 18+ year-old daughter as a model (I specify age to avoid babies in bath tubs and the Sally Mann controversy), and (b) would you post those images on this site? Why do we sometimes see nude photographs of wives (Emmet Gowen/Edith) but as far as I know, virtually never daughters? Does the close relationship make a difference? (I think the answers relate to our definition of "art," "objectification," and "exploitation.")