Objectification of human subjects

[Peter Lewin]

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.

[Peter De Smidt]

Perhaps it would be better to engage in such discussion in a non image thread?

[Peter Lewin]

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).

[Peter De Smidt]

<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.

[Oren Grad]

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

[Peter Lewin]

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.

[Leigh]

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

[Jac@stafford.net]

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.

[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!

[xkaes]

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.