Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 99

Thread: Objectification of human subjects

  1. #71

    Re: Objectification of human subjects

    Quote Originally Posted by John Kasaian View Post
    Intent, lad. It's intent that needs consideration here.
    Look at the ads for the more raunchy strip clubs. What is their intention? What is their promise?
    And precisely, what is my intent? Even I might not fully understand that about myself, let alone the others' intent.

  2. #72

    Re: Objectification of human subjects

    Who was it that had the private parts removed from precious works of art (statues) and had fig leaves attached instead?

  3. #73

    Re: Objectification of human subjects

    Please, no one take offense...

    This is a very personal issue. I like seeing a work of art tastefully portraying a lovely couple in a warm embrace. However, if they're both male, that offends me a bit (I'M SORRY). Does that make the artist a pervert? Of course not. Does it make me a prude? Perhaps. This is just one example of millions of possible 'opinions'.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Posts
    110

    Re: Objectification of human subjects

    Quote Originally Posted by consummate_fritterer View Post
    Please, no one take offense...

    This is a very personal issue. I like seeing a work of art tastefully portraying a lovely couple in a warm embrace. However, if they're both male, that offends me a bit (I'M SORRY). Does that make the artist a pervert? Of course not. Does it make me a prude? Perhaps. This is just one example of millions of possible 'opinions'.
    Okay, so here is where things become problematic: if you don't like seeing male same-sex imagery - that's you being honest, and we should give each other the space to be honest, I believe. Nobody would ever suggest what you should or shouldn't like in a photograph. But if you speak about your response by saying "it offends me" then you are stating that you believe the imagery is offensive. That suggests that a photograph of two men portrayed "in a warm embrace" is inherently offensive, and I don't believe that's true. (I should ask you if you feel the same way about a similar photo of two women. If your response is not the same, then why not?)

    You might personally find such an image distasteful, or upsetting, or contradictory to your world view of human sexuality, but I don't believe that makes the image automatically "offensive". See what I mean? By choosing to label such a work as "offensive" then you are straying beyond personal opinion and into judgement territory. While you are free to have your opinions on the matter, you invite others to engage you and challenge you when you make your judgements public. There is a fine line between expressing an opinion and passing judgement.

  5. #75
    bob carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario,
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Objectification of human subjects

    Quote Originally Posted by paulbarden View Post
    Okay, so here is where things become problematic: if you don't like seeing male same-sex imagery - that's you being honest, and we should give each other the space to be honest, I believe. Nobody would ever suggest what you should or shouldn't like in a photograph. But if you speak about your response by saying "it offends me" then you are stating that you believe the imagery is offensive. That suggests that a photograph of two men portrayed "in a warm embrace" is inherently offensive, and I don't believe that's true. (I should ask you if you feel the same way about a similar photo of two women. If your response is not the same, then why not?)

    You might personally find such an image distasteful, or upsetting, or contradictory to your world view of human sexuality, but I don't believe that makes the image automatically "offensive". See what I mean? By choosing to label such a work as "offensive" then you are straying beyond personal opinion and into judgement territory. While you are free to have your opinions on the matter, you invite others to engage you and challenge you when you make your judgements public.
    Well said Paul

  6. #76

    Re: Objectification of human subjects

    Quote Originally Posted by paulbarden View Post
    Okay, so here is where things become problematic: if you don't like seeing male same-sex imagery - that's you being honest, and we should give each other the space to be honest, I believe. Nobody would ever suggest what you should or shouldn't like in a photograph. But if you speak about your response by saying "it offends me" then you are stating that you believe the imagery is offensive. That suggests that a photograph of two men portrayed "in a warm embrace" is inherently offensive, and I don't believe that's true. (I should ask you if you feel the same way about a similar photo of two women. If your response is not the same, then why not?)

    You might personally find such an image distasteful, or upsetting, or contradictory to your world view of human sexuality, but I don't believe that makes the image automatically "offensive". See what I mean? By choosing to label such a work as "offensive" then you are straying beyond personal opinion and into judgement territory. While you are free to have your opinions on the matter, you invite others to engage you and challenge you when you make your judgements public. There is a fine line between expressing an opinion and passing judgement.
    Of course, you're right. "Offends" was an inaccurate term. I should have written that I just don't like it. Even that may be improper terminology. But I think just about anything can be such that we personally "don't like it".

  7. #77

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Posts
    2,676

    Re: Objectification of human subjects

    Ricky Nelson had it right:

    "But it's alright now. I learned my lesson well. You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself.".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAHR7_VZdRw

    Garden Party may be an old song but it's still relevant. It seems like everything is offensive to someone today.

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    245

    Re: Objectification of human subjects

    Quote Originally Posted by paulbarden View Post
    Okay, so here is where things become problematic: if you don't like seeing male same-sex imagery - that's you being honest, and we should give each other the space to be honest, I believe. Nobody would ever suggest what you should or shouldn't like in a photograph. But if you speak about your response by saying "it offends me" then you are stating that you believe the imagery is offensive. That suggests that a photograph of two men portrayed "in a warm embrace" is inherently offensive, and I don't believe that's true. (I should ask you if you feel the same way about a similar photo of two women. If your response is not the same, then why not?)

    You might personally find such an image distasteful, or upsetting, or contradictory to your world view of human sexuality, but I don't believe that makes the image automatically "offensive". See what I mean? By choosing to label such a work as "offensive" then you are straying beyond personal opinion and into judgement territory. While you are free to have your opinions on the matter, you invite others to engage you and challenge you when you make your judgements public. There is a fine line between expressing an opinion and passing judgement.
    He didn't say the image was "offensive". He said that the image "offends me", which a a personal statement rather than categorical one.

  9. #79
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    5,359

    Re: Objectification of human subjects

    All "an offense has occurred" means in that context is that he was offended. It certainly isn't the same thing as saying "an offense occurred" meaning a violation of law, which is how the phrase is usually used. What offended him was what was depicted in the hypothetical photograph. In any case, "Don't do something if it might possibly offend someone" is not a plausible moral rule.

    John Stuart Mill thought, plausibly, that a person should be free to do what they'd like up until the point that it causes unjustifiable harm to someone else. As long as the photographer treats his or her model well, gets informed consent from the model for both the photograph and what's to be done with it, then were would the harm be? It can't be because the image is promoting sex. There's nothing inherently wrong with nudity or sex. If creating sexual desire is wrong, then so would producing makeup, clothes, and a whole bunch of other perfectly ok things, but they're not. Is an attractive person wrong for going outside? What if someone sees them, becomes overcome by lust, and does something bad? It seems that some here want to blame the attractive person, whereas its the person who does the harm that's in the wrong.
    "Why can't we all just get along?" President Dale, Mars Attacks

  10. #80

    Re: Objectification of human subjects

    Paul, I can understand that some might misunderstand what I meant by my statement. I've already admitted it was a poor use of terminology. Let's just drop the 'precision' as some of us understand it and move forward.

Similar Threads

  1. Prohibited subjects
    By Sal Santamaura in forum Feedback
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 2-Jun-2015, 16:34
  2. What subjects do we NOT shoot (and why)?
    By Eugene in forum On Photography
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 6-Jun-2002, 22:19
  3. What subjects do we shoot?
    By John Elstad in forum On Photography
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 3-Jun-2002, 00:02
  4. Black Subjects
    By R. McDonald in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 9-Jul-2000, 09:32

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •