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/opinion/checking-my-male-privilege.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.info/forum/showthread.php?116894-Smaller-Fomat-Nudes&p=1413897&viewfull=1#post1413897

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?116894-Smaller-Fomat-Nudes&p=1413898&viewfull=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 (http://www.churchofhalloween.com/wp-content/gallery/william-mortensen/william-mortensen-nude-with-peacock.png). 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.

[Old_Dick]

Amazing. 2017?

[Kirk Gittings]

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?


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

[consummate_fritterer]

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.

[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???

[bloodhoundbob]

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.

[Vaughn]

It's a power thing...

[Ted R]

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.

[Vaughn]

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.

[xkaes]

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.

[Vaughn]

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.

[paulbarden]

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.....

[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.

[xkaes]

I have to assume there's no mirror in your bathroom either.....

All the mirrors in my house are on the ceiling.

[consummate_fritterer]

I have to assume there's no mirror in your bathroom either.....


All the mirrors in my house are on the ceiling.

Sadly, the mirrors in my house state, "Objects look smaller than they appear". :(

[bloodhoundbob]

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.

[Jac@stafford.net]

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.

[Leigh]

Jac, right behind you in years.
Me too.

Happy Birthday.

- Leigh

[bloodhoundbob]

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!

[Wayne]

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...

[Wayne]

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.

[Peter De Smidt]

Sarcasm tends to be much less effective in a text-based forum than in person or on TV.

[faberryman]

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.

[consummate_fritterer]

Here's a good 'sarcasm' emoticon>>> :rolleyes:

[xkaes]

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.

[Wayne]

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...

[cowanw]

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.

[Alan Gales]

WTF? Who are you people?

Not a nude photography fan, Kirk?

[Kirk Gittings]

Nude photography yes when it is done well. Most isn’t. Most is cheesecake. Am I a homophobe? No.

[Alan Gales]

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.

[jnantz]

It's a power thing...

+1

[John Kasaian]

+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?

[Peter Lewin]

+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?

[John Kasaian]

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.

[Jac@stafford.net]

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.

[paulbarden]

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.

[Vaughn]

...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.

[consummate_fritterer]

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.

[Peter De Smidt]

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.

[John Kasaian]

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.

[Peter Lewin]

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.")

[Alan Gales]

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.")

That is certainly something to think about.

[Tin Can]

Yes it is, and every woman/child is somebody's daughter. Males also.

But it is cultural. Not all cultures are Puritan based as the USA is. What would Spock say? And which Spock...

I have changed my opinion on this over time.




That is certainly something to think about.

[paulbarden]

Raise your hand if you like Helmut Newton's work.

[Peter De Smidt]

Nudes, in American culture at least, predominantly have a sexual desire component. A parent to child relationship should not have this component. That cultural difference is what got Jock Sturges in trouble. In the French nudist culture, nudity was the norm, as it was for most of the life of our species. Being nude there, thus, did not automatically involve sexuality. But when the pictures were shown in America, that's how some people viewed them.

In any case, the principle, "You shouldn't do something to someone unless you'd be willing to do it to your child" is not a plausible moral principle.

I've taken a few "nudes". Most were of my wife. We talked about what we were going to do, the type of picture, the mood, and the venues in which the images would be displayed. I showed her the result at every stage of the process, and I received her permission to show the images. That does not amount to treating someone only as on object or a subject of exploitation, in spite of the fact that I find my wife sexually attractive. In fact, saying that we shouldn't take and present such pictures because of objectification or exploitation would be the opposite of empowerment, as one would be telling her how she must be represented in pictures, as if her body, in and of itself, would be something shameful. Denying a person, a being capable of morality, autonomy is exactly the type of objectification that Kant deplored.

We should be careful of labeling people's images as immoral without having a very good, and clearly expressible, justification. It shouldn't just be: Nudes we don't like = objectification or exploitation.

[jnantz]

i think it boils down to intent as well
a lot of nude/figure work to me at least
doesn't make it to cheese cake, and
it doesn'tmatter if it is a male nude or female nude.
too much of it is to push some non existent envelope
to see what someone can or can not get their model to do
with the photographer photographing it.
some of it i "get" it has some sort of other worldly fairy tale
god/goddess/mortality thing going on, but some of it doesn't make much sense to me.
but i guess that not making much sense to me could be that i don't get it the same way
95% of people who see things i make scratch their heads and don't get it.
but i guess the difference is that so muchof what i see passing off as "nude / figure work"
is kind of demeaning and degrading. im not sure if it is supposed to be or if i just don't get it ..

[faberryman]

Sometimes we don't get things because there's nothing to get, despite protestations from some sides to the contrary.

[Ted R]

Nudes, in American culture at least, predominantly have a sexual desire component. A parent to child relationship should not have this component. That cultural difference is what got Jock Sturges in trouble. In the French nudist culture, nudity was the norm, as it was for most of the life of our species. Being nude there, thus, did not automatically involve sexuality. But when the pictures were shown in America, that's how some people viewed them.

In any case, the principle, "You shouldn't do something to someone unless you'd be willing to do it to your child" is not a plausible moral principle.

I've taken a few "nudes". Most were of my wife. We talked about what we were going to do, the type of picture, the mood, and the venues in which the images would be displayed. I showed her the result at every stage of the process, and I received her permission to show the images. That does not amount to treating someone only as on object or a subject of exploitation, in spite of the fact that I find my wife sexually attractive. In fact, saying that we shouldn't take and present such pictures because of objectification or exploitation would be the opposite of empowerment, as one would be telling her how she must be represented in pictures, as if her body, in and of itself, would be something shameful. Denying a person, a being capable of morality, autonomy is exactly the type of objectification that Kant deplored.

We should be careful of labeling people's images as immoral without having a very good, and clearly expressible, justification. It shouldn't just be: Nudes we don't like = objectification or exploitation.


Thank you for this intelligent post. I am an Englishman in the USA and I have found it difficult to sympathize with some of the posts in this thread. The explanation may be your argument about different cultural norms on opposite sides of the Atlantic.

[Alan Gales]

Raise your hand if you like Helmut Newton's work.

I once told Frank Petronio that I was a Helmut Newton fan. Frank replied that he was too but Helmut could afford the expensive models! ;)

http://www.frankpetronio.com/tog

[John Kasaian]

Denying a person, a being capable of morality, autonomy is exactly the type of objectification that Kant deplored.

Which person?
The photographer? The model? The publisher/distributor? The viewer/consumer?
I'm now thinking that there is a subtle difference between objectification and exploitation.
Since the OP concerns sex per se, and that something needs to be objectified before it can be exploited, just as a visual image becomes an object (print, painting, sculpture) before it can become a visual llustration.
In this regard I think it is important to understand the objections being raised concern the human condition and it's imagery.

Photographs in an Anatomy textbook are objectifying and illustrative, for the benefit of humanity----for education.

The David objectifies and illustrates a Bible story, for the benefit of humanity----for the wonderment of spirituality, culture and History.

An old National Geographic illustrating naked tribal woman and men illustrates life in a different culturein a different climate, for the benefit of humanity----for an appreciation of diverse cultures and geography

Photographs in a porn mag are objectifying and exploitative, benefiting someone's wallet at the expense of promoting immoral thoughts and actions as well as misleading
viewers into accepting an expectation of Virtual Photoshopped Reality of sex and well as damaging the potential for a unspotted reputation .

In practical terms any of the examples from above can stand in place (with a painfully stretched imagination) for any of the others, just as on the viewer's end porn(with a painfully stretched imagination) can be rendered from the most innocent of photos.

Specific to the OP, how do nude images of women effect women and the way men treat women? That question needs to be coupled with another, why do some women pose nude?
In a parallel universe, we might consider why women spend huge amounts of money on fashion? Is it to attract or retain mates? Or is it to conform with other women?

[consummate_fritterer]

What's the definition of sexual "morality"?

[John Kasaian]

What's the definition of sexual "morality"?

Morality covers a much wider playing field than just sexuality, so should immorality ---a lacking of Virtue. Dishonesty. Unethical. Indecent.
Dishonest and unethical especially fit well with this
" misleading viewers into accepting an expectation of Virtual Photoshopped Reality of sex"
The Virtue of Prudence, which is seeing things the way they are in order to act appropriately also fits well.

[dasBlute]

What's the definition of sexual "morality"?

I imagine this is a rhetorical suggestion that there are no absolutes, that people can disagree about it...
Sure, some situations are morally ambiguous... 10 people in a 8 person boat that'll sink, who goes over the side?

But, a "definition" is -by it's nature- limited and hard to apply. It's why laws require courts and juries.

And if you're trying to suggest there are no "morals", or that we cannot agree upon them,
I think that is incorrect, and I doubt I would be alone. Try: "Be decent to one another,"
and then see how a given behavior in question stands up to that simple "standard."

[consummate_fritterer]

I imagine this is a rhetorical suggestion that there are no absolutes, that people can disagree about it...
Sure, some situations are morally ambiguous... 10 people in a 8 person boat that'll sink, who goes over the side?

But, a "definition" is -by it's nature- limited and hard to apply. It's why laws require courts and juries.

And if you're trying to suggest there are no "morals", or that we cannot agree upon them,
I think that is incorrect, and I doubt I would be alone. Try: "Be decent to one another,"
and then see how a given behavior in question stands up to that simple "standard."

I believe the US Supreme Court once stated in regards to pornography, "They'll know it when they see it", or other verbiage to that effect. It's in the eyes, hearts and minds of the beholder.

[HMG]

I believe the US Supreme Court once stated in regards to pornography, "They'll know it when they see it", or other verbiage to that effect. It's in the eyes, hearts and minds of the beholder.

It was a Supreme Court justice and he said "I know it when I see it.".

[consummate_fritterer]

It was a Supreme Court justice and he said "I know it when I see it.".

I'm sure that's correct. The point is, only we as individuals can make that determination. However, there's a point at which most of us can it agree that it crosses over to abuse. However, there are laws in place that set those points fairly clearly. It's just this side of breaking law that we often disagree with each other. Some believe showing bare ankles is immoral. Pardon me folks, while I completely cover my face. I wouldn't want to get the ladies too excited by 'exposing' my very manly scruffy beard.

[DennisD]

It was a Supreme Court justice and he said "I know it when I see it.".


Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, 1964

[paulbarden]

I wouldn't want to get the ladies too excited by 'exposing' my very manly scruffy beard.

What about the gents that would get excited by such things?! Do they need protection too? ;-)

[John Kasaian]

I'm sure that's correct. The point is, only we as individuals can make that determination. However, there's a point at which most of us can it agree that it crosses over to abuse. However, there are laws in place that set those points fairly clearly. It's just this side of breaking law that we often disagree with each other. Some believe showing bare ankles is immoral. Pardon me folks, while I completely cover my face. I wouldn't want to get the ladies too excited by 'exposing' my very manly scruffy beard.

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?

[Peter Lewin]

Specific to the OP, how do nude images of women effect women and the way men treat women?
This is the crux of the issue, not philosophical discussions of morality or obscenity. As photographers, the issue reduces to whether the images we post impact the way men treat women in the general society.

[consummate_fritterer]

What about the gents that would get excited by such things?! Do they need protection too? ;-)

It depends on what offends them. They can overt their eyes if I 'flash' my very sexy beard.

[consummate_fritterer]

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.

[consummate_fritterer]

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

[consummate_fritterer]

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'.

[paulbarden]

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.

[bob carnie]

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

[consummate_fritterer]

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".

[Alan Gales]

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.

[faberryman]

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.

[Peter De Smidt]

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.

[consummate_fritterer]

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.

[Tin Can]

Just reading about Lewis C K. I am not a fan. However, it seems he is now cast into a cauldron for non-contact, non-printed visual demonstrations that could have been avoided by leaving.

Are his victims complicit in their former silence by wanting to further their career?

[John Kasaian]

We've gone from objectification to offense
Other than that objectifying may be---and as raised by the OP is offensive I'm not sure where this is going.
Do you mean to say that you're the one being objectified?

The intent to make porn. The intent to objectify girls as things, or even things that must conform to an arbitrary anatomical "type" is offensive if women are offended by it, and by association also offensive to the males who love them, the parents who raised them as well as the children they bore. Of course this cannot be painted with broad brush strokes as anyone can take choose to take offense to anything. What needs to be vetted is the scrupulous from the manipulative.

[Peter De Smidt]

Who's intent is to make pornography? That hasn't been my intent whenever I've photographed a nude. And there's no reason to think that was the intent of the photographer who's photograph ...inspired?...this thread.

[faberryman]

Who's intent is to make pornography? That hasn't been my intent whenever I've photographed a nude. And there's no reason to think that was the intent of the photographer who's photograph ...inspired?...this thread.
It would be interesting to know exactly what the photographer's intent was in creating the image because I am certainly not sure what he was trying to accomplish or say, if anything. But that's true of most of the contemporary photography I see.

[John Kasaian]

Who's intent is to make pornography?. A pornographer intends to make pornography, just as a bank robber intends to rob banks.
Bottecelli, I think it is safe to assume, didn't intend to make pornography and I can't recollect anyone robbing a bank without intending to.

[Peter De Smidt]

No kidding, but the subject of this thread is the type of photographs in the "nude" section of this site. It was questioned whether or not they were immoral in some vague "objectifying" manner. (The question was directed at one photograph, but it doesn't seem significantly different than the rest of the photographs in the thread.) I suggest that the burden of proof rests on those who want to limit others's freedom. If no one can give a reasonable argument as to why they are immoral, or "objectifying" or "exploitative" in an immoral manner, then the answer to the question should be: "No."

[John Kasaian]

No kidding, but the subject of this thread is the type of photographs in the "nude" section of this site. It was questioned whether or not they were immoral in some vague "objectifying" manner. (The question was directed at one photograph, but it doesn't seem significantly different than the rest of the photographs in the thread.) I suggest that the burden of proof rests on those who want to limit others's freedom. If no one can give a reasonable argument as to why they are immoral, or "objectifying" or "exploitative" in an immoral manner, then the answer to the question should be: "No."
I thought the subject was about how women are treated and how porn contributes to their marginalization as humans?

[Peter Lewin]

No kidding, but the subject of this thread is the type of photographs in the "nude" section of this site. It was questioned whether or not they were immoral in some vague "objectifying" manner. (The question was directed at one photograph, but it doesn't seem significantly different than the rest of the photographs in the thread.) I suggest that the burden of proof rests on those who want to limit others's freedom. If no one can give a reasonable argument as to why they are immoral, or "objectifying" or "exploitative" in an immoral manner, then the answer to the question should be: "No."
My OP was not asking whether the photographs in the "nude" thread were immoral or obscene; it was meant to ask, to use John Kasaian's better and succinct wording, "how do nude photographs effect women and how men treat women?" There is a lot of sociology literature that says that the sheer number of nude women on the web does impact the way men treat women, although one can agree or disagree. And the two photographs I referred to, while not significantly different from many others, were full frontal nudes of an attractive young woman, exactly the kind of images most of us men do enjoy looking at, while many other posts that I did not reference are nude studies of portions of bodies, or make greater use of light and shadow. Now from the viewpoint of photographic history, lots of full frontal nudity is famous artwork, be it Mortensen's or Paul Outerbridge's somewhat fetishistic nudes, or many of Weston's photographs of the same women he slept with, to name the first that come to mind. But society changes, and I would suggest that our society is becoming more aware of the impact that the very ordinariness of thousands of photographs of young attractive nude women have on the way that women in general are viewed and treated.

[jnantz]

However, there's a point at which most of us can it agree that it crosses over to abuse.

but what if the person asked to do whatever it is they are asked to do (pose in whatever way he or she was asked )
was OK with that .. and it didn't matter one bit.
i was once told by someone that people born in my generation
( i was born in the 60s' )
are all prudes and people born later have no problem with porn
and i am a puritan because i thought something might have crossed
a line ( my own line i suppose ) ...
in the nude thread there is a photograph of some lady on her back under a table ..
i won't say anything else about how she was positioned
but it got me thinking that i would never photograph someone doing that,
and disseminate it world-wide. but if it doesn't bother the photographer or the model ..
who am i to be offended
maybe someone somewhere ( besides the photographer and the model ? ) think it is art ..
and some sort of statement about judeo-christian american society+greed and the vulnerability of humanity ...
as the justice said he'd know it, but who knows if it is really .. it ?



My OP was not asking whether the photographs in the "nude" thread were immoral or obscene;
and even if it was immoral or obscene, for him/her,
would it be obscene for somene from another culture?
people from other cultures kiss, males-male. female-female. female-male
there is nothing obscene or immoral about it
(its as obscene or immoral as shaking someone's hand)
... but if a male from italy or iraq or iran or ?
walked up to a new friend
from arkansas or england or maine and kissed him ( or her ) upon greeting them ...
someone might think it is something immoral or obscene ...

( added later )
another example
80s band bow wow wow ( i love candy fame )
got into a lot of hot water because of the cover of their
first album
http://downunderground.blogspot.com/2014/07/bow-wow-wow-1980-your-cassette-pet-ep-w.html
the lead singer was 16 or somethng and malcom mclaren found her in a laundromat
and made a reproduction of manet's picnic ...

http://www.abcgallery.com/m/manet/manet6.html

i wasn't offended, but a lot of people claimed exploitation when the woman involved
was OK with it ..
was she duped ? was it really OK ? or was it offensive ?
and was manet's painting offensive too, or because it was paint on canvas was it OK / "art" ?
AND if manet's painting was OK and the photograph of anabella wasn't,
why ?

[consummate_fritterer]

My definition of abuse is the individual being photographed is either too young, or is tricked, or is unaware of the images taken or is somehow coerced into being photographed. There are other bad situations but those are the highlights.

[John Kasaian]

My definition of abuse is the individual being photographed is either too young, or is tricked, or is unaware of the images taken or is somehow coerced into being photographed. There are other bad situations but those are the highlights.

I've no argument with that definition, but more Germaine to the OP, I think, is an abusive relationship where a man has been accustomed to seeing women as a less than human "thing" a notion enforced through various media. There could be correlation between that abuse and the abuse of the man earlier being "abused" through exposure to that same causal media.
I don't know. It could be. It is a complicated subject.

One problem is that the issue is becoming another warm fuzzy indignation, like "bullying"
I'm not saying that bullying isn't a serious problem, only that it has been taken, by some, to an absurd degree. Not unlike the objectification of women, which is also a serious problem (ask anyone with a teenage daughter!) But which I can see being taken to an equally absurd degree.
Discriminating between those who have been terribly hurt (along with our terribly hurt society,) and those on a domineering power trip, seems to be a distraction of sorts, taking the public's attention away from underlying organic problems.

I ought to shut up now. I don't play well with others. :o

[consummate_fritterer]

I agree with you, John. Some people are abusive by nature. Others are taught to be so. My son learned by example and I tried to steer him in the appropriate moral direction. I told him it's perfectly normal and natural to have attraction to ladies and when the time is right it's okay to share close physical experiences with them. In addition to the obvious proper ground rules, I added that it's generally not okay for either to 'use' one another strictly for physical pleasure and it's important to like and respect his partner for 'who' they are, not 'what' they are, and to consider if a long-lasting relationship is possible with that person. I realize many will call this old fashioned but I really don't care.

[Peter De Smidt]

My OP was not asking whether the photographs in the "nude" thread were immoral or obscene; it was meant to ask, to use John Kasaian's better and succinct wording, "how do nude photographs effect women and how men treat women?" There is a lot of sociology literature that says that the sheer number of nude women on the web does impact the way men treat women, although one can agree or disagree. And the two photographs I referred to, while not significantly different from many others, were full frontal nudes of an attractive young woman, exactly the kind of images most of us men do enjoy looking at, while many other posts that I did not reference are nude studies of portions of bodies, or make greater use of light and shadow. Now from the viewpoint of photographic history, lots of full frontal nudity is famous artwork, be it Mortensen's or Paul Outerbridge's somewhat fetishistic nudes, or many of Weston's photographs of the same women he slept with, to name the first that come to mind. But society changes, and I would suggest that our society is becoming more aware of the impact that the very ordinariness of thousands of photographs of young attractive nude women have on the way that women in general are viewed and treated.

That's a much better expression of a question than we started with. Btw., there's a whole branch of moral philosophy the main claim of which is that what's moral or immoral depends on consequences. Thus, ..."the impact that the very ordinariness of thousands of photographs of young attractive nude women have on the way that women in general are viewed and treated"...would be considered, at least in part, a question of morality. The treatment of women is one of the two major ethical problems of our time, imo, along with our treatment of the earth.

[Tin Can]

There seems to be an endless number of women who 'agree' to objectification. I wonder why they do it. Why are there so many. Why don't they leave the room?

[paulbarden]

Have any women contributed an opinion to this discussion?? Not as far as I can tell. I suspect there are few (if any) women participating in this forum. I guarantee this topic would cover very different territory if in fact there were women adding their voices to it.
In some ways this discussion reads like a group of male politicians getting together to decide what rights women have to make decisions over their own reproductive abilities.

[Tin Can]

Kodak Film division has the answer to my questions. I just got the below link in an email from Official Kodak.

Watch the movie.

http://emailslink.kodak.com/YesConnect/HtmlMessagePreview?NJi1jCoenH6hBMiHOQr6_1rqvJ0JgBvR2UOUHFhO95k=.enc

[Alan Gales]

There seems to be an endless number of women who 'agree' to objectification. I wonder why they do it. Why are there so many. Why don't they leave the room?

Maybe they like the money or if no money is involved then the attention at the time. Of course sometimes women are lied to.

Many years ago I dated a young girl who had at one time posed nude for an amateur photographer boyfriend who also happened to be her boss at the local Dairy Queen. When she went to work she found that he had posted for all to see, her nude photo's on the bulletin board in the employee lounge. What a snake!

[bob carnie]

Have any women contributed an opinion to this discussion?? Not as far as I can tell. I suspect there are few (if any) women participating in this forum. I guarantee this topic would cover very different territory if in fact there were women adding their voices to it.
In some ways this discussion reads like a group of male politicians getting together to decide what rights women have to make decisions over their own reproductive abilities.

I think there are very few women on this Forum Paul.

[Willie]

Yep, PETA might object to the second one objectifying Pink Flamingos.