kyle_madison

<p>Hello. I'm looking to do an article on female photographers who are using the x system or x-100 series cameras in their work. I just have one or two questions and then would like a few samples. Private message me if interested. Thanks!</p>

<p>Two really well thought out answers here. I hope Fred and Lex will read my belated response.<br> <br />First, Fred. You and I are on the same page regarding this subject except I think you're more rare than you claim. I find younger people may accept other types of sexuality, but in a lot of ways they are digging their heals deeper into their own identification. They may accept the other, but they don't want to be mistaken for it. I also find - living in the Bay Area - that overt sexism is becoming cool again. You can see it in the art of David Choe, who's sexually violent work adorns the walls of Facebook. Choe, btw, has confessed to rape without admitting to it. Grok that one.</p> <p>What I see, whether its in cheesecake or in superficially more complex work like Choe's, is women's bodies being used over and over to provoke. They make you feel sad, or disgusted, or shocked, or titillated. But they never tell you the story of the woman. After awhile you get the sense you're not looking at the artists' best. You're looking at a cheap trope.</p> <p>Lex, you had me nodding for your first paragraph, but then you veered into some bad territory. I understand there is a certain sense of rebellion in embracing "real women" as opposed to the kind of emaciated look media often feeds us. I wrote an article about how a curvy woman is short hand for f*ck-budy in most fiction while the man often ends up settling down with the skinny girl. I call it the Jackie O. vs Marilyn trope.</p> <p>But the real problem is the judgement here. The idea that there is a "real woman", or a certain attractive woman. These judgements are only skin deep. It says nothing about the person. It's great that different kinds of bodies can be found beautiful, but equal opportunity exploitation of women is still exploitation of women. And there should be no need to bring down one side in order to bring up another. Archetypes? Who is to judge what the ideal of a woman is?</p> <p>The idea that men are equally exploited sounds good, but it doesn't hold much water. When you see a buff superhero you are seeing muscles. They are there for his own power, his own enjoyment. Muscle equals strength. There is no power in ginormous boobs. They don't crush enemies or help leap tall buildings. They don't add to the statue of the character. They are just there to excite the (male) audience. Unless those boobs are feeding someone they have no function other than the sexual. Take a look at this link to see what actual male exploitation would look like: http://io9.com/here-is-the-male-version-of-power-girls-boob-window-1564780945 . Notice that in the process of actually sexualizing a man we take away some of his traditional masculinity. He looks feminized because sexual display for the approval of others is considered only the domain of women.</p> <p>Plus we have to get into the area of how a character's worth is perceived. Women's worth is based solely on looks, men's are not. Look at any TV show that has a portly, old, or generally dumpy guy married to a hot wife - The Honey Mooners, King of Queens, Raymond, Modern Family, etc. It never goes the other way. Those guys are funny, charming, hard working, etc. The wives are just hot. And often times ball-busters.</p>

<p>The previous "PC Police" thread has got me thinking about the nature of art, both classical and the (relatively) more recent photographic. As I peruse the portfolios of many of my fellow photographers I notice a commonality between a lot of them - the female form is a major source of... inspiration. What's especially interesting is that it's usually ONLY the female form. There's rarely any men. And this is not just commercial stuff, it's amatuers and personal collections. My question is, why?<br> A lot of times, like in the case of American Apparel and its lopsided take on sexiness in its ads, this is pawned off on the idea that nude women are a classical subject matter enjoyed down through the ages. This is true. But somehow those people forget that those same ancient lovers of boobs also sculpted and painted a lot of peen. The Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Italian Renaissance up through Picasso. All these artists reveled in the male form as well. True, there are some artists in the French school, like Boucher, who painted women almost exclusively, but most art historians sort of laugh them off as semi-pornographers. Renoir painted only female nudes and he admitted he was "painting with his prick".<br> So where has the general love of the human form gone? Why is the male gaze more prominent than ever? Is it that male artists are getting lazier and artistry is used merely as a chance to look at naked babes? Are heterosexual male artists afraid of being labelled gay if they photograph other guys? <br> Funny enough, actual hetero pornography is so focused on male pleasure that there is way more dick and spunk in them than T and A. The popular CFNM genre is the pinnacle of this.</p>

<p>Except that you don't get to dictate to a group other than your own how to take something, how to be addressed, or what they should accept. Racism and sexism are much more often called correctly than "PC". Its the oppressed vs those in power. The OPs very notion that he doesn't want to be told "how to portray women" in his photos is bizarrely lacking in empathy and historical context. If women don't like being offered up to the male gaze over and over again because it's been done to death then maybe the OP should take a hint.<br /><br /><br> I'm not offended by racist and sexist content. I'm bored with it. I'm bored with images of passive women presenting themselves as meat. I'm tired of racist jokes being used to "shock" as if these things are speaking truth to power. This stuff has been done to death. No one is actually shocked. If you can't think of anything else to take a picture of then you're a hack. Come up with something new.</p>

<p>May I say I'm tired of the term "politically correct"? It's an over broad statement that is usually used by people who don't know what it's like to be offended or repressed in some way. White men use it the most, obviously. They want to continue to have the right to say whatever racist, misogynist things they like without being looked down on. If you don't like it, you're too PC.<br> <br />Having consideration for other people is a virtue. Being asked to be virtuous is not "censorship" it is "criticism". Stop whining that people don't like that you're rude to them and, instead, become a better person.</p>