voyeurism or curiosity?

too much words for activity that only require press the shutter button in few words. thinking brains and a lot of masturbate headwork, is very healthy.

-----sailor hat---

.....................AUTOPROPAGANDA................<div></div>

Occasionally when I'm typing my fingers run away with me and I don't capitalise proper names or personal pronoun in the first person, to wit, 'I'. I frequently reverse letters due to my lack of facility with the keyboard. I try to read through my post and correct any errors but some I miss. It's not a disaster and I'm sure we can deduce the meaning of the post.

Lisa, great thread!

 

The conception of 'voyeurism' being used in discussions here is the Freudian-Lananian pschoanalytic one associated with male domination of women and hetrosexual desire. If you haven't already, you may want to check out some of the feminist work of the late 80s which re-conceptualised voyeurism as part of a project to assert an alternative (i.e. independent, non-submissive, sexual, assertive) female identity free of masculine dominance. This re-conception employed images of female nudity and lesbian sex associated with the male dominance it was challenging.

 

For a good introduction see chapter 9 of The Art of Interruption by John Roberts.

Being well over 19 years old, and having succesfully passed Intro Philosophy, I think this is in the same category of "Is photography really art?"

 

Any answer will do, as it's just an excuse for conversation/rabid monologue. In the former case, if the person is interesting/attractive, make something up with big words. In the latter I advise pepper spray, the big bear-size can.

Hi guys i'm back again - i'm doing a BA(hons) photography degree to answer your question. I'd also like to point out that i have read definitions of voyeurism and know about its links with photography. I merely started this discussion as a way to get people talking about their views. I think i have succeded. Keep up the good work guys, you are relly giving me something to think about.

With regard to most photographs I firmly believve the intent of the

photographer at least partially can be expressed as "Hey, look at this!" the question

inside or outside of that is what is meant by this: does the photographer want the

viewer to look at what is depicted in the image or the

photograph itself ? <P>By the latter I mean the formal properties of the image:

framing,composition, the organization of elements, the color, light & gesture of the

image, the sense of time in the image (and the photographers choice of when to

make the exposure), the play of shadow and light. etc.

With some photographers and photographs there is a blend of these two concerns:

Look at what I am looking at and look at how I am seeing what I am looking

at.<P>Now if you are asking this question of the audience the questions are the same

but different and can be summarized thus "why am I looking at this photographic

image? what am I geting out of the act of looking?"<P>I hope my answers do not

sound too simplistic, but I think they are at the heart of your query.

The term "Voyeurism" usually connotes situations where the "Voyeur" is a passive outsider, observing situations or events in which he or she is not considered to be a participant. But most photography does not fall into that category. Consider special event photography, such as when guests at a wedding take photographs of the bride and groom and of the other attendees. Even street photography could be considered to not be voyeuristic, as the photographer could be considered to be a member of the community (for example a small town) the activities and associations of which he or she is documenting.

There's a book at my local Border's book shop titled voyeurism. Its a compilation of photographs that deal with the subject of Voyeurism in one way or another. In some the photographer photographs a voyeur: there are several of men looking up women's skirts and stuff like that. In others the photographer is the voyeur; I think most of them were posed and the subjects probably knew they were being photographed, but in some of the more interesting photos it appears as if the subjects were unaware of the photographers presence. This book may be of interest to you if you haven't already come across it.

only photos from a voyeur

 

http://the-look-of-love.my-expressions.com/index.html

Hi all-

 

I just read this entire thread and it is very interesting. I have endeavored to formulate an articulate comment on the subject but find that I would only be entering this battle of wits unarmed. I will, however, interject briefly regarding the underlying subplot.

 

Robert Clark, wrote:

�Lisa, since you are doing a degree, you ought to know to capitalise proper names and the first person singular pronoun.�

 

Robert, students works toward a degree, they do not "do" a degree.

(capitalise is actually spelled capitalized)

 

Lisa Hancock, wrote:

�Well Robert, i didn't realise i was being graded on��

 

Lisa, perhaps you should "do" your degree in English.

(realise is actually spelled realize)

 

OK...I'm sorry. Just teasin'. This is the real me now. Got home from work and sat down to the computer to check for comments on my submissions. Started reading random threads and found this one. It really is interesting and I really am outclassed in the knowledge area on this one. I truly don't have anything helpful to share but maybe a weak attempt at humor. There are some very intelligent and interesting opinions on this thread. Again, I was just feeling feisty. Please don't take my jabs to be serious. I WAS JUST TEASING YA'. Have a great night all.

Lisa,

 

John is on the right track as far as I am concerned with the topic. Check out this essay:

 

http://www.powell-pressburger.org/Reviews/60_PT/PT_Essay/Sect_II.html

 

it refers mainly to film, but Mulvey is probably someone you would enjoy reading more about.

 

From what you have said you may find it interesting to read further about Lacan, and also the feminist semioticians/philosophers. I think Julia Kristeva is the person I am thinking of particularly but there are others. If you really want to explore this from both a male and a female perspective you should really look at the female philosophers on the subject. Good starting points include 'feminism: a beginners guide' and 'post-feminism: a beginners guide'. Don't be fooled by the cartoons - it is quite mind-bending stuff!

 

I'm writing this at work, so I can't be any more precise about the references, but I'll try to look through my notes from my degree at the weekend and give you some pointers - if you're interested that is :o)

 

Rebecca

Robert and Bryan, you are both right, capitalise or capitalize are correct spellings. Lisa, if you were hidden in a little room photographing the sexual activities of one or more people of any gender or orientation who may or may not know you are there, you could accurately be described as a voyeuristic photographer.

Most photographers would be mere recorders of people, happenings or places at one given instance of time. Others for more esoteric reasons

The main reason I photograph is to return an income. Editorial is my area, so my images are people oriented or deal with life in general. I observe the human condition in my small part of the world, and try to make nicely composed, exposed and reasonably interesting images, but I am driven by financial not voyeuristic impulses.

I have spent ages watching the debate ebb and flow, the nuances of superiority and put down, the mispellings that could be seen as opportunities for verbal spankings but no, reflect a transatlantic difference in that where the Americans use a 'z' (zed to us Brits, zee to you Yanks)we use a 's'. So to normalise the debate, as opposed to normalize it (ow that spanking hurt - hope someone was watching!)I agree with the view that voyeurism is about taking vicarious pleasure from the watching. To just watch is to glean data, that may or may not lead to pleasure. I get pleasure from my viewing through the lens, so ok I admit it, I'm a voyeur.

 

...and on this subject, why does the button at the base of the page order me to 'submit' as opposed to send? Is this something associated with voyeurism I ask myself..;)

I think three factors are involved in voyeurism: (1) watching people do things that they would not want you to see; or (2) watching people do things that, were they alive, well, mature, and of normal intelligence, they would not want you to see; and (3) deriving a sexual or morbid or sadistic thrill from watching people against their actual or reasonably assumed wishes.

 

Photography complicates the problem of defining voyeurism, because the photograph can be reproduced so as to allow infinite numbers of people access to the stolen view. The viewers of the reproductions qualify as voyeurs if they view the images for morbid, sadistic, or sexual kicks.

 

But the photographers? The photographers are panderers if they make the shots to sell to the voyeurs. They are both panderers and voyeurs if they get a kick out of the viewing that accompanies shooting. They are just voyeurs if they take the shots for their own thrills.

 

To get kicks from watching Marilyn Monroe in a movie is not voyeurism. The actress assented to the filming. To get kicks by looking at the infamous postmortem photo of Marilyn is voyeurism.

 

For Private England to enjoy a publicity photo of Brad Pitt is not voyeurism. To strip male Muslim prisoners for kicks certainly is.

 

I don't think it is voyeurism for a man to go to a beach for the sole purpose of gazing lustfully at the women there. He is not watching from cover, and women going to a public place well know they may be scrutinized. The latter factor of voyeurism is present--he is watching for kicks--but the former is not. So this is not voyeurism.

 

Some of the women at the beach may not wish for men to be looking at them lustfully, and others may; but none of the women have warrant to command which attitude prevails. Nor do they have warrant to pick and choose which men have or have not the right to look lustfully. They can arbitrarily regard some of the men as admirers and others as voyeurs; but they cannot object to the looks of the men they have designated as voyeurs. The men have no way of knowing in advance how they will be categorized, nor do they bear responsibility for the arbitrary choices made.

 

A woman can, of course, dislike being looked at with desire by the "wrong" people; but to feed a resentment about this is only to harass herself. And to obsess about it, demand that it not happen, and see herself as overpowered by something called the "male gaze" --a supreme instance of reifying--is to choose to feel aggrieved. It is to opt for unnecessary unhappiness, rather like constantly being angered because people are mortal.

 

The beach example is complicated if the man who is viewing lustfully is also taking photographs. In this case, not all the people who will be viewing the women are present on the beach and in view. This would qualify the situation as voyeurism. Even if the man intends that he alone will view the photographs, he cannot guarantee it. Photographs are a different matter than memories. So here we have a potential for voyeurism so strong that the situation probably qualifies as voyeurism. Even if the man intends burning the photographs immediately after viewing, the addition of a recording device drastically alters the situation. For the women to protest against the potential for voyeurism strikes me as fair. They have no way of knowing which pictures will be burned and which will be circulated.

Anybody there?

 

I?m applying to a school and need to find information about the factors that make a photo or painting voyeuristic. See Edgar Degas for example. I need help.

 

Give me names of photographers.

 

Thank you, Kristian Schmidt