Do your photographs objectify?

<p>Whether I misunderstand Phylo or not is one thing. What I said, however, was inspired by what Phylo was saying, and my contention that whatever the object is, the abstract image need not have any relation to it. We photograph using our minds and not simply a device. A complete transformation of any physical object or subject is entirely possible, with the end result bearing little or no relation (that is, a significant one) to the original....if that is our wish. Many so-called abstract photographs are not that, but may be more easily classified as expressionism, with the image containing recognisable source characteristics.</p>

<p>Agreed, but I don't see how that differs from what I said earlier this morning.</p>

<p>Julie, in that sense we are agreed. I was reacting positively to Phylo's comment that it is the perception that is the photograph (or is being photographed), and not the object. </p>

 

You guys must have good cameras. My camera only photographs objects.

<p>Don, cameras don't photograph, but people (sometimes with imagination) do.</p>

<ol>

<li>objects are objects, they remain objects when photographed;</li>

<li>"objectifying" applies firstly to human beings - as it was intended by FG who quoted me in the original post. "objectifying" human beings means depriving the same human being of their human essence. The soul, if you like;</li>

<li>are there objects with a soul? maybe yes, it's the soul their authors put into these objects, or rather our projection;</li>

<li>are there objects which are subjects? probably not. If we "see" a lively essence it probably is our own projection;</li>

<li>abstraction: an abstract depiction of an object still shows an object. The abstract representation of a human being could be objectification and it could be not. It depends on whether it deprives the human being of the human essence.</li>

</ol>

"Don, cameras don't photograph, but people (sometimes with imagination) do."

 

<p>

 

So, you don't need a camera, and you photograph your "perception".

 

<p>

 

You are the photographer. You are the camera. You are the subject. You are the photograph. That's what I call "entanglement".

<p>"So, you don't need a camera, and you photograph your "perception"."</p>

<p>"Perception" is how the photographer is going to treat his subject, often quite different from how he first saw it. It is a mental process, of "decomposing" the elements (visual, emotional, compositional, etc.) of a subject and then "recomposing" or "reconstructing" them (the "perception").</p>

<p>The selective image he then makes (with the camera, of course) is the result of that "perception" and the approach he applies to creating the image (creative use of light, chiaroscuro effect, manner of composition, use or not of texture and form, camera angle and lens perspective, selective focus, and too many other aspects to mention here).</p>

<p>I am sure that if you look hard enough you may find examples of this in your own work. If not, there are others who will be glad to provide some. I hope this clarifies a bit the "perception" issue for you.</p>

<p><strong>Luca listed: </strong></p>

<ol>

<li>objects are objects, they remain objects when photographed;</li>

</ol>

<p> In my opinion, objects are reduced to <em>representations of the echoes of light riffing off objects when photographed. </em>They are not interchangeable with the original. What we know of objects is our interpretation of objects, or of the instruments we use to measure/detect them.</p>

<p><strong>Luca</strong> "objectifying" applies firstly to human beings - as it was intended by FG who quoted me in the original post. "objectifying" human beings means depriving the same human being of their human essence. The soul, if you like;</p>

<p> Luca is misinterpreting Fred's intentions. Non-human objects can also be objectified as per Fred's original definition. <strong>Fred </strong>explicitly mentioned it in the OP:<br>

"Do you notice a line, in your own photographing, between objectification of subjects (people, <em>places, things, situations </em>)..."</p>

 

<ol>

<li><strong>Luca - "...</strong>are there objects which are subjects? probably not. If we "see" a lively essence it probably is our own projection;</li>

</ol>

<p> [see the <strong>Fred </strong>quote above. Fred said 'yes'.]</p>

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>abstraction: an abstract depiction of an object still shows an object."</p>

<p> There are photographs that show no discernable objects or humans.</p>

<p> How would you define the objects/humans in these photos?</p>

<p>http://willsimpson.org/images/lights.jpg</p>

<p>Or this?</p>

<p>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3341/3514308804_b06779e6d6.jpg</p>

<p>____________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

<ol> </ol>

<p><strong>Arthur: </strong>"Perception" is how the photographer is going to treat his subject, often quite different from how he first saw it."</p>

<p> What exactly do you mean by "how he first saw it"? Pure sensory input? The unmediated staccato neural impulses of the optic nerve before it reached the brain? Do we see <em>anything (</em>save for movement/flash/contrast/color shifts) before perceiving it?</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong>It is a mental process, of "decomposing" the elements (visual, emotional, compositional, etc.) of a subject and then recomposing them (the perception).</p>

<p> That's not what comes up in my dictionaries when I look up the word. Perception happens before that. If the incoming photons that your sensory organs were able to pick up do not conform to your preconceptions, odds are they will remain unseen or an unidentified visual phenomena. Unperceived. Everyone is not seeing the same way, or seeing everything in their visual field.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur, sounding a little patronizing, to Don: "</strong>I am sure that if you look hard enough you may find examples of this in your own work. If not, there are others who will be glad to provide some. I hope this clarifies a bit the "perception" issue for you."</p>

<p> It doesn't clarify it for me. In my opinion, it muddles. What Don said is far clearer to me than what Arthur just posited. If I can't perceive it, how can I <em>consciously</em> photograph it?</p>

<p>_____________________</p>

I believe Arthur has given an illustration of the dictionary definition he wanted for 'objectify'.

<p>

1 : to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality

<p>

2 : to give expression to (as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others

<p>

To objectify is to make art

<blockquote>

<p>If I can't perceive it, how can I <em>consciously</em> photograph it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perception. In the end I think it's about the photographer being able to <em>make conscious</em> to the <em>viewer </em>of the photograph, whether or not this *it* can be actually photographed need not be relevant to the actual experience of the photograph.</p>

<p>Concise Oxford dictionary: PERCEIVE: v.t. Apprehend with the mind, observe, understand.</p>

<p>Luis, does the mind always understand at first glance?</p>

<p>I think not. Therefore, to me at least, perceiving is theresult of a process, from our first visual absorption of the object to the process of and leading to the perceiving of it in our mind.</p>

<p>Although mainly used in regard to visual things, perceiving of something has been used in regard to the way we consider social and political issues, events, etc., or how we "perceive" the opinions of others.</p>

<p><strong>Phylo, </strong>the simple elegance of your initial answer would work if perception was flawless, but the fact is that it is not. There are reams of experiments proving this, and boatloads of philosophers who've made a career out of swimming through that chum.</p>

<p>Here's one experiment:<br /> <br />http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html</p>

<p>If you can't <em>see the gorilla, </em>you can't photograph the gorilla. Oh, you might by accident release the shutter while the bugger is frolicking in the frame and a UFO hovers above, but you made no conscious input into what Arthur talks about re perception: "treat his subject, often quite different from how he first saw it. It is a mental process, of "decomposing" the elements (visual, emotional, compositional, etc.) of a subject and then "recomposing" or "reconstructing" them (the "perception")."</p>

<p>That seems impossible to do with what you cannot see.</p>

<p>I do agree with Phylo that this "need not be relevant to the actual experience of the photograph." It is relevant to what Arthur wrote. We also don't know what, in our photographs, a viewer will fail to perceive.</p>

<p>_______________________________</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong>Luis, does the mind always understand at first glance?I think not. Therefore, to me at least, perceiving is theresult of a process, from our first visual absorption of the object to the process of and leading to the perceiving of it in our mind."</p>

<p>I don't disagree entirely with Arthur. I'm not arguing about whether perception is a process or not. I think it is. What I'm saying is that it is an imperfect process, and that our minds often do not detect or understand things <em>after the process, sometimes over a lifetime (unless someone points out the gorilla to you) that we are all partially blind.</em> All of which ties back to Don's statement.</p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>

Arthur: I was reacting positively to Phylo's comment that it is the perception that is the photograph (or is being photographed), and not the object

<p>

Phylo: And perception itself can be that "thing" photographed...

<p>

Arthur did not write about his perception of the object, but "...it is the perception that is [...] being photographed, and not the object".

<p>

Arthur: "Perception" is how the photographer is going to treat his subject, often quite different from how he first saw it. It is a mental process, of "decomposing" the elements (visual, emotional, compositional, etc.) of a subject and then "recomposing" or "reconstructing" them (the "perception").

 

<p>

 

Phylo: Perception. In the end I think it's about the photographer being able to make conscious to the viewer of the photograph, whether or not this *it* can be actually photographed need not be relevant to the actual experience of the photograph.

 

<p>

 

It is the dismissal of the object itself, its absence, the dematerialization of the object that got my attention.

 

<p>

 

Photography is unlike other representational visual arts, like painting and sculpture, because there's no need for sensitively trained motor skills, no need to work with one's hands the 'blank' matter, a block of marble, paints and canvas, to materially construct and compose the object of art. Even in the darkroom era, and even in alternative printing methods, the precision control of tools working 'blank' matter is not in play. And in the computer era, materials become virtual, as do the tools, for photography. So, I think there is this tendency to lose track of the real, the material.

 

<p>

 

For me, such a style of photography is too confining and airless. I like being outside taking pictures. The working conditions are great. I like surprises and moments of discovery. I like not being serious about it and living in the same material world in the same material light as those objects I photograph. We get along. I just can't dismiss it or step back a distance and view it objectively according to my preconceptions of what it ought to be or can be.

 

<p>

 

Politically, socially, such dematerialization is bad juju, I think. I don't want to contribute to that.

<p><strong>Luis</strong>,<br /> <strong>:-)</strong>.</p>

<p><em>"Luca is misinterpreting Fred's intentions. Non-human objects can also be objectified as per Fred's original definition. <strong>Fred </strong>explicitly mentioned it in the OP."</em></p>

<p>I am not. Mine is the <em><strong>original interpretation</strong></em> before the discussion drifted off to other realms. Fred was referring to one of my posts under one of the last Picture-of-the-Week threads.</p>

<p><em>"Luca Remotti observed recently that all photographs probably objectify. In that sense, it does not seem a negative, just a part of photographing. But it's also a matter of degree. When objectification takes place without awareness and in such a way as to degrade or diminish the subject, it can be offensive."</em></p>

<p>Fred broadened the concept, but it was originated from the <a href="../photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00WiSp">picture of a human subject</a>. An extremely clear conception of objectification.</p>

<p><em><strong>"Luca - "</strong>abstraction: an abstract depiction of an object still shows an object."</em><br /> <em>There are photographs that show no discernable objects or humans.</em><br /> <em>How would you define the objects/humans in these photos?"</em></p>

<p>Good point.<br /> These are lights. Are lights <strong>objects</strong>? I think they can be.<br /> Can lights be <strong>subjects</strong>?</p>

<p>I believe that the main issue is that we are dealing with concepts with no <em><strong>borders</strong></em>. It seems to me that we are considering the range from realism and hyper-realism to hyper-abstraction.<br /> Any discussion requires an initial definition of concepts and subsequently their consistent elaboration. If concepts become "<em><strong>moving targets</strong></em>" the discussion goes astray.<br /> The point is that photography - however you define it - is material, visual if you want. It's definitely not a concept of mind detached from a real representation, as it is treated here.<br /> Every person commenting here - I am sure - has specific photographs in mind when s/he writes. The issue is that most of these "<em><strong>implicit visual terms of reference</strong></em>" are not shared with the others. <em><strong>So every statement bears in itself the arguments for its contradiction</strong></em>.</p>

<p>Between "the photograph" [definition of which cannot be agreed upon] and "you" [definition cannot be agreed upon] there is always/necessarily "perception" [definition cannot be agree upon]. That is, if you are willing to agree that there is a "between," which I am not ...</p>

<p>Point being that, in order to have and enjoy discussion, we (should be) willing to weave with our verbal/mental threads [whatever threads serendipity brings to the fore in our wandering explorations] "as if" they submit to the broadest possible, commonly assumed parameters -- OR, just for the joy of turning over and examining ideas, whatever parameters a particular commenter specifies as applying to his/her interpretation (which we can/do and always will then argue about vigorously). There is, at least for me, enormous pleasure in "trying on" different ways of weaving, braiding, mergings of ... anything interesting that the creative minds assembled here (coming and goings of which just add to the mystery of what will or will not happen...).</p>

<p>I enjoy your (Luca's) point of view and I also enjoy Luis's point of view and I enjoy ... everybody who has posted's point of views.</p>

<p>Having said all that, I'll add my two bits to today's mix by stating:</p>

<p>Every perception is new. Every perception is new every time. (Every perception of a picture is new every time.)</p>

<p><strong>Luca :-)</strong></p>

<p>I hadn't looked at that picture by Igor that originated the thread. I now see where you were coming from originally. And as you say, "Fred broadened the concept."</p>

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>I believe that the main issue is that we are dealing with concepts with no <em><strong>borders</strong></em>. It seems to me that we are considering the range from realism and hyper-realism to hyper-abstraction."</p>

<p> I agree on both counts. If there are borders, they're fuzzy. The dizzying pace with which concepts are explored here makes it hard to keep up with in real-life terms. We also lose lots of potential sideboard ideas/strayings because they do not conform to the pace or conventions of this forum. Admittedly, a lot of these could branch off as threads of their own, as this one did.</p>

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>Any discussion requires an initial definition of concepts and subsequently their consistent elaboration. If concepts become "<em><strong>moving targets</strong></em>" the discussion goes astray."</p>

<p> True, but as a wise man who used to be here and I wish would come back has pointed out, the opposite is also true. If we restrict the definition too much, we lose the potential evolution of the concept (along with the straying). Thread Drift seems to be a near-universal effect in conversations and web discussions. The scattering effect (I forget who said it) of anything looked at long enough becoming everything.</p>

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>The point is that photography - however you define it - is material, visual if you want. It's definitely not a concept of mind detached from a real representation, as it is treated here.<br /> Every person commenting here - I am sure - has specific photographs in mind when s/he writes. The issue is that most of these "<em><strong>implicit visual terms of reference</strong></em>" are not shared with the others.<strong><em>"</em></strong><em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

<p> Photography is also conceptual. Some of those concepts have very clear-cut referents, others tenuous ones. Philosophy is something else.</p>

<p> Amazingly, PN lacks an Art forum, something so many users engage in, or aspire to, and have nowhere to discuss. It is also where many of the issues here belong, and that's only my opinion.<br>

There are only a handful of people well-schooled in philosophy on the forum, and when they do talk hard-core philosophy, it quickly ends up in tense Mexican stand-offs. I think that's telling, albeit in a nebulous way.</p>

<p>So the forum is "flawed" (by design), and consistently inconsistent. As with every group, there are those who feel compelled to lead us across the desert to their Promised Land version of PoP, others who are happy making their own way, and some who are sitting in paradise. This will never be a philosophy classroom, let alone a <strong>school</strong>, nor was it intended to be.</p>

<p> As photographers and viewers, we see what we know, what we are, what we expect to see. On the surface, we are very similar, and can agree on many things, but as we get to less obvious levels, we soon discover we're also different. Same medium, many paths.</p>

<p><em><strong>LR -"every statement bears in itself the arguments for its contradiction</strong></em>."</p>

<p>Yes! Just as in Newtonian physics for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction, or in many Oriental philosophies everything contains the seed of its opposite. There is a wellspring of energy in that apparent paradox, not just confusion.</p>

 

<p><strong>Julie </strong>- "Every perception is new. Every perception is new every time. (Every perception of a picture is new every time.)"</p>

<p> ...and to complexify matters, some things elicit multiple, near-simultaneous, perceptions.</p>

 

<p>Yes, dear.</p>

<p>Could you please pass the marmalade?</p>

<p>It'd be my pleasure. Is the Clementine OK?</p>

<p><strong>Objectification</strong>: Willingly taking a (visual, verbal, gustatory) prompt to fall into a role that makes you laugh out loud. The perfect perceptual tennis game.</p>

<p>I think by it's very definition to objectify carries with it negative connotations, but I also believe (like some others here) this objectification is inherent in photography. One cannot photograph a scene, a moment, an individual/s etc... without presenting a voyeuristic perspective. We see with the lens rather than the eye. We use tools (camera, lens etc..) to, not only capture a moment in time, but present it to others to view over and over again; and in so doing allow whatever personal appeal it may have had to us (as photographers) at the time, become a collective voyeuristic moment. Does that then beg the question of voyeurism as essential in objectification? perhaps. But it is unavoidable that through the use of a camera, much like the use of CCTV, we turn even the most innocuous and mundane moment into a voyeuristic journey (let alone an important and significant moment). I think this is the unavoidable element of objectification, and conesquently, photography as a whole.<br>

In terms of exploitation I think intent is what defines it. The photographer's intention with which he/she photographs determines whether 'people, places, things, situations' are in fact exploited. Fred, you mention homeless people as an example of possible exploitation and I'm glad you did because no more is this evident that in this type of photography (in earlier forum threads you and I have had a similar discussion regarding intent as it applies to homeless people). I'm not suggesting the documentation of the plight of homeless people isn't a valid means of awareness, I am however, suggesting the intent of the photographer, determines the validity of such documentation.</p>

<p>And so I see a clear difference between objectification and exploitation. Additionally, even though by its very definition, objectification can be interpreted in negative terms, it's more or less a bi-product of photography; where as exploitation is almost always defined by intention.</p>