Object of Desire

<p>Dear friends, I made a project that will be part of my final project on MA degree "Correlation between image and the reason for the image" in Vilnius Academy of Art.<br /> Please, write your comments and critique for this project "Object of Desire":<br /> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1075610<br /> Your vision and perception on Object of Desire (not as on project but about your interaction with your of object of desire etc.) from Your country and mentality. All Your comments, views and opinions on this theme I'll attach to my project in Academy.</p>

<p>Thank You</p>

<p>P.S. Maybe you can help me to find some information about my main topic too? Right now I'm reading Derrida, Lacan, Deleuze, Eco, Bard.</p>

<p>The text to "Object of desire":<br /><br /></p>

<ul id="project-modules">

<li id="module-144490665">For each “hunter” the object of his hunt can be different. The object of desire itself “tries on” various masks and “lures.” The object of desire may be filled with meekness and submissiveness which attract to itself, or with obsession and disobedience. It can promise us enjoyment or delight, but also hides under the “mask” of its play and can itself seduce in a way that changes the game. In such case “hunter” becomes an object of attraction. The object of desire itself also gets satisfaction from the process of this game. Our perception of the real object of desire is conditioned by various types of images, fetishes, and projections. In actuality any view, especially the view of the spectator who is possessed of an image, combines elements of passivity and activity. On the one hand, the object is an object of pursuit, and on the other is the subject of fantasies. The structure of the image reflects this duality: on the one hand, the contour of the image shows the point of view of the desire of the “hunter,” who tries to possess the object of desire, and on the other hand, the composition of the image does not reflect the psychological point of view, but shows the point of view of an abstract spectator or viewer who perceives the scene esthetically and symmetrically. I am interested in observing behavior and reactions. During the experiment I played the role of the “hunter,” and was surprised how the “object” went from a state of complete shyness and a reluctance to participate, to complete satisfaction with the process and active participation in the “play’ in which the camera acted as intermediary. At the level of the unconsciousness we know that coincidence doesn’t occur and the girl previously wanted to participate in this ‘play’ more in the role of a hunter, which required her to adopt the role of a “victim.” A person all his life wants something, struggles for it, and suffers because of the impossibility to get it. But what is that “something?” A person’s life runs its course through an endless change of decorations, and each new scene is a new desire. We spend our lives on the attaining of that which is desired, not noticing, that the object of desire long ago became something else. I showed this process through the female body, which is often considered the most desirable object for human beings. Valentyn Odnoviun</li>

</ul><div></div>

<p>Valentyn: Your project appears to be quite ambitious. I will try to digest the piece you wrote in the OP and to respond. It may take a while.</p>

<p>The female body is too simple a case. Few females consider themselves as objects of desire, although perhaps more as "subjects" of desire. In other words, the body is not separable from the whole person, and is only a limited part of normally how that person sees themselves or projects themselves. Concentrating on the body as "object" of desire is limited in its scope. Hunting for smaller game than the hunter is capable of. This and other subjects of desire are nonetheless of some importance as our desires are very much related to our life and to its sustainable progress or not. An unfulfilled desire that is not male-female but considers some other exploration and achievement can be unfulfilled and yet of value allowing continuance, whereas male-female desires are more emotional (if they are not simply physical) and if unfulfilled have often limited continuance.</p>

<p>Recommended viewing: Luis Buñuel's <em>That Obscure Object of Desire.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

It's possible that we can consider someone or something an object of desire without objectifying them (or it).</p>

<p>Derrida stresses the importance of ultimately unfulfillable fantasy, where the imaginary can never become real. There's something very photographic about this "veil of promise," an infinitesimally small distance between the symbolic and the real. I imagine this separation of symbolic and real sometimes to take place through the play in photos between what's the literal and the abstract. This play can inspire the photographer's and the viewer's sense of longing. In a photo, literal and abstract can come very close to each other while the smallest distance between them can remain the key to many passions and secrets.</p>

<p>There's often something just out of reach.</p>

<p>Some of my most intense, and intensely preoccupying, desires and fantasies revolved around young women and unfulfilled desires at a time of life when the attainment of an ideal was almost singular as far as youthful intentions go. Intensity of desire and pursuit also occurred with those relationships I succeeded in making a reality later on and with admirable women. Somehow, the former unfulfilled desires define as much and probably more the sheer beauty of the desire and of its projection upon an imagined ideal. However, how this experience or approach might translate to photography, or even to the imagining of the creation of a work of the latter, is not at all clear to me.</p>

<p>As far as "Object of" vs "Subject of" ... I have no problem<br /> concerning the political incorrectitude of "Female person's<br /> body presented as an object". Photographs differ from<br /> cinema mainly in terms of audio. Motion ? Nope, I find no<br /> distinction. The freezing of motion/time [still photo] is still<br /> a visual statement about motion/time ... often more so<br /> than is conveyed by cinema. Story line [plot] ? Nope, still<br /> photos, even as a single frame, can have far greater story<br /> lines than much cinema delivers. Cinema viewing is a quite<br /> passive experience. It's all laid out, even if one has to view<br /> all the way to the final frame to realize that. A still image<br /> is an interactive experience. You hafta bring something to<br /> it to mix with what the image brings to you. Thus the "final<br /> frame" will differ for each viewer. <br /> <br /> OK so back to "Object vs Subject". My point in comparing<br /> still image to cine is that we all know that [other than hard<br /> core documentary] cine is fantasy [of varying degrees]. But<br /> we too often see a realistic photo [of NON surreal style] as<br /> something other than fantasy, other than story-telling. In<br /> that mindset, we then take issue with "objectification" of a<br /> subject, an in particular women subjects. But thaz all cuz<br /> we refuse to allow that even a detailed non-surrealist still<br /> photo *IS* a fantasy. Don't limit "fantasy" to a Freudian<br /> context. I mean it to be read as counterpunctal to seeing a<br /> still photo as automatically being a document or evidence.<br /> IOW if it's "evidence" then it's "evidence of things not seen"<br /> cuz as viewers, we hafta accept that no actual frozen time/<br /> moments really exist ... that the very presentation of frozen<br /> time verrrry powerfully implies that what we see is a very<br /> partial, very editted, very incomplete piece of a larger story. <br /> Elements within the picture may guide us or inspire us to<br /> paint-in the rest of the story along a certain path, but even<br /> then, huge freedom is granted to the viewer. <br /> <br /> OK, so a still image is like cinema except there's no audio<br /> and the frames per second rate is massively different. In<br /> cinema, we treat the persons we see as presenters of the<br /> story, as actors. They are objects in that sense and this is<br /> no insult to the cast members nor humanity in general. It's<br /> the same for the subject in a still image. They have a job<br /> to do within the storytelling context of that image, and as<br /> such are objects, tools of the director or photographer to <br>

be used for delivering a story, most typically a fiction or<br>

IOW a fantasy. </p>

 

<p>Thank You very much friends!<br>

I'll include all that information in my research and will work more on that topic! Thank You again and wish You Happy New 2015 Year!<br>

With Respect, Valentyn Odnoviun</p>

<p>isn't this going mundane?</p>