Do your photographs objectify?

<p>Photographs have the power to objectify and exploit. Do you notice a line, in your own photographing, between objectification of subjects (people, places, things, situations) and exploitation of them? How would you characterize the difference? Do you judge objectification negatively? Exploitation?</p>

<p>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 <em>awareness</em> and in such a way as to degrade or diminish the subject, it can be offensive.</p>

<p>I intentionally objectify people sometimes. I try to do it with consciousness and to achieve something human. I "use" people and try to go beyond <em>mere</em> use. I hope I avoid base exploitation when I establish some sort of connection to my subject. (It can be a connection established just in the photograph, <em>not necessarily verbally or directly with the subject</em>).</p>

<p>I think homeless people are too often objectified, used for immediate gratification of <em>pathos</em>, yet I've seen many fine photos of homeless people that connect me to them as individuals or that significantly document what is happening on our cities' streets. I think women (and men) are objectified in many nude photographs, yet I've seen fine photos of nude women and men that go beyond such objectification. And it doesn't always have to be by connecting me to the woman or man as a person. Some nude "studies" do it. This probably goes back to what kind of "gesture" the photograph or photographer seems to be making.</p>

<p>When I first started photographing, I often hid in shadows snapping pics of people unaware. Aside from it giving me an uneasy feeling after a time, I noticed distance in my photos: not aesthetic distance . . . emotional distance. They felt static, lacking in a kind of kinetic (not necessarily <em>literally</em> moving . . .) energy I now seek.</p>

<p>Fred, to me, the line you draw between objectified and going beyond that is very fine, or very broad and grey... Tricky, with a lot of risk of just talking something slightly different....<br>

So, my take on it may miss the mark with regards to your starting point, but then again, that would still leave ground for discussion. I hope.</p>

<p>Objectify, yes, and in a large extend I think that it is inherent to photography. A photo tends to loose something that a "real life moment" does have, and that is its uniqueness. That one single moment... once captured it's repeating itself. It "becomes" an example/representation of what it shows, rather than staying what it shows. It's not John Doe, it is a portrait of John Doe. John Doe is an unique person, but we could shoot countless portraits of him, showing John Doe as an object, but none of the portraits will actually be John Doe. And some of those portraits maybe are taken in such a way that it's representative for all John Does in the world. Regardless, there is a huge level of objectification, I think. Literally, a photo looses a dimension.<br>

So, to me, there is little negative to judge about it. It's what the black box with light sensitive material does.</p>

<p>Exploit it, not for my own photography, but mainly because of subject choice. There is little to exploit in what I shoot. Anyway, exploiting it is more a matter of use, presentation, interpretation. I do not see it as an inherent value of the photo itself. Photos of homeless people are seen as "complaints that rich countries let people out in the cold like this", or "how life can point the wrong way".... It may be the intent of the photographer, it may be the inabaility to connect and show them as normal humans, rather than homeless. It may be you, as a viewer, who sees it (while the photographer never put it there). It's outside of the photo, it's interpretation.</p>

<p>Fred's "hid in shadows" phrase has a lot to do with objectification.</p>

<p>If we're hiding in shadows, literally or metaphorically, we're not engaged with the subject or photographic concept ... perhaps that means we're objectifying it. I doubt sculptors would generally say they're "objectifying" when they carve stone...it's so tactile.</p>

<p>I don't think "all photos probably objectify."</p>

<p>#1, A <strong>logical thinker</strong> can't combine that "all" with "probably." It's a crippled construct. A logical thinker <em>could </em>combine "most" with "probably" whether or not she was saying anything worth attention: "<em>Most</em> photos of Grand Canyon are<em> probably</em> tourist snaps" vs "<em>All </em>photos of Grand Canyon are <em>probably </em>tourist snaps.</p>

<p>#2 Many photographs <em>engage</em> rather than <em>objectify</em>. Most of what "we" love about them has to do with that, IMO. For example, <strong>Fred seems to have seen homeless photos that engaged him.</strong> I think engagement eliminates objectification, can't cohabit with it. Some will say that this is a matter of degree, like "relative evil" or "a little pregnant." But I don't think calibration like that is as reliable or rewarding as making my own judgement calls, taking those risks ... and reflecting later.</p>

<p>I usually try to find more than a written summary of subject might (just as Fred seems to)...maybe that's something puzzling, maybe emotional, maybe ephemeral. I work so hard to make and print the few photographs that matter to me that I know I'm engaged, rather than objectifying.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>How do you define "engaged" in terms of street photography? Making sure the subject is aware he/she is being photographed? Asking permission? Can't there be some value in an unaware subject? I think you could catch someone laughing with delight unaware of the camera in a way that you'd never get if they knew the camera was there, and still maintain an emotional connection with the subject. Similarly, someone expressing grief...it's unlikely someone in that circumstance would wish to be photographed, but the resulting image could very easily generate a strong emotional connection with the subject.</p>

<p>Fred, my motivation in a photograph is to objectify. But clearly not just to turn a subject in front of the camera into an object. If that was all I felt an image accomplished it would fall on the wrong side of the line for me. If I see or sense that I have objectified an emotion an insight an experience, humanity, spirituality etc. then I am satisfied. Then my measure becomes aesthetic and other qualities. But to give 'concrete' (in my eyes) meaning to the emotion etc is objectification that is good, very good for me.<br>

To objectify and or exploit homeless is similar to objectifying a sunset to me. Most often a built in energy level that is ineffective on me. Works for many but leaves me wanting. May be pretty, may be sad but I want more. I want the 'objectify' that reveals more than the mere object. But of course I do have countless object pictures.</p>

<p><strong>Jay</strong>, I think you've answered your own question well. No, I don't have to ask permission and the subject need not be aware of me or the camera. Yes, there can be value in an unaware subject. Connection is my answer, too . . . <em>photographic</em> connection. I think many street shooters (at least in the PN street forum) put way too much a premium on "candid." "Candid" doesn't always reach out and touch me.</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, I like your picture of the sculptor carving. There's a sense in which a sculptor is making a heavy object . . . objectifying. In a more significant sense, he is not.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter</strong>, I agree that objectification, of a sort, is probably inherent to photography. Others won't see that as objectification. They will call it artistic distance or something like that. I understand your saying that a photo loses something that the "real life moment" has. Your thought leads me also to say that a photo may gain something that a "real life moment" doesn't have. I think, when a photo ONLY loses, it is likely to be objectifying in a negative sense, even becoming exploitive. When it also gains, or adds to the moment, or at least preserves the moment, it is probably less negatively objectifying.</p>

<p>I have trouble with your statement: <em>"It's outside of the photo, it's interpretation."</em> I don't want to rehash the metaphysical "what's in the photo and what's not in the photo" discussion the forum recently addressed. I'll stipulate that no meaning and no interpretation is actually <em>in</em> the photo. But what one interprets are usually a series of signs, otherwise one couldn't interpret. I think people can come to some agreement about different signs in photographs that show exploitation of homeless people. <em>Not always</em>, but generally speaking, pointing your camera down at someone <em>tends to have</em> a less "engaged" effect. Shooting from a distance with a zoom often seems more objectifying than shooting more closely. I think the photo itself plays a significant role in the interpretations. Some viewers are visually less savvy than others and will greet photos with only their own prejudices and predispositions intact, not being open to actually seeing the signs placed before them by the photographer.</p>

<p>If one thinks photography 'represents' -- <em>re-presents</em> an object -- one will accept the notion that a photograph "objectifies". I think photography 'describes' objects, and so am not certain photography objectifies.</p>

<p>The idea that a photograph 're-presents' is very common. Most non-photographers act as if photos re-present. Casually, at least, most photographers do (which leads me to think it is a deep-seated species-response to descriptivie images generally and probably as old as the hills). It seems a lot like the proverbial 'savage's' reaction on seeing a photo of himself: 'You stole my soul".</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Josh</strong>, I appreciate the addition of making <em>concrete</em>. I think emotions, insight, experience, spirituality become visual signs, symbols, and embodiments in photographs. Concretizing is perhaps one of the special purviews of photographs. It's interesting how making concrete and transcending can go hand in hand. Taking this a step further, say with the photo of the nude woman, if something else other than her womanness is objectified (concretized), that will go a long way in making for a more compelling and less exploitive photograph.</p>

<p>Fred, yes, the inside/outside line is a bit too hard in my first post. Your analysis on it is sound, and most certainly the photo iself plays a very significant role in the interpretation. Rephrasing what I meant: it takes a viewer to make the exploiting work.<br>

As for the objectifying, sure it can gain something. The uniqueness it loses can be replaced with something more universal or long-lasting. I did not mean to imply it is a one-way street, though rereading I understand it seems that way.</p>

<p>I think the idea of "homeless" intrudes an interpersonal/values/politeness aspect that steals attention from Fred's more fundamental question about "objectification." </p>

<p>Objectifying a human being seems nothing like objectifying a flower (whatever that means).</p>

<p>My "sculptor-with-stone" metaphor referred to the first third of an equation: something being envisioned or discovered or created by a human being. </p>

<p>The second third involves the sculpture (or photograph) "itself." That can't be appreciated without whatever's in the brain of the viewer. It may not even exist (tree falling in forest metaphor).</p>

<p>Appreciation/recognition/awareness is the third part. That's not necessarily "interpretation," which I think means verbalization. "Oh, poor homeless waif!" </p>

<p>I don't know what it means to "objectify" a non-human subject...I think that's not the right word if we're talking about "photograph-of" vs "photograph qua photograph." </p>

 

<p>"I don't know what it means to "objectify" a non-human subject."</p>

<p>I don't know either, but I'll take a shot at it: photos of flowers in a florist's ad. Maybe a flower macro? Some Nature photos?</p>

 

<p>Mapplethorpe's <em><a href="http://emuseum2.guggenheim.org/media/previews/93.4302_ph_web.jpg">Cala Lily, </a></em><a href="http://emuseum2.guggenheim.org/media/previews/93.4302_ph_web.jpg">1986</a> -- objectification.</p>

<p>Weston's <em><a href="http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/edward-weston-excusado-toilet-19251.jpg">Excusado, </a></em><a href="http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/edward-weston-excusado-toilet-19251.jpg">1925</a> -- beyond objectification!</p>

<p><strong>Fred</strong>,</p>

<p>(<em>I was thinking of posting this question, thank you for doing it for me</em>).</p>

<p>When I posted it under Igor's photo I was reacting to Pnina Evental's remark on objectified women and I think it is clear what she meant. It's a common use of the term.</p>

<p>What I wanted to say actually is that there are other types of subjects which can be made to objects, apart from nude females.</p>

<p>In our common conception, considering a human an object has an extremely negative significance. Objectifying is usually associated with marketing, with using, with reaping some sort of egoistic advantage.</p>

<p>In that sense Fred, I do not think you <em>really </em>objectify your human subjects when you photograph. As far as I have understood from our conversations and posts, you get into a relationship with your subjects - and that is clear when I look at your photos. You say that you no longer photograph people from a distance. This means that you get involved with your subjects, that you create a <em>relationship in any case</em>.</p>

<p>(<em>There is a very active "street photographer" here who takes almost all his street shots with a 180mm on a DX sensor: 270mm. He does not get involved with his subjects and his photos show that in an absolute clear way.</em>)</p>

<p>I personally aim at "getting involved" with (most) of my subjects. This does not mean that I ask for permission or that I start a conversation, but they can see me, sometimes only after I have taken the shot, but I'm visible.</p>

<p>But we might consider "objectification" in another, more subtle way. This has to do with the creation of an icon (the photograph) of our subjects and the more or less unconscious appropriation of a part of the person/subject we photograph by means of this icon.</p>

<p>When we photograph a subject, in some way we appropriate something of this subject, even if we don't take away anything physical.<br>

In brief:</p>

<ul>

<li>there might be an objectification for "marketing" or "usage" purposes.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>and there might be objectification because we want to appropriate something which comes in our way. We want to make it our own by means of a photograph.</li>

</ul>

<p>In this sense I would say, yes, photography is about objectification and appropriation.<br>

What vary are the level of personal engagement in the act of objectification and appropriation and the reasons for our appropriation.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Wouter</strong>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it takes a viewer to make the exploiting work</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. In this case, the photographer becomes the viewer. And he objectifies to view, and review, which is a means of appropriation.</p>

<p><strong>Luca</strong>, I agree with you that we commonly use "objectification" negatively, toward "using" and egoistic advantage or marketing. One of the reasons I brought this subject up is to fine tune my own thoughts about it. And, as a photographer, I do often feel a tension between participating in those relationships you talk about and, at the same time, objectifying as well. Yes, relationships with my subjects are significant to me but I am also aware of <em>looking at</em> my subjects as objects. I often try to establish something human and certainly I engage most of the people I photograph, yet I am in touch with the curves of their bodies, the texture of their skin, the muscles and the way they're highlighted, sometimes playing intentionally with my middle-aged male subjects with clichés of how women or younger men might be photographed and objectified. There's a lot at play for me that's very much visual and objective, somewhat the way I might look at a flower or a piece of furniture. I really don't want to deny the part that might be seen as base objectification, which I feel is a companion to the more human relationship I establish.</p>

<p>I wonder if Luca's use of <strong>"icon"</strong> isn't more to Fred's point than his own use of "objectification?" <br>

Fred?</p>

<p>Perhaps my photos serve occasionally as icons for something that I've experienced but can't express verbally. I do print them in order to share them, similar to the reason New Mexico's "santeros" create "santos," folk sculptures of favorite saints.</p>

<p> Greek and Russian Orthodox have literal icons but do not seem, in my limited exposure, to worship them. Whereas Roman Catholics sometimes do literally worship figures of Mary as well as appropriate saints (though RC priests deny that). The issue, which relates to the commandment against worship of idols, has to do with "objectifying" something important but ephemeral: Mary's intercession, Christ's suffering, the flamboyant way a particular saint died (eg shot full of arrows or burned alive), the Holy Spirit (objectified as a dove in pre-Renaissance paintings).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think Luca's use of "icon" adds to the discussion, but as you, John, said in the beauty thread recently, I am <em>"hoping to avoid the usual semantic bullshit"</em> so I don't think it valuable to get into which, if either, word is more to the point.</p>

<p>Fred, that's OK. Still, I do wonder what something ephemeral or important becomes when it's "objectified."</p>

<p>I'm wondering about photographs and how I make them.</p>

<p>Per the dictionary, <em>objectifying</em> - besides its negative connotation - can mean <em>to express something in a concrete form : good poetry objectifies feeling.</em><br /> I feel subjects, perhaps more than I see them when going out *looking for them* to be photographed. Like the subjects themselves are quite concrete I consider the photograph to make concrete and *objectify* the feeling / sensing that was evoked through / upon looking at the subject.<br /> The <em>photograph</em> objectifies, which doesn't have to mean that the subject photographed is being objectified ( in the negative meaning of the word ). So yes, my photographs objectify, by which I don't mean that they're good ( like in "good poetry..." ).</p>

<p>I also think Luca's soft (subtle) use of "icon" adds to the discussion... an very interesting subplot.<br /> <br /><br /> Fred ."..as a photographer, I do often feel a tension between participating in those relationships you talk about and, at the same time, objectifying as well." As a viewer of your work, it speaks to the tension. It is often what I get and like from your photos. Isn't that one way to objectify an emotion, experience, to make it concrete. By the very act of presenting your tension you have given me more than a body as an object. <br /> <br /></p>

<p>Phylo "I feel subjects, perhaps more than I see them when going out *looking for them* to be photographed." I feel see in your work the very thing you are describing. Your objectifying is the very thing that gives them life apart from the object, while accomplishing a distance and connection from the subject as an object.</p>

<p>Both <strong>Josh</strong> and <strong>Phylo</strong> are going through an editing process of their PN portfolios. Their now-unseen portfolios have similarities in terms of their concreteness and also in terms of the intangibles (spirituality? . . . another word I hate for its connotations) they seem to deal with. Josh, thanks for seeing that tension I described in my work. What's clear about both your portfolios is that "good" is not your concern. When "good" is a concern, I think there's more likelihood of a negatively objectifying or exploitive photo. Ulterior motives can very much trump one's being in touch with their subject (even as object).</p>

<p>Regarding my own photos, I do think I am talking about objectifying the subject photographed in addition to Phylo's view of the photograph objectifying, which I also think takes place. I own the objectifying of subjects I may go through in creating photos. I would reject such photos if that's all they did. I want more than that and have rejected many that only go that far. But, when they strike the right chord for me and express what I want to show or what is there to be shown that I find compelling, I can be very comfortable with whatever level of objectifying (even what some might consider the most base) has occurred. I may objectify a subject in service of a photo that does not limit itself to that.</p>

<p><em>"I'm wondering about photographs and how I make them."</em><br>

I don't have that impression from the last post. No questions are asked or, from what I can see, implied. There's a confident statement about what two other photographers are doing... other confident statements are made about "rejecting," "owning," being "comfortable,""striking the right chord" and being "in service" of a photograph that evidently has its own identity independent of the photographer or viewer.. No questions are asked, no question marks are used. Does that suggest "wondering?"</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, if you want to address the topic, I'd like to discuss it with you and others. If you want to address the way I address the topic, do it somewhere else.</p>