voyeurism or curiosity?

just wanted to start a discussion regarding most people's view that

voyeurism is inherent within photography. i personallly don't agree

but am fascinated to hear others peoples views.

I wonder where you get the idea that 'most people' hold such a view. 'Most people' probably see photographs as illustrations in their newspapers and magazines that break up the type and give them something more or less interesting to look at. A slightly smaller number take pictures to remember events and places they have been. A far smaller group still take pictures as a means of personal expression. A miniscule proportion obsess about it and make the most ridiculous claims - all too many of the last group are to be found here on photo.net so people who read this site with their cynicicm shields down can get an entirely wrong view of reality.

As guess that could be applied to just looking around then also. A photo is just a fraction of a second of that activity.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between voyeurism and curiosity (other than the obvious part that most people narrow the scope of voyeurism down to sexual activity) is that a voyeur is gleaning a feeling from what he or she is watching where as the curious are gleaning some information from what they are watching.

 

We could argue the semantics of these words for weeks... in the end... they mean the same; to describe people who like to watch.

 

So, are you going to let the pergorative use of "voyeur" get you down?

 

David...

Or even the pejorative use.

For some reason, the 'playboy interview' style of photography made a big impression on me just as I was deciding to try being a PJ. There's something about capturing a range of 'real' expressions while your subject is interacting with somebody else that fascinates me. To this day, I am still 'weak' on posing people, etc, which is one reason I avoided doing weddings whenever I could.

 

If I'm doing candids, eye contact works for me too. I've had some strong images that way, sort of a 'shared moment'. It's the posing or the 'where do you want me?' type shots that do very little for me personally.

 

I have no idea where this fits on your 'v - scale'.

The American Heritage College Dictionary, third edition, defines a voyeur as a person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked body or sexual acts of others, esp. secretly. The second definition is an obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects. Voyeurism is the act of a voyeur. I hardly think that definition applies either to the vast majority of photographs taken by people or to the vast majority of people�s view of photography. There can be voyeuristic photos, but photography itself is not inherently voyeuristic. Nor is photography inherently curious, it can be used to satisfy a curiosity, but it can also be used record a scene, to make a record of an event, to tell a story, or any number of other things. Photography at its most basic concept is a tool, at its greatest height, an art.

Human beings have got eyes (and later cameras), so they look at things. And sometimes they even feel pleasure doing this - openly or secretly doesn't matter.

I think that psychological explanations are a typical phaenomenon of the 20th century and in a lot of cases not very useful. Basically they say more about the psychologist/theorist than the human behaviour they try to understand.

That's all.

I wonder who you hang out with, but can I join your group? As mentioned a voyeuer is a peeping tom, it has a sexual connotation. I like landscape photos but they don't turn me on that way. Scopophilia was described by Freud in one his cases I think it was the Dora case, which was based on the idea that we take possesion of something when we look at it. In a sense when I look at photo of a landscape, I have a desire to be there and take hold of it with my eyes. I think photography can have a scopophilic aspect to it but it's probably secondary to aesthic appeal. I love Mozart's music but I don't want to have an auralphilic relationship with it. Advertising photography I suspect has a strong scopophilic element to it, they encourage it so consumers will buy the product. Film I think is much more fiting with your idea of voyeurism since many commercial films deal with power, dominance and sexuality, while the audience sits there and drinks it in. The best example of this is Hitchcocks "The Rear Window" about the voyeuristic tendencies of the audience.

What are you looking at? Literally.

 

I enjoy looking at some things, so I receive a reward when I view them, to enjoy is motivation enough. I am curious about what I see in others, so I may stare to determine the meaning it has for me; my reward is reaching a conclusion to the thought prevoked.

 

In other images I have little or no interest, no reward or motivation, no voyeuristic drive to see.

 

So it depends on what I am looking at, and to some degree my personality.

Let's face it: to some extent or another, every person is a voyeur. And even when it tries not to be, photography is always voyeuristic. Once the exposure is made and published, it's then up to the beholder as to how voyeuristic they intend to be. That's the nature of the medium.

 

In my field of photojournalism, I've always held the opinion that we are professional voyeurs; i.e., we're paid to look in on the activities of others, prurient or otherwise -- kinda like your nosey neighbor who always appears "magically" in his back yard every time you're changing clothes by the window.

 

"Voyeur" is a loaded term that comes with all kinds of (mostly negative) connotations. It's unfortunate that such scorn is laid at the feet of what I consider the perfectly normal social curiosity of the human race.

 

Even the humans who read People magazine.

 

Just my two cents.

RC

Throw out the dictionary. Words mean what people use them for. The dictionary is an ever-evolving record of that. I see the term voyeur used a lot in Photo.net discussions, and it seems to refer to something beyond curiosity--something more obsessive. <P>If that is Lisa's point, then there is indeed a quality about much of today's photojournalism that feeds voyeurism. Consider a tragedy that includes much death and destruction. Rarely will you see "police gazette" style photos of mangled corpses. That leaves the destruction itself, survivors, their families, and emergency personnel. Of the destruction itself, there may be many pictures to satisfy the curious, but there is little of interest for the voyeurs. For <I>them</i> will be the exhausted workers, the crying loved one, the horrified onlooker, etc. Those shots make up the bulk of images of a disaster, of any type, anywhere. They are basically the same anywhere. Strip away the attendant photos of damage and emergency efforts, leaving the screaming widow, the catatonic parents of lost children, the weeping officer mourning his partner, and you have the voyeuristic side of photojournalism. The photographers who shoot this stuff don't make the editorial policy, it's true; but these guys are always on the lookout for a prize-winning shot, literally, for their own purposes.

Photojournalism isn't necessarily voyeurism, what photojournalists are good at capturing is the emotion behind an event. Hearing about an five car pileup isn't the same as a picture of bloodied victim being cut out of the their car by the jaws of life. Is a good photo that captures an emotion voyeruristic because it supplies us with a feeling, so a bad snap shot devoid of technique or feeling isn't being a voyeuristic? I think being a little more precise may help here: PJs may be seen as voyeurs because like real voyeurs they intrude on moments that should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So it isn't really the subject that makes photography voyeuristic but the ethics of the situation. PJs by profession and social policy are allowed to be voyeurisitc, since the importance of a free press often overrides people's privacy. Now where did I put my copy of the National Enquirer?

harvey - when i say 'most people' i mean photographhic theorists. sorry for the confusion but i have been reading alot on voyeurism lately as part of my degree and the idea that photography and voyeurism are eternally linked is a very popular notion. thanks to all for your replies - some very interesting stuff here - don't stop!

I don't believe "Joe average" thinks voyeurism when he see the vast majority of photos. But he absolutely does think it when he sees a stranger's camera pointed at him, and I feel he's right.

 

I don't like the fact that street photography especially can sometimes provoke confrontations or hard feelings, but hey, that's life. The occasional good picture is worth the occasional middle finger.

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

lisa, let us not be involved in words and definitions. let us avoid words that have connotations. let us try to make a sentence without the words voyeurism and curiosity. people like to take pictures to show emotions in others' actions. most of the people get a sense of challenge and achievement. they also enjoy a sense of beauty and proportions out of a good picture. they also enjoy stealing a moment to others without them knowing. possibly, some also get sexual excitement, but this is difficult to say, since sex is such an flexible term and has such undefinable boundaries. last, pros take pictures for money while they make fine arts in the free time. manuel

Have you seen 'Viles Bodies - The Crisis of Looking' by Chris Townsend? Yes, certainly the photography of people is voyeuristic. I do a lot of it, being intrigued by people. But sadly as people become more aware of the power of photography, and as society becomes more tense and defensive, it becomes more difficult due to doubts about photographers' motives. But as Rodchenko said, "Photograph, and be photographed".

Interesting first post for a photo net newbie....

As a more experienced photographer friend told me when once I brought up the issue of voyeurism regarding photography, "OK, let's say it is, now, if you are going to be a photographer, get over it". Say it is, say it isn't, then what?

It depends on the type of photography. Obviously landscape photography has nothing to do with voyeurism.

Personally, I think too much when it comes to photographing people without their spoken or written permission. What if I took a picture of someone in a seedy area of town and their spouse later happened to see the photo? Indirectly, I would be causing trouble between a couple.

I admire many photo-journalists for their artwork, but I'm not comfortable with it yet.

Also, what is the photographer's intent? I believe that rarely will you find a photographer that has "nasty" intentions for his work. The photographer can only do his best for portraying his opinion through his choice of medium. It is up to the observer to interpret the picture. If someone sees a photo as "nasty" or "unethical", it is because the idea is in their (observers) mind.

Well Robert, i didn't realise i was being graded on my grammar in an internet

forum - why don't you remove the stick from your ass and get back to the topic

at hand.

I like to study life, people in particular. I believe I gain the most satisfaction

from showing other people my interpretation of life or the way I see. Let me

give you an example. I have a picture of my father, which I did not take.

However, I believe that it is the single best picture that exists of my Dad

because it captures an expression and gesture that I associate with him, and I

think that's what great portraiture is all about. You capture the essence of a

person and freeze it in a photograph. To me that is what distinguishes

portraiture from fashion photography.

 

Of course, different people can still interpret a single photo differently, but I still

believe that by what your subject is and how you photograph it, the artist

subjectively interprets the world and shares his interpretation with others.

 

I'd like to hear your thoughts about this.

<<i have been reading alot on voyeurism lately as part of my degree and the idea that photography and voyeurism are eternally linked is a very popular notion>>

 

Degree in what field?

 

Voyeurism concerns both the motive and the surreptitious nature of an observer, with an implication that the observer is at least somewhat immoral. There's really no reason to call anything else "voyeurism." I don't buy the premise that photography is generally linked to voyeurism.

 

Some photographers are voyeuristic, and some of THOSE photographers will create voyeuristic photos. But anyone in a degree program anywhere should be able to spot the logical flaw in associating the acts of a few with the motivation of the many.

 

Now, if you has asked about French Horn players and proctology, THAT would be a great topic for a thesis.

 

Have fun,

lisa hancock , wrote:

Well Robert, i didn't realise i was being graded on my grammar in an internet forum - why don't you remove the stick from your ass and get back to the topic at hand.

 

 

You're not being graded on manners either, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't exercise some.

 

 

A working definition of voyeurism and the field you're researching in would be helpful.