What's trending on Photo.net?

Question: What's trending on Photo.net?

Answer: Objectified women.

 

There seem to be quite a number of very attractive (by Madison Avenue standards) women featured in the Trending queue, which I access every time I go to the EXPLORE pull down menu to try to access the Photo of the Week. Before I'm able to click on Photo of the Week (on both my iPad and iPhone) I am automatically directed to the trending page, at which point I can finally gain access to the POTW page.

 

Anyway, these photos seem to be much less about photography than attractive women. I guess this is a male-dominated site and this shallowness and objectification is the result.

 

The bare shoulders, come hither expressions, low cut necklines, hair and dresses blowing in the breeze, and derrière closeups have caught my attention each time I'm taken to the page. Trending seems to be a function of number of views and it seems like male "photographers" like looking at purty girls.

 

I wonder if an additional forum could be added to compete with the trending queue. Something perhaps curated for photographic interest rather than titillation value.

"The bare shoulders, come hither expressions, low cut necklines, hair and dresses blowing in the breeze, and derrière closeups have caught my attention..."

Me too, thanks for the information, I had not yet discovered this section

Fred, in another thread I suggested a concern on my part for the public support of art that objectifies women, particularly as it might impact my wife and daughters' long-term self-image and expectations. I felt somewhat castigated for sharing that concern, in that it was equated with a desire for overt censorship. Now I see you have identified a trend in the popularity of objectifying images, and I wonder if our core instincts might not be more alike than apart? You use the word "titillation", while I prefer the adjective "prurient". I suspect they are both getting at the same thing: That we both see a difference between photographs (and perhaps other art?) whose purpose is sexual arousal versus other intents. Am I way off the mark, or is there a vein here worth pursuing?

Hover over EXPLORE > drop-down menu appears > without clicking, move cursor down over POW > click

If instead of selecting 'What's Trending' you select 'Editor's Picks' you get the same large number of " bare shoulders, come hither expressions, low cut necklines, hair and dresses blowing in the breeze, and derrière closeups". Something which is telling on its own.

I am a heterosexual man, I like pictures of 'hot' women, but yes, I have to agree with Fred G on this. Gordon is right as well; the editors seem to be choosing a similar assortment of images. Admittedly, some of the images are rocks, birds, whatever. Most fit in the category of "bright, clear pictures". (Again, not all) Then again, there is this picture of two attractive women which is, IMO, outstanding. (In spite of being bright and clear.)

"In olden days a glmpse of stocking was looked at as shocking." I do not find that the trending photos by those who specialize in glamour or nude disgrace the female . On the contrary. Herein is a subject with philosophical implications. Art and eroticism have a long history. Now if one were to do a 'content analysis.' a tabulation of skin and seductive females expressions vis a vis ALL other categories. Then I wonder how the stats would shape up. I do not know. I take no offense over nudes or calendar if done with taste and with professional skill if that counts in the discussion. Babes on motorcycles and tattoos are another subject best left for another day. :-) Edited April 13, 2017 by GerrySiegel

Me too, thanks for the information, I had not yet discovered this section

Glad to be of service, Didier.

That we both see a difference between photographs whose purpose is sexual arousal versus other intents.

I suspect we agree on much about this. I'm not suggesting (and don't think you are) these photos be censored or banned from PN. I'd be very much against that. I am suggesting noticing what's going on, perhaps considering the degree of visibility these photos get and why they're getting it, and asking viewers to be honest about why they look at them, which I often think is glossed over by pretending there are higher ideals in effect than titillation or prurience.

Hover over EXPLORE > drop-down menu appears > without clicking, move cursor down over POW > click

Thanks, Wayne. This doesn't work for me on an iPad or iPhone, where the minute you hover over EXPLORE, the trending page immediately begins to load. You can't get down to POTW before that happens.

If instead of selecting 'What's Trending' you select 'Editor's Picks' you get the same large number of " bare shoulders, come hither expressions, low cut necklines, hair and dresses blowing in the breeze, and derrière closeups". Something which is telling on its own.

Hadn't noticed that, Gordon. Guess the programmed parameters for choosing each are similar. Probably little human intervention involved in the choices, other than Likes, views, or some such other countable criteria.

I am a heterosexual man, I like pictures of 'hot' women, but yes, I have to agree with Fred G on this. Gordon is right as well; the editors seem to be choosing a similar assortment of images. Admittedly, some of the images are rocks, birds, whatever. Most fit in the category of "bright, clear pictures". (Again, not all) Then again, there is this picture of two attractive women which is, IMO, outstanding. (In spite of being bright and clear.)

True as well, Wogears. I, too, notice the brightness and clarity.

"In olden days a glmpse of stocking was looked at as shocking." I do not find that the trending photos by those who specialize in glamour or nude disgrace the female . On the contrary. Herein is a subject with philosophical implications. Art and eroticism have a long history. Now if one were to do a 'content analysis.' a tabulation of skin and seductive females expressions vis a vis ALL other categories. Then I wonder how the stats would shape up. I do not know. I take no offense over nudes or calendar if done with taste and with professional skill if that counts in the discussion. Babes on motorcycles and tattoos are another subject best left for another day. :)

Trouble is, Gerry, in my eyes we're not talking about artistic eroticism, which I appreciate as much as the next guy or gal. We're talking mostly about unimaginative titillation, uninteresting photos except for the shallow draw of the subject matter which is simply a facile and quick gratification having little to do with the erotic. To me, eroticism suggests some kind of aesthetic or philosophical contemplation of beauty. It's different from a lingerie ad, different from soft core porn, and different from the feelings experienced by the very often instantaneous arousal of the average teenage male. Eroticism is more difficult to achieve and just a wee bit deeper than pointing a camera anonymously and without permission at a woman's behind while she walks down the street and posting it on the Internet.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Norma Desmond

Any objectification aside, the shots in question are mostly quite pedestrian, unimaginative and often just plain boring. Surprised? After all, it's PN. Probably the last place NSFW hounds would look.

Two thoughts. First. Over generalized reaction at least,my dear Watson. even as you say such shots are quote "mostly" etc.. Most work here in the daily uploads are so predictable and have been done before and often to a higher standard. Second. To Fred's comment, I concede that we swivel to watch a derriere when we should be looking up at the scenery. What I think makes your reflections hard to deal with is the use of loaded terms like " facile and quick gratification, " "tittillating" or David's use of word "prurient." These are tarring a broad category which is not appealing in a way that does not credit the photographers ( I admire much work ofJohn Peri ) that pays homage to the female form. And not eyeball click bait to sell a product. And the commercialization of sex is, granted,inbred to a degree that makes it hard to avoid the mundane use of bare limbs and cleavage to sell cola drinks. But, whoah,no nipples allowed. Kind of funny. What would Michaelangelo have done? Banned in Mobile?

...David's use of word "prurient."

Gerry, I acknowledge it can be difficult, nigh unto impossible even, to define a line between figure images of an artistic or expressive nature, and that which is baser in nature. Yet, I believe our society, and its individual members, suffers when we choose to objectify people. It's clearly a very difficult balance to strike, and I won't deign to tell anyone else where he or she must draw the boundary. I know for me that if I would be embarrassed to have my wife or daughters (17-23 y.o.) find me perusing something, then it is likely not in my or their interest to do so. While the intent of the photographer and subject matter certainly come into play, at the end of the day it is what the viewer brings to an image that is the most telling. I know that when I was 13 years old I was far easier to titillate than I am today, but I like to think I've gained a little more perspective and life experience, as well as a decreased flow of raging hormones since then. (Time to get my testosterone checked?)

Edited April 13, 2017 by DavidTriplett

Actually, Gerry, I think over the decades there's arisen a kind of sensibility that no longer does "swivel to watch a derrière." Behavior and culture have changed a bit since the days portrayed so well in Mad Men. We don't smoke as much either.

What would Michaelangelo have done?

Look at his statue of David and then look at the photos we're talking about and you tell me the difference. I see the difference. Maybe you don't and that will have to stand.

Two thoughts. First. Over generalized reaction at least,my dear Watson. even as you say such shots are quote "mostly" etc.. Most work here in the daily uploads are so predictable and have been done before and often to a higher standard. Second. To Fred's comment, I concede that we swivel to watch a derriere when we should be looking up at the scenery. What I think makes your reflections hard to deal with is the use of loaded terms like " facile and quick gratification, " "tittillating" or David's use of word "prurient." These are tarring a broad category which is not appealing in a way that does not credit the photographers ( I admire much work ofJohn Peri ) that pays homage to the female form. And not eyeball click bait to sell a product. And the commercialization of sex is, granted,inbred to a degree that makes it hard to avoid the mundane use of bare limbs and cleavage to sell cola drinks. But, whoah,no nipples allowed. Kind of funny. What would Michaelangelo have done? Banned in Mobile?

 

For clarity's sake, Gerry, let me omit "mostly." They're derivative and done at such a low level it's borderline silly to view them as artifacts of any milieu. Ultimately, this discussion is weirdly self-gratifying/self-congratulatory.

Banned in Mobile?

I specifically said I'd be against their being banned or censored. I can find something objectionable or uninterestingly titillating without advocating its being banned.

Well Fred, I thought this was about the objectification of women, but turns out to be your usual need to teach everyone your personal philosophy about eroticism. I looked at the trend section (for the first time), to see if you indeed have a valid point. I did the math, and the majority of the photos are not of women. As it states, the most views, admires, favorite, and comments. these could come from anyone, women or men. Your portfolio is full of naked men. Does this mean that you objectify men? I also recall awhile back a photo of a half naked man, and your comment to the photographer was, "Can you get me his number". You flaunt your sexuality all the time. The rest of us, of course, should be driven by a higher calling.

I can relate to your opening statement, Fred, iIF we can ever agree here on the words "shallowness" and "objectification." Of women. In operational terms I mean. Tthat we Wizened older men faces are a tempting but arguably shallow target. Gets down to how the whole array( and I have not been paying much attention to the distribution of submissions lately) treats a certain subject. I try, as successfully as possible from my prejudices, my taste in subject matter from my study of and attention to fineness of technique,. I would like to think we can agree on some of these details in discussion. And not just on the value of the Pieta and his towering lovely David. That said, there is something to derive in every image even what does not grab the eye. (Julie constantly seems to extract something that I do not see.) See = the operative word. Some do stand out and get trend likes and are part of a sorting that some like and well, some will not. Beyond that we each respond to different styles and flavors and Baskin Robbins knows that....I digress. As to the content displays of PN and the choices , well, I got to ad I do not see much in the POTW choices of 15 elves..must be me. What appeals? . i will tellyou I find some of the photo essays in the bottom of the Washington Post to be superb. I lately was going to link one that I loved, but now I forget, forgive the lapse. Good tidings to all in the community. We are still around is good.

(For clarity's sake, Gerry, let me omit "mostly." They're derivative and done at such a low level it's borderline silly to view them as artifacts of any milieu. Ultimately, this discussion is weirdly self-gratifying/self-congratulatory.)

 

I just do not see it that way, c_watson . Derivative is a tough call, in photo or in music or in architecture. And applies in so many realms. We proceed by deriving and then fiddling do we not? I feel, as I usually affirm, it calls for some for example instances to see if we are 'doing a number' on half the population. We do it in many sectors of society, so maybe it is a problem to be addressed oftener.. Last thought for now. I never felt or worried that I have lapsed in some wahy by looking at female portraits or female nudes if they are done in an honest way or how I would approach them myself. I think they can be held to standards, indeed high standards. Even the so called "boudoir "photographers-intent to seduce and be coyly teasing - can follow a guideline or technical set of standards. To sensualize but do it right in a delicate and even exciting way. Is that a bad thing. Nah no way. And how is the discussion charaterized to be weirdly- what did you write-,self gratifying and self congratulatory? I do not thinks so. There are legit differences and honest viewpoints.

I'm puzzled and a bit suspicious about the number of views of all the images in "Trending" compared to the number of comments while also considering the number of PN Forum Logins which is around 50 max average.

 

Also keep in mind each of the trending female model images were viewed separately within individual photographer galleries which means around 400 to 600 people (Views) are rummaging around PN galleries of these kind of photos where the number of views are generally the same. Who are these 400 to 600 people? Why aren't there more or less? Why so few comments?

 

Also, I don't know about the rest of you but it takes me forever to find specific individual images within a wide range of individual galleries regardless of genre or subject.

 

And why do all of them have the same slick and polished look of commercial stock photos? People are individuals with individual tastes. How are they finding just these and not something more organic and natural looking? This looks rigged!

Charles, I don't know where to begin. I won't take on all your points, so I'll just tackle your confusing sexuality and nudity with objectification. They're not the same. Actually, not really much of a tackle. It was pretty easy. I have no problem with either sexuality or nudity. Too bad you didn't get that. That's it.

I just perused the section of photos posted for critique, and I see the same proportion of the type of nudes we are talking about here.

Courts were asled, David, to set kind of boundary for the acceptable for public consumption of nudity..and they made a half assed try, Does it match community standards? That does mean it has to offend no one but is a normative standards. Fred, when you say culture has moved on from Mad Men I wonder. (Short shorts and tops high school girls wear to our communithy library would not make it past the Principal's office in the 1950s). Doesn't bother me as much as I were raising kids now, I am old school enough still. We here tend to not make the strictures too tight and allow blocking if one chooses. As I recall, courts have decided that community standards will be the gates around what we judge are profane and should be barred. Facebook has its own barrier. We clumsily manage to get along with things. Messy as they may seem. I do think that S and M is degrading to women. I do not know why that has appeal. But this discussing can get personal real fast. And as I am 80 and still look at women's bodies in a appraising way and love shooting women face and bodies when I get the opportunity, well I am not an average demographic of PN. So diversity is still a treetop higher than birds in flight, cats, and flowers alone or with bugs. I have aired my prejudices and I still do not fully ken objectification but I will think on it. Not a bad give and take.

Fred, when you say culture has moved on from Mad Men I wonder. (Short shorts and tops high school girls wear to our communithy library would not make it past the Principal's office in the 1950s).

Doesn't that show that culture and behavior have changed? It tells me that women are empowered now to wear what they want and male principals don't get to dictate what they wear, at least to the extent they used to in so many cases. That women may wear revealing clothing doesn't mean they're inviting guys with cameras to photograph their body parts and post them on the Internet.

As I recall, courts have decided that community standards will be the gates around what we judge are profane and should be barred.

Again, I'm not suggesting or advocating that any photos be barred from PN. I would be adamantly opposed to that. I can find something objectionable or annoying and say so and still defend its right to a presence here.

 

Agreed. Very reasonable give and take. My point was to hear opinions, not get anything banned.

I have not looked at any of the photos in the gallery for a long time but went over to trending to see what's up. I did see some photos of girls, some posed and some just walking around. Other pictures of landscapes and such. In general most of the pictures have to much photoshop and lacks appeal to me.

...That women may wear revealing clothing doesn't mean they're inviting guys with cameras to photograph their body parts and post them on the Internet.

Then they do not understand early 21st century: what is offered for public viewing, is ipso facto offered to be photographed. And what is photographed, can't be prevented from appearing on the 'net. It is not be how it should be, but it is how it is...