Which one: subjet or object?

W.H.Auden says: photography turns subjects into objects.

I think: photography turns objects into subjects.

Idealists argue: there are only subjects.

Realists claim: all is objects.

And ... camera lens is called: "objective".

 

Now, what is yout take?

Plato: to be is to do.

 

Socrates: to do is to be.

 

Sinatra: shoo be do be do.

 

Tom

<i>W.H.Auden says: photography turns subjects into objects. I think: photography turns objects into subjects.</i>

<p>

You are both mistaken.

My initial feeling is that when shooting people the former is true, and when photographing inanimate "things" the latter is true. Many of the ideas pushed in the philosophy of photography (or art in gerneral) depends strongly on one's methods and (for lack of a better word) subjects. <p>Todd Schoenbaum<br><a href="http://www.celluloidandsilver.com">Celluloid and Silver<a/>

Only artists can turn objects into subjects. Lenses are tools.

 

Maybe there is some use for us after all ........

I have another take:

 

"You say potato, I say potahto,

 

You say tomato, I say tomahto,

 

Oh, let's call the whole thing off.

 

Thank you Miss LeVine

 

That's LeVeen."

 

I can't take this seriously. Sorry if I'm being a wise-acre, but it seems like a meaningless

riddle to me. Sort of like "life is a river, we flow along its banks." Sounds good, even

profound, but it doesn't mean anything.

 

Tom

So: the Tao of photography? 8) I agree that photography can be used to objectify people and, well, objects. I do not think that is a given, though.

Nothing moves.

 

Where would it go?

I think if you are in control of a photo - then it becomes either a subject or object.

 

If you take a photo of a person and allow them to decide with you how a photo works, then they are people, neither subject nor object.

 

I think object/subject is about photographer attitudes. If you want to control, it is a subject, if you want to remain aloof and far away, perhaps an object.

 

I don't view people for example as subjects because I give them as much power (often - but not always) in a photo as I have, and I am not so distant from them that they are objects, as I communicate with them about what they wish to communicate as well as what i wish.

 

All through india I have tried to treat people as people, not photo opportunities or things that i must record. i hear their little stories, tell them mine, decide with them on how the shot will work, take the shot, show them, and perhaps take another. then I often give them my email address or take theirs to send them, or even mail.

 

People approach me for a photo and ask me to do it a specific way and I do it, they are not the subject at all, if anything I am.

 

Subject and object are good ways to de-humanise photography. of course, fashion, nudes and other more artistic styles of photography are different, and ones without people, different again.

 

Anyhow, my little piece.

 

Read Burden of Visual Truth, it clarifies a lot of the preconcieved attitudes that photographers can have.

The photographers are the true subjects to the one whole that is photography.

The one whole that is photography is subject to the photographer.

Tom.. I feel really stupid laughing all alone here. I love your comments, but... please, then explain to us y u are in this forum. what in this world is less "palpable" or serious than "philosophy of Photography"? ;-)

I think that turnig objects into subjects (if I will be ever able to) is what makes me keeping on shooting.

Keep on commenting though. I like it too much!!

Kraig: Those are very good. Thanks :)

You're welcome.

We'r all subjects of the object,

 

and

 

Objects in the subject.

 

 

The subject is naught without being an object,

 

and

 

The object is naught until being a subject.

 

 

Or something of the sort!

Hi, I loved Tom's comments, made me smile.

 

I find that there is a camera, I use it, and then I have a photo.

 

I think of intentionality, because I do... We are creatures of intent, like it or not.

 

Cheers.

I indend to habitually improve my photographic subjectivity :P

I also intend to work on my spelling, but photography is first.

I'm with Auden. Does anybody here have figure drawing experience? I have a little, and believe me when I say that a pretty, nude, girl becomes an arrangement of shapes pretty early into a five-hour session. If you look at something long enough and objectively enough, you begin to see it as just a conglomeration of parts with light falling on them.

 

I think the same is true with photography; why else would we be so concerned with lighting and composition if not to emphasize or deemphasize shapes and forms and concave/convex surfaces?

Hi Greg, I have some figure drawing experience too.

I agree that to draw something or someone we can see many shapes.

Also there is beauty and much pleaure to be had in the process.

 

With photography I think we often do it to make memories.

Greg Seto , apr 24, 2005; 03:38 p.m.

"If you look at something long enough and objectively enough, you begin to see it as just a conglomeration of parts with light falling on them."

 

I think that's partly because you're looking with the intention of creating a 2D object that resembles the 3D subject, and the way light falls suggests the form. If you were a sculptor you'd begin to see the person as weight and structure. If you were a biographer you'd see attitude, personality and the like.

 

One object, turned into many subjects by different artists.

 

But to me the most interesting thing is what happened inside you while you were drawing, and the physical evidence of that, be it pencil marks or creasing of the paper.