Do your photographs objectify?

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Heri</strong>, thanks for bringing sublimation into the mix, which I certainly wouldn't have thought of. I think it's a great counterpoint to objectification.</p>

<p>"Sublimation" is commonly used two ways. One is as Arthur has said: a substance going from a solid to a gas. In that way, it would seem the opposite of objectification. There are many ways I can look at that from the standpoint of photographs. One is going from what I see as viewer, the photograph as object, to the ideas and feelings the photograph stimulates. Another is Arthur's sense in which the physical becomes the imaginary in the mind of the photographer. Going from solid to gas suggests to me a lack of restraint. Maybe a nice description of some photographers' method of visualizing.</p>

<p>Heri, I disagree with this: <em>"In such a state [of sublimation], he cannot objectify, let alone exploit."</em> I think the photographer, and anyone, can do both. I see both objectification and sublimation in many acts and in many photographs. The tension of seeming opposites is found in a lot of photographs. Any portrait I make can be an objectification in the sense that it makes concrete (and visual) qualities of that person and it also can utilize that concretization to open up from the specific person being photographed to more universal emotional expressions and appeals.</p>

<p>Sublimation is also used to talk about transfers of "psychic" energy: "He sublimated his anger by chopping enough wood for the week." Seems somewhat related to the old Aristotelian idea of drama as catharsis. I can sublimate a variety of emotions and feelings (both negative and positive) in producing a photograph.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><strong>SUBJECT, OBJECT</strong></p>

<p>Well, this is all very fascinating, but I am having trouble knowing when the line has been crossed into either objectification or exploitation. Here is one by Josh previously commented on:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/9783274</p>

<p>Here is yet another by someone else:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11133215</p>

<p>Does the model's bold gaze take away the perception of exploitation, or she is merely complicit in it? to what extent is she objectified? </p>

<p>To what extent is any photographic subject <em>not</em> also object?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[heri_rakotomalala]

<p>Don,<br>

by oneness with nature or oneness with subject, I meant understanding the subject, by being in the same state. The opposite of "oneness with subject" would be acting like a movie director and viewing the scene and its elements as if they were mere props on a movie set, to be setup and placed according to your own vision of what they should be instead. That's where objectification begins; and instead of capturing the essence of a moment and a subject, you are instead adding your own reality. It works and many do it, but in my opinion, a great photograph taken in the "movie director" mindset requires much more preparation time than just capturing the essence, since you need to fine-tune every object or person's position and pose and light, and spend a great deal of time to try to make it look good. In the other mindset, it requires more time at the beginning to recognize what's in front of you, but imho it makes ultimately better photographs.</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>For what is sublimation, for me it's more about transformation. You see a lone crane looking for food on a shore. You like the scene. You sit down and take the time observe it. Then you realize it's the gracefulness of the crane that makes the scene beautiful. The way its thin long legs dip into the water. Its delicate yet precise movements. How the crane stops serenely time to time. As a photographer, you fully dedicate your skills to capture it... And a great photograph is taken.</p>

<p>So you transformed an ordinary scene into an illustration of gracefulness. The crane was sublimated into gracefulness. <br>

Never in the process the subject was objectified. Instead you understood the nature of the crane.</p>

<p>... and yes of course, it's possible to objectify or exploit in photography. A camera is only just a tool after all</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Heri</strong>, you talk about "essences." Is the crane taking a crap less essential than the grace of the crane's neck?</p>

<p>I do what I consider to be a lot of staged portraits, yet many of them happen quickly without the kind of preparation you describe. There are many non-arranged aspects of a "staged" photograph and staging can be accomplished in the same instant as "just capturing an essence." "Staged" can be a way of seeing as well as a time-consuming setting up. I've gotten a staged feel in some fairly instantaneous street shooting. I also think one can objectify in the blink of an eye . . . or not.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>The ubiquitousness of objectification seems to nullify the concept. Perhaps some examples of photographs (not necessarily your own) that do <em>not </em>objectify, or are minimally objectifying would help to contrast with the apparent omnipresence of objectification.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ubiquitousness of objectification in no way nullifies the concept. Up until a certain time in history, every photograph was taken in black and white? Did that nullify the significance of how to think about and work with black and white in photographs? That all photographs may objectify does not make it like a simplistic on and off switch. It's not important to me whether every photograph objectifies. The way in which and the extent to which they do is what I, and many of us, have been considering.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>Ubiquitousness of objectification in no way nullifies the concept. Up until a certain time in history, every photograph was taken in black and white?"</p>

<p>Apples and oranges, Fred. One concerns the limits of available materials, the other is purely conceptual. When we were busy chipping flint, there was no question of drawing a french curve. Later, when we could, when to employ it, and how, became an issue.<br /> <strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>I said "seems" to nullify the concept, Fred, anticipating your response. All I was doing was asking for examples of photographs that minimally objectify. Instead, I got the usual intellectual machismo. I never alluded to a "simplistic, on-off switch" as Fred tries to pin on me (why, other than to aggressively invalidate my thinking and/or self-aggrandizement, is beyond me). This kind of thing drives people out of this forum, and makes me (sadly) understand why <strong>JK </strong>brought up the authority thing.</p>

<p>The question is still open: Where are some examples of non-or-minimally objectifying photographs?</p>

<p>If the idea is not important to Fred, why does he bother to shoot it down?</p>

<p>It cannot be a new concept to anyone here that sometimes we can learn about something by studying its opposite, or its absence.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>The way in which and the extent to which they do is what I, and many of us, have been considering."</p>

<p> But surely you can't be positing the idea that what you (and the <em>Substantifs you speak for)</em> been considering is all there is to this. Would you be happier with a forum of your own? Or dictating the limits of the very topics you've chosen? Unfortunately for you and your group, and fortunately for the rest of us, this is a much richer vein than you realize, and so far, PN staff isn't censoring or admonishing anyone.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>If everything is objectification, then nothing is objectification.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, instead of consistently asking others questions and asking others to come up with examples, take a risk sometime and put forth some ideas. Perhaps if you stopped lying in wait for our responses and put forth some independent ideas yourself, these interactions would be more productive and less contentious. Yes, I know you ask questions already anticipating responses (your own words). That's why it was so easy to see through your transparent request and I didn't take the bait.</p>

<p><strong>Lannie</strong>, every photo being an example of objectification is not the same as "everything <em>is</em> objectification." Kind of Logic 101.</p>

<p>With that, I'm going to take a long break from this forum. It's been getting more and more unproductive. You guys deal with it the you want from now on.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>It was a good thread, Fred. Thanks.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred's parting wisdom was: "</strong>You guys deal with it the you want from now on."</p>

<p> Er... we sure appreciate going off-leash hereabouts, but....that's <strong>exactly</strong> <em>the way it is supposed to be, isn't it? How else should it be? The leash stifles discussions here, and keeps them monotonic. </em></p>

<p><em>Suggestive, open-minded guidance is an entirely different matter, but we had wandered far from that.<br /></em></p>

<p><em>__________________________<br /></em></p>

<p> No one was plotting against Fred or his thread. Some of us had our own (unsubstantive) ideas, and thinking we were free to do so, dared to voice them. Not with any intent to take away from the discussion, but with the intent of adding to it in our own way.</p>

<p>_________________________</p>

<p> Asking for an example of a photograph with low (or little) objectification is not irrelevant or counter to anything regarding this thread. If we can't account for the absence, degrees, or dearth of something that is claimed to be everywhere, how can we account for its presence in our photographs --- or anyone's? If everyone objectifies in their pictures, and we can't tell by how much, not even to the blunt level of more or less than, it renders the OP and the claims of those busy objectifying in their work less than substantive.</p>

<p>_________________________</p>

 

[Julie H]

<p>Geez Louise, Luis. Don't make these kind of "I dare you" posts while I'm trying to work. I can't help myself. How about this as an example of a low-objectifiation example [<em>disclaimer: I'm in full Devil's advocate mode. I changed into costume in the nearest phone booth </em>...]:<br>

<a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/Imageshare/ph/large/DP143679.jpg">http://www.metmuseum.org/Imageshare/ph/large/DP143679.jpg</a></p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The way in which and the extent to which they do [objectify] is what I, and many of us, have been considering.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, what Fred was saying was quite useful.</p>

<p>Julie, thank you for another winner.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Objectification or not, Julie, those chairs and "head shadows" offer a lot of possibilities to explore, visually and metaphorically. It is in fact dangerous to show them to other starving photographers like me..... Next visit to the Met, ...</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Fred almost always has insightful, thoughtful, helpful pearls scattered throughout his writing. That's never been in doubt.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - </strong>"The way in which and the extent to which they do [objectify] is what I, and many of us, have been considering."</p>

<p> ...and the rest of us have been considering the same thing in our own way. To grasp just what that is, specially <em>the extent, </em>it may help to see pictures that are relatively low in objectification. I wasn't daring anyone to come up with one. They're all over the place.</p>

<p>A hearty thanks to Julie. That's a start. It's hinting that "is-ness" is a low objectification factor. OTOH, there's a strong human presence manifested (or objectified) in that picture.</p>

<p>Ps. Anything that brings Julie out in a devilette's costume is a good thing. I didn't know there were any public phones, let alone booths left!</p>

<p>________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Luis, it isn't a costume. . . . That's Julie as, um, God made her.</p>

<p>[Objectification taking place without benefit of photo. . . .]</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I wonder if this topic can be recast since "objectify" seems to trip up just about all of us.</p>

<p><strong>"To ojectify is to mess with the definition of an object or being."</strong> Nah. Never works. Our conception of stuff is infinitely fuzzy and fluid; contingent, etc. To some greater or lesser degree, the instant you perceive something/anything you objectify it in order to make sense of it. But you also don't objectify because it is "in play." Becoming.</p>

<p><strong>"To objectify is to mess with the field (or board if you're a checkers/chess sitting-down kind of person) on which this game is being played."</strong> Nah. In experience, you can't separate the players from the field. They are the same stuff. What is not "player"? What is not "field"? If there's no division, how can you "objectify"?</p>

<p><strong>"To objectify is to put the players on/in a non-native field (take them out of their native setting)." </strong>Heck no. That just makes them less objectified. They look weird and so more individualized.</p>

<p><strong>"To objectify is to bound/limit/frame the field. Make it smaller. Very much smaller."</strong> Nope. All photographs do that, just as they all "objectify." Close-up photography is usually not about objectification; it's about native detail.</p>

<p><strong>"To objectify is to make those boundaries the POINT of the picture. To force (more or less) the thing/being/subject into a frame that is either non-native or highly constricted and then make that constriction the point of the picture, or at least the overt means to the point of the picture."</strong> I think this one gets me the closest to what I think of as being meant or pointed to when someone talks about "objectificatioin" in photography.</p>

<p>Of course, the big requirement of that last one is that the players have to play on the new constricted or non-native field. If they just lie there looking pissed and out of place ... "Houston, we have a problem."</p>

<p>One last little bit: both "concrete" (or "concretize") and "inert" are, in my belief, simply not possible in experience. To make overt boundaries is not to "fix" or stop the content of the image. It is to condense it. Like soup. As soon as you take it in, play with it, it ... dilates.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> That was a breath of fresh air! Much more realistic, organic, gestalt-y and full of possibility. It harkens back to what we were skirting with the exchanges on color. I stubbed my toe on it when catching myself on the "inert" word.</p>

<p> That condensation has its opposite effect as well. Boundaries are like someone whispering in your ear not to think of a pink elephant (or whatever lies outside). Perhaps this is why so many conscious efforts to objectify end up looking so hamfisted/contrived/artificial.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

<p>Photographs describe the appearance of objects. The appearance is excerpted from the real object. The absence of the other attributes of an object encourages the desire to complete or 'fully realize' the appearance, to give it what it lacks (realness), not only meaning or significance (and a means to communicate it), but sometimes also to 'flesh out' the appearance with constructs of its missing reality by introducing sound, music, text, and sequential images. These seem to be attempts imbue the appearance of the object with the realities of its real world model which lives and breathes, has volume and depth, sound and smell, movement, change and history.</p>

<p>Another response to the photographic appearance of objects is to accept they are without meaning or significance, life or reality, and therefore are exploitable, mere raw material for art or just goofing around in Photoshop.</p>

<p>Another approach is to enjoy and participate in the theater of appearances, to let the object appear as it wants, to not demand that mere appearance display more than itself evoking meaning or significance, and be more than what it is -- or, in sum, to be what it would be if it were real.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p> I'm still thinking of a non-objective photograph. Do abstract photographs objectify?</p>

[don_essedi]

"Do abstract photographs objectify?"

<p>

 

Was there an object in front of the lens when the photo was taken?

[Julie H]

<p><strong>Mr. G</strong>,<br>

"Do abstract photographs objectify?" No.</p>

<p>Objectification is dependent on, plays off of, requires that some part of the native identity of the "thing" remain or even (probably) be accentuated/intensified. It's the tension between that native identity and the constricting/non-native boundary imposed by the photographer that does what I believe is being suggested in this thread as "objectification."</p>

<p>Abstraction* depends upon, requires that native identity be wiped out; effaced. Effectively, it's gone. Not there. It's like the graphite left by a pencil; used but not seen as such. I get the words without the graphite ever "rising" to consciousness.</p>

<p>[*<em>speaking theoretically about the idealized, perfect and perfectly complete abstraction</em>]</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Objectification is dependent on, plays off of, requires that some part of the native identity of the "thing" remain or even (probably) be accentuated/intensified.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And perception itself can be that "thing" photographed, and intensified and <em>expressed,</em> through an abstraction. With the photograph as subject matter ( *to objectify*, or not ) rather than the subject being photographed.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>As Phylo rightly suggests, the perception is what is photographed, and if that perception is, or is then rendered, in abstract form, then the photograph becomes the subject matter rather than the object (subject) photographed. A very strong statement about the nature of abstract art or photography, without going into a discussion about the visual elements important in abstract art.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I think you misunderstand Phylo, but in any event, the topic at hand, and the local question in particular ("Do abstract photographs objectify?") is a discussion of "the visual elements."</p>

<p>Representation of texture and form are rarely entirely absent even in the most abstract photograph -- detached/divorced from native identity though they will be.</p>