What's trending on Photo.net?

[Norma Desmond]

Anton, even if I agreed with you that the reality of our times is a lack of restraint by folks with cameras, I said the women aren't inviting the men to do this. If we have to understand that people with cameras and access to the Internet have no self control, we ought to also understand that being in public isn't an affirmative invitation to be photographed by every Tom, Dick, and Harry with photographically-charged hormones. Just because we can't prevent something doesn't mean we can't discuss it and create some genuine awareness around it, especially on a photography site.

 

The pedestrian and often cliche and cleansed style of so many of these photos, the lack of individuality afforded the women subjects, the obvious emotional distance of even some of the most potentially intimate setups is a tribute to objectification. I agree with some here that many of the landscapes and nature photos offered are no better, but from the human angle that doesn't provide me much comfort.

[rossb]

I am a cyclist myself and I see a lot of fat old guys standing on the side of the road in the mountains where I ride and taking pictures of the trees and such. For some reason they want to take a picture of me riding my bike. I do not care. The photo will suck but that is what the guy was hoping for just being out there in the worst light possible.

[Allen Herbert]

n"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".

 

Indeed thats it.

 

"the reality of our times is a lack of restraint by folks with cameras, I said the women aren't inviting the men to do this. If we have to understand that people with cameras and access to the Internet have no self control, we ought to also understand that being in public isn't an affirmative invitation to be photographed by every Tom, Dick, and Harry".Fred.

 

All those Documentry Photographers throughout time ought to understand that people in public isn't an affirmation invitation to be photographed by Tom, Dick, and Harry. Okay, if you are called Michael it might be okay....have to check with Fred on that one:)

 

I dont think there should be any restraint in photography particualary in a public place. Who decides the moral issues of what photograph should or not be taken? Who are the arbitors of moral judjement...pray do tell...curious. Perhaps us in Western society? The reality is photography offers windows into the world and often can be the arbitor of change. Think Vietnam.

 

Authoritarian regimes hate any freedoms of photographers...hate being the operative word.

 

So, lets throw away all the freedoms of photographers just because someones vanity might be hurt...hey, they forgot to shave. Perhaps the vain should look outside their vanity and think of the millions of their brothers and sisters suffering terribly in this world through no faualt of their own.

 

Just a few thoughts, Fred.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Allen Herbert

[Allen Herbert]

As far as taking photos of ladies, clothed or otherwise, that's the way of the world since time began. i doubt if any of the moral hand wringing will change that fact. Edited April 14, 2017 by Allen Herbert

[Tim_Lookingbill]

The "Trending" selections look like they were chosen by robots, so you can't assign too much human intent such as sexual attraction in the choices. I'm assuming all it takes is a few to click view on a photo and then the rest is automated.

 

There’s a growing problem of bots fighting each other online

Fighting online trolls with bots | The Huffington Post

 

They can even write comments that come across quite humanly meaningful and thought out.

[Allen Herbert]

Photographs are powerful...they are revealing, and open closed minds; often changing fixed opinions. A gun or bomb kills and does not really change anything.

 

A photograph has a message to tell...more scary than any gun or bomb. It has the power to change thought and opinion....bringing us closer to our humanity...the humanity which we all want to feel.

[GerrySiegel]

If I draw red lines, at least in my mind,it will pertain to the" sexualization" of the very young. I have not seen that kind of degradation on PN. Our library blocks all of PN so it clearly represents some folks idea that naked women are off limits. I guess one has to think of the views of the lowest common denominator when we make policy. It does not bother me much anymore. When I worked in the Boston Public Library there were closed stacks. Anything off limits is temptation hard to resist. I take not offense at what is presented in the trending. Though not much grabs my attention in a special way. Not a profound commentary. But one cannot satisfy all. I agree that photos can be powerful and now video as well which is in our hands so easily. Power to the people? Maybe. Edited April 15, 2017 by GerrySiegel

[Norma Desmond]

Ross, like you I don't generally care when my photo is taken by a stranger out in public and I imagine I'm unaware of it even happening sometimes. Don't know if you're married or have children, but let's suppose you had a daughter in her twenties who was walking down the street while you went into a nearby shop and that you came out of the shop to discover a guy walking behind your daughter pointing a camera at her rear end. Would you care?

[Norma Desmond]

Power to the people?

Yes, both to the photographer people and the people who are subjects of the photographers as well. Degradation is not limited to the "sexualization of the young." This is something most women I've spoken to have confirmed, have experienced, and feel deeply about. Once again, I'm not talking about laws or policy. I'm talking about our individual choices as viewers and photographers. This is meant as a discussion to bring something to light and encourage genuine thought and, perhaps, a voluntary reconsideration of our own practices or judgments. I suggest nothing official!

[GerrySiegel]

I have thought about the topic some. And two additional things come to mind. 1) If the photographer of glamour and pretty girls clothed or unclothed respects his subject then that will show. And if there is little respect and just a display designed to appeal to the lust factor, that too will show. And 2) the subject is a participant and has a lot to contribute. If there is a mutual agreement of professional collaboration then that too will show. It still gets down to personal definition of words like objectivification and shallowness. A bare shoulder does not a shallow female picture make. A seductive glance can be feminine in a fine sense of femininity. Eyeglasses are even allowed. Big aviator ones.

[Norma Desmond]

If the photographer of glamour and pretty girls clothed or unclothed respects his subject then that will show. And if there is little respect and just a display designed to appeal to the lust factor, that too will show.

I don't believe this to be the case. I think there are plenty of photographers who respect the people they shoot who aren't able to make a photo that doesn't objectify them. Photographs don't always exactly mirror reality. One poses people a certain way, one provides context, lighting, angles. All of that imposes certain qualities on the photo. I don't think all or even most objectification of women necessarily takes place intentionally. In many cases, it's more like a knee-jerk reaction, more subliminal and culturally or socially induced. Lingerie shots often tend to mimic other lingerie shots and seem to deal a lot in cliches and memes. That's more a default position than a well thought out plan. And that's exactly where photos can become objectifying even if the photographer behind the photo didn't mean to be. In the same way a lot of photographers would prefer to flatter their subjects and don't want to create unflattering photos of people but, alas, a whole lot of them do merely because they lack the skills, aesthetics, and sensibility to do a better job.

If there is a mutual agreement of professional collaboration then that too will show.

While this may be the case, I don't think it necessarily is. I've critiqued several shots over the years for showing the woman in objectifying terms where the photographer's response has been something like, "Well, the model loves it." I think it may be important to some photographers to please their models and who knows what the sensibility of every model is? But these photos are being put forth to a wider audience than just the model and I've seen many models accept some degree of objectification as part of the job. Also, what may not feel harmful to one model may indeed be seen as harmful to women in general. Some women work for less pay and may even agree willingly and not think there's something wrong with it. That doesn't make unequal pay right and it doesn't mean it doesn't denigrate women in general and even the woman who, for whatever reason, seems to somewhat readily accept it. Many people act willingly against their self interest for a variety of reasons. Just because a person collaborates in something doesn't mean it can't come off as demeaning. I suspect most of the phtotos in the nudes section on PN, even some of the most objectifying ones, are done with the consent and cooperation of the women involved. That's why they're not illegal and shouldn't be banned. But none of that assures a non-objectifying photo.

 

The reverse is also true. I've seen lots of photos taken on the street without collaboration, without agreement, without permission that don't objectify the subject involved. That's the magic of photography! And often the mark of a good photographer.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Norma Desmond

[Robin Smith]

At the risk of stating the obvious, some women (and men) have no problem being objectified: in fact they welcome it. We can ask why this should be so and how it is due to modern society's mores, sexualization etc. etc. but for some it is a confirmation of their attractiveness and therefore their purpose in the world. Perhaps this is shallow of them, but I have known people like this.

[anton_romar]

Could one of those that use the term "to objectify" please explain exactly what it means, and why is it considered a "bad thing"?

[DavidTriplett]

From Merriam-Webster:

to treat (someone) as an object rather than as a person

From Merriam-Webster: The assumption for this discussion, at least from my part, is that objectification tends to focus on a particular trait or aspect, to the degree that doing so denies or obscures the character of the whole being. One perspective on the objectification of women, as in a beauty contest or a girlie magazine, is that doing so encourages focus on external attributes to the exclusion of all others, and that doing so is to deny the humanity and human dignity of the person. The extreme example would be sexually explicit images the sole apparent purpose of which is to stimulate the viewer sexually, making of the subjects sexual objects only. This is the theory, or at least one perspective on it. It is not a one size fits all category, and what I might find to be "objectifying" and objectionable might fit another person's definition of high art.

[Norma Desmond]

Anton, I'm one who used the term and, no, I won't further explain it to you. If you're a) living in the 21st century; and/or b) have read through this thread and looked at some of the examples mentioned, it would be strange if you didn't already have an idea of what it means to objectify a woman and what people here are talking about. If you truly have no idea what it means, which I highly doubt, then you're proof that we still have a long way to go in reaching an understanding about women's lives on this planet. I probably wouldn't be able to help you by explaining my position more or providing even more examples than I already have here and if you're in need of being better informed, there are any number of helpful books at your local library or bookstore and probably any number of classes you could take or lectures you could attend at your local community college. You might even ask a high school kid you know what objectification of women means and I'd be surprised if most high school kids couldn't give you a reasonably coherent answer. Good luck!

[anton_romar]

English is - I thought this was obvious - not my mother tongue, I learned the language some years ago in a very good school in a land that used to be a British colony, and I never heard the term before.

 

BTW I still don't quite understand. Any living being is both a subject and an object, and it seems to me that we treat those as either of the two, or a mix of the two, depending on the context and purpose of the photograph all the time, with perfect justification. In other words - if I interpret correctly the dictionary quote provided - it might be a "description", but it is not automatically a "bad thing" as some of the above posters seem to imply.

[Norma Desmond]

Sorry, Anton. Did not realize English was not your first language. I agree we objectify people all the time and photos do it a lot, often in interesting and artful ways. People can become still lifes at times or simply become objects on the street in street scenes on occasion. For me, objectifying in a more negative sense is to dehumanize in a context crying out for humanization. When a shot of a woman is set up to feel intimate, with soft lighting and a kind of familiarity that gives a sense of closeness but the closeness feels empty and hollow and the woman doesn't feel like an individual but seems more like a stand-in for a type, I see a negative kind of objectification. When I sense that the main reason a woman appears in a photo is to satisfy typical and long-held stereotypes that men have of women, I find that an objectionable kind of objectification.

 

I did once initiate a thread in the Philosophy forum on objectification in photography where I talked at length about the more interesting uses of it. I'm not able right now to search for it and don't know how well the search function is currently working, but if I find it later I'll link to it here.

[DavidTriplett]

Anton, I recognize your situation, and, yes, this topic is subject to a number of nuanced interpretations. For a fairly direct discussion of objectification as it relates to women, there are a large number of resources available in a basic Web search. Here is just one: <LINK>

 

As you consider this topic, it is important to remember there are wide differences in cultural and social norms pertaining to the appropriate treatment of women. These attitudes can even vary greatly within a single social construct. In the US, the use of the female human body and its sex appeal in advertising is common, but decried by many as sexist and inappropriate. Still, such advertising responds to some basic human instincts, and remains effective, if controversial. Beyond advertising, the question of objectification continues to be a significant issue, particularly as it relates to the struggle for all people to achieve equal treatment. This discussion is singularly apropos to the arts in general, and photography in particular, in that representational arts have the power to frame and influence our perceptions of their subjects. While a photograph is a two-dimensional construct of emulsions or pixels, how we interpret it, and apply that interpretation to our attitudes towards the subject, matters a great deal, particularly to human subjects.

[GerrySiegel]

The meaning and flavor of words again. I see a range of descriptors that could apply to subject class of photos in the trending pages. From risque' to naughty to in your face indecent now and then and not often the latter. I would call risque' the milder sort nothing to affront the female half of the population or be a source of caution by male photographers of the female. (Though it would be nice to hear some comments from women ). If one wants to judge the submissions, that is fine and often useful. If one wants to raise a flag about broader cultural implications, that too is accepted. In discussing social implications I only point out that one has to be specific in how we use adjectives. Words are powerful and put an immediate spin on a subject. They cast a shadow over intent is what I mean. I intend this. You see that. Edited April 21, 2017 by GerrySiegel

[anton_romar]

Some of Eward Weston's photographs of female bodies is then "objectification" in the ultimate degree . My personal view of that opus is irrelevant, I simply note that the contemporary critical validation of early American photography considers them to be masterpieces. Is that a mistake?

[DavidTriplett]

contemporary critical validation of early American photography considers them to be masterpieces. Is that a mistake?

There, precisely, is the rub. Depending upon who you ask, the answer can be "Yes", "No", "Maybe", "Never", or even "Not then, yes today", etc.

[Norma Desmond]

To me, Anton, no, it's not a mistake to regard Weston's and other nudes as good art and as not offensive. Funny, I was going to add this to my previous post but time ran out to edit it. While nudes are objectifying in the sense that they are often about form rather than function or inner character, I don't see that as offensive, in most cases. If you read carefully what I wrote in my previous post, I find it troubling when objectification takes place in a context which seems to suggest more human, individual, and emotional content. Sometimes we compare photos of male and female bodies to landscapes and that's appropriate and, to me, unobjectionable because the context of a fine art nude seems to suggest that kind of treatment. But zooming in on a woman's rear end from behind while she's walking down the street is a far cry from Weston. And stereotyping women in flirty poses in typical scanty attire where they are there not for the contemplation of their form as they are in a Weston but for the titillation of the viewer which I never thought Weston was after is also a kind of objectification that can bother me. Some boudoir shots that provide a pretense of intimacy but are really not intimate at all read negatively to me as well.