Forums > General Industry > Objectification of women in photography.

Photographer

D. Brian Nelson

Posts: 5477

Rapid City, South Dakota, US

Yes.

Nov 17 13 01:44 pm Link

Photographer

Kincaid Blackwood

Posts: 23492

Los Angeles, California, US

Well, the women in your photographs certainly aren't depicted reading books or working on quantum physics, are they? And regardless of how diverse they actually are or what they actually do, we see them all a certain way in those photos. As taken as an extension of your eye coupled with your statement that you do attempt to show the viewer something about these models, one could make the argument that they're reduced to what we see by you as opposed to you expanding on who they are.

So I'm actually surprised that your son is the first person other than yourself who has said your photos objectify. But I (quite happily) objectify the women in my photos. And they are pretty happy with that, doing so with full knowledge. Which, in a number of meaningful respects, actually aligns with feminist ideology: women doing whatever the fuck they want to do and not conforming to the preconceived notions of how they ought to behave (not the preconceived notions of men or those of feminists).

Nov 17 13 02:01 pm Link

Model

D A N I

Posts: 4627

Little Rock, Arkansas, US

If women are upset they'd do something about it. Trust me, women are loud and will let problems be heard even if you don't want to hear them.

I personally enjoy being objectified. I try hard to be overly sexy and sexually appealing to those that view my photos. Why? Because I enjoy it. I work hard at what I do and for the body I have (and I plan to make it even better) so I want others to enjoy it as well.

Nov 17 13 02:23 pm Link

Photographer

DougBPhoto

Posts: 39248

Portland, Oregon, US

LOL, first post is 2005 !!!

At least the OP is still here big_smile


FWIW, women are objectified, men are objectified, cars are objectified, food is objectified, the list could easily go on.

For people, if someone does not like how their likeness is is being used/portrayed, don't pose for it.   If you don't like certain types of images, don't look at them.

Pretty simple.




(*obvious exception for stock phots used to advertise things never intended/expected such as dating sites, drugs to cure std's, boner pills, etc.)

Nov 17 13 02:29 pm Link

Photographer

Darren Brade

Posts: 3351

London, England, United Kingdom

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Bump.

First time I've seen OP bump his own 8 year ZOMBIE Thread!

Nov 17 13 02:41 pm Link

Photographer

Bob Helm Photography

Posts: 18896

Cherry Hill, New Jersey, US

Feminists do not really agree on everything, just like nonFeminists don't agree. Infact few will agree on what a feminist is. Like all other issues some will say yes, some no and in the end who really cares what they think. What you and your clients think matters.

Nov 17 13 02:45 pm Link

Photographer

Click Hamilton

Posts: 36555

San Diego, California, US

What does "objectification of women" mean?


Is slathering on makeup an objectification of women?

Is modeling in general objectification of women?

Is fashion, jewelry and trendy clothes an objectification of women?

Is photographing women who objectify themselves an objectification of women?

Nov 17 13 03:04 pm Link

Photographer

D. Brian Nelson

Posts: 5477

Rapid City, South Dakota, US

Darren Brade wrote:
First time I've seen OP bump his own 8 year ZOMBIE Thread!

But not the first time I've done it.

Nov 17 13 03:04 pm Link

Model

Model Sarah

Posts: 40983

Columbus, Ohio, US

Don, it's interesting you ask this question because I used to look at your photography that way. When I worked with you back in 06, I specifically said I did not want to be the subject of your work in your portfolio. You ended up taking a portrait of me that is to date my favorite portrait. At the time I don't think you were happy with it, but now I know you love it.

I try extremely hard not to work with people who objectify women, and believe me after modeling for 10 years there are PLENTY of them out there. I think my work shows I do not enjoy working with people like that. One of the reasons you will never see me in lingerie or looking like a certain mans idea of what sexy is. I'm a model to help people tell stories and be creative not to be objectified. I know what sexy and beautiful is and if I want to explore photographing that I'll do self portraits. smile

Nov 17 13 03:04 pm Link

Photographer

ms-photo

Posts: 538

Portland, Oregon, US

How old is that book?  The second wave of feminism, which is concerned with the objectification of women, is already over.  Now we're on to the third wave, which says women can do what they want with their own bodies.

Nov 17 13 03:13 pm Link

Photographer

Click Hamilton

Posts: 36555

San Diego, California, US

Martha Nussbaum (1995) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:

1.    instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;

2.    denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;

3.    inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;

4.    fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;

5.    violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;

6.    ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);

7.   denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.



Don, none of these sound like you at all. IMHO, the way you treat women has been nothing less than a shining example for the rest of us. Women who shoot with you generally rave about you.

Nov 17 13 03:15 pm Link

Photographer

D. Brian Nelson

Posts: 5477

Rapid City, South Dakota, US

Click, during the several years of discussion, yours (Nussbaum's) are the clearest criteria I've seen. Maybe we've been talking all along without adequately defining our terms.

I just re-read the complete thread once again, and am impressed by how much thought was put into it by so many people. There were a few lapses and trivialities, but most people care about the effects of photography on those involved.

Anyway, once it re-lapses into obscurity I'll probably be back to "bump" it again in a few years.

Nov 17 13 04:27 pm Link

Photographer

Carle Photography

Posts: 9271

Oakland, California, US

I need to read this thread and see what I wrote years ago and see how I think on the subject today...

Gimme a minute...

Edit:


It looks like I was too busy being objectified by others to write much about my thoughts on the subject.

I have a question, with your pondering of a new project...

Would you be willing to photograph me again?

Nov 17 13 04:30 pm Link

Photographer

Kincaid Blackwood

Posts: 23492

Los Angeles, California, US

Click Hamilton wrote:
Martha Nussbaum (1995) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:

1.    instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;

2.    denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;

3.    inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;

4.    fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;

5.    violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;

6.    ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);

7.   denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.



Don, none of these sound like you at all. IMHO, the way you treat women has been nothing less than a shining example for the rest of us. Women who shoot with you generally rave about you.

They don't sound like HIM or they don't sound like his work? While this is not a critique of his work, I could say off the top that no.7 is a veritable truth in the work, as is no.4 (aside from the fact that they are different women in the strict sense of acknowledging that they're different people, how are they effectively different from one another aside from surface distinctions?).

Also, one could easily argue that no.3 is true as well. We all pretty much accept that each one is doing exactly what they choose to do as individuals, but the fact that they're all doing more or less the exact same thing really gives the appearance of having no real agency (control) in the situation. Otherwise, we'd see pictures of them doing something else somewhere else. From that, no.2 could be argued also.

Not the least of which is el número uno. If there's no agenda present in the work, then why is each woman masturbating (or seeming to or about to or just finished or whatever)? That's a pretty specific task in the wide range of activities a woman might engage in, clothed or unclothed. You don't look at those pictures and think "I think she's alseep. Or maybe she's thinking of the article she just wrote on sex trafficking of minors in the US. No no! I bet she's about to go write her legal brief before going to court!"

Think of it this way: you and I know Don's work for at least the time of this thread's inception. So we know people who've worked with him (or not) and may know something of why he does his work. But more often than not, people are going to spend moments looking at our work (individual images or a collective) and no more. Even if it was hanging in a gallery, how long do most people spend with a given piece? A couple of minutes, and that's if they love it. So to the casual viewer or the intellectual, a comprehensive look doesn't lead one to unequivocally state that it is not objectification. It just doesn't.

Now, I'll also argue that objectification is fine but it is what it is.

Nov 17 13 05:04 pm Link

Photographer

D. Brian Nelson

Posts: 5477

Rapid City, South Dakota, US

Carle Photography wrote:
Would you be willing to photograph me again?

Mariah, depending on the project, yes I'd love to. Given the awful time constraints and light issues we had at that stupid Anaheim hotel, I wanted a reshoot then but our distance was an issue.

Would you be willing to model?

KB, it would be nice to be able to click "Like" on your analysis, but no such button exists here.

Nov 17 13 05:14 pm Link

Photographer

Lumatic

Posts: 13750

Brooklyn, New York, US

Every representation of a person is an objectification of that person, by virtue of the fact that it is a representation and not the person.  The degree of removal is dependent on context.

When you show a picture of a loved one, for example, the most common thing to say is, "This is my son."  But what you're showing is not your son, but a photograph of your son, which is in itself an object.  In other words, that portrait is a representative construct of your son produced through your own point of view at one moment in the past.  It lacks any of his own self-expression in real time.

Bringing that around to the subject of photographing models, the context becomes even more clear.  The very term "model" is a dehumanized term - not necessarily in a derogatory way, but as a function within the photograph.  If the model's job is to represent something beyond a portrayal of herself, then she immediately becomes a conceptual representation within the context of the frame, whether it's of sex, beauty, commerce or what have you.  That's objectification.

BUT... people only seem to call it "objectification," let alone demonize the term, when it negatively reflects people in some way.  I don't hear many complaints about Mercedes running an ad portraying the concept of luxury with a shot of their car.  Nobody has a problem thinking about "luxury" when they see a Mercedes on the road because it's already an inanimate object. 

However, if you portray a woman in a generalized, conceptual manner that's acceptable (intelligent, confident, etc.), there are no complaints or accusations of objectification even though you've still objectified her.  Do it in a manner that's not acceptable and you've suddenly violated the sanctity of personhood for an entire gender.  She, and all women by extension, become the object of (insert derogatory concept here), even though the photograph is the actual object and not the person in the photograph. 

Context is everything in terms of meaning.  Intent is what determines content inside of that, and that's where things start to get interesting.

Nov 17 13 06:25 pm Link

Photographer

Mikey McMichaels

Posts: 3356

New York, New York, US

Click Hamilton wrote:
7.   denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.[/i]

There are feminists who argue that the act of describing a photo as objectifying is an act of objectification because it does just this.


It may not be objectively possible to determine whether a photo is objectifying without interacting with the subject.


I do think it's possible to make a photo where the subject is the person's body as an object and not their humanity. I also think it's possible to shoot someone's body as an object that is expressing their humanity/feelings, but that's not as common, and probably not possible to know unless you were there for the creation.

Nov 17 13 08:43 pm Link

Photographer

Mikey McMichaels

Posts: 3356

New York, New York, US

Lumatic wrote:
Every representation of a person is an objectification of that person, by virtue of the fact that it is a representation and not the person.  The degree of removal is dependent on context.

When you show a picture of a loved one, for example, the most common thing to say is, "This is my son."  But what you're showing is not your son, but a photograph of your son, which is in itself an object.  In other words, that portrait is a representative construct of your son produced through your own point of view at one moment in the past.  It lacks any of his own self-expression in real time.

Bringing that around to the subject of photographing models, the context becomes even more clear.  The very term "model" is a dehumanized term - not necessarily in a derogatory way, but as a function within the photograph.  If the model's job is to represent something beyond a portrayal of herself, then she immediately becomes a conceptual representation within the context of the frame, whether it's of sex, beauty, commerce or what have you.  That's objectification.

BUT... people only seem to call it "objectification," let alone demonize the term, when it negatively reflects people in some way.  I don't hear many complaints about Mercedes running an ad portraying the concept of luxury with a shot of their car.  Nobody has a problem thinking about "luxury" when they see a Mercedes on the road because it's already an inanimate object. 

However, if you portray a woman in a generalized, conceptual manner that's acceptable (intelligent, confident, etc.), there are no complaints or accusations of objectification even though you've still objectified her.  Do it in a manner that's not acceptable and you've suddenly violated the sanctity of personhood for an entire gender.  She, and all women by extension, become the object of (insert derogatory concept here), even though the photograph is the actual object and not the person in the photograph. 

Context is everything in terms of meaning.  Intent is what determines content inside of that, and that's where things start to get interesting.

People use the term pejoratively, even though when it's used accurately it's simply objective, not subjective.


It's a very safe way to criticize something you don't like.

Nov 17 13 08:50 pm Link

Photographer

fussgangerfoto

Posts: 156

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

In 25 or 50 years, your hand-wringing will be meaningless. You make art, and damn well, and the women seem to be willing partners in the collaboration, so relax.

Nov 17 13 08:56 pm Link

Photographer

Click Hamilton

Posts: 36555

San Diego, California, US

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
They don't sound like HIM or they don't sound like his work? While this is not a critique of his work, I could say off the top that no.7 is a veritable truth in the work, as is no.4 (aside from the fact that they are different women in the strict sense of acknowledging that they're different people, how are they effectively different from one another aside from surface distinctions?).

Also, one could easily argue that no.3 is true as well. We all pretty much accept that each one is doing exactly what they choose to do as individuals, but the fact that they're all doing more or less the exact same thing really gives the appearance of having no real agency (control) in the situation. Otherwise, we'd see pictures of them doing something else somewhere else. From that, no.2 could be argued also.

Not the least of which is el número uno. If there's no agenda present in the work, then why is each woman masturbating (or seeming to or about to or just finished or whatever)? That's a pretty specific task in the wide range of activities a woman might engage in, clothed or unclothed. You don't look at those pictures and think "I think she's alseep. Or maybe she's thinking of the article she just wrote on sex trafficking of minors in the US. No no! I bet she's about to go write her legal brief before going to court!"

Think of it this way: you and I know Don's work for at least the time of this thread's inception. So we know people who've worked with him (or not) and may know something of why he does his work. But more often than not, people are going to spend moments looking at are work (individual images or a collective) and no more. Even if it was hanging in a gallery, how long do most people spend with a given piece? A couple of minutes, and that's if they love it. So to the casual viewer or the intellectual, a comprehensive look doesn't lead one to unequivocally state that it is not objectification. It just doesn't.

Now, I'll also argue that objectification is fine but it is what it is.

Some random thoughts ...

- Feminists masturbate too

- Masturbation and seedy hotel photos are almost as cliche on MM now as wings and caution tape, but when Don was compiling these particular portfolio themes he was a pioneer. Bold and emancipated women were coming to him from all over the country, at least, to be a part of these projects.

- Don is an exceptionally sensitive, thoughtful and polite, and an artistic explorer of many subjects, in many ways. He might even be a feminist himself, although I'm not sure about that wink

I have never known him to be disrespectful of anyone.

The idea of "objectifying" someone seems as far away as the moon when it comes to the way Don treats the people who work with him.

Nov 17 13 08:59 pm Link

Photographer

D. Brian Nelson

Posts: 5477

Rapid City, South Dakota, US

Click and I, and Kincaid and I, are old friends. Disclaimer, sorta. This wasn't supposed to specifically be about me, but a general discussion of the concept back when it originated almost eight years ago.

My work has changed, my thoughts on objectification have changed, and Click, some models that have worked with me don't like me very much.

Maybe now "objectification" isn't the dirty word it was back then. As someone pointed out, feminism has moved on. I haven't kept up. Maybe once again it's OK to hold doors for women.

But maybe an underlying topic here is more like this:

Are participants changed by photography? (Maybe it should even be narrowed to men photographing women?)

I know that having been close to many attractive women because of photography has affected how I relate to physically unattractive women. Or maybe how I react. I suspect that women who are valued for attractiveness (i.e. models) may have relationship issues because of that. I expect there are even more effects that go even deeper. Sontag explored the substantial changes that photography made on society and culture - what has this particular kind of photography done to us personally?

Would the above be outside the parameters of the original topic?

Don

Nov 17 13 09:27 pm Link

Photographer

Don Garrett

Posts: 4984

Escondido, California, US

If women are objectified in photography, they certainly play along with it, and most of them don't complain too much in the process.
  I would argue, that if someone doesn't want to "be an object", then they shouldn't, so willingly, be a subject.
-Don

Nov 17 13 09:30 pm Link

Photographer

Light and Lens Studio

Posts: 3450

Sisters, Oregon, US

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
When my #2 son was studying philosophy at Brown, we had an argument.  He'd taken a course on the history of feminist philosophy and was convinced that my objectification of women via photograpahy was devaluing women as a gender.   I argued that by eschewing traditional image as ownership or male sex fantasy images, that I was more or less doing portraiture, or photography of women as they are, or possibly as they should be.  (Should be?  According to whom?  Me, I guess.  How godlike of me... and how objectifying.)

Since that conversation I've thought more about it.  I do idealize the women in my photographs.  I intentionally make them look beautiful, whether or not beauty is the primary value any person, male or female, should have.  On the other hand, all I have to work with is light reflecting from surfaces, so maybe beauty is all that I can show, other virtues being just too hard.

And photography, particularly of women, does objectify in the sense that they are being substituted for other traditional subjects like "apple, fish, bowl, platter."  They are treated photographically as that still life would be - arranged, lit and recorded.

With the advice of a model I will be photographing soon, I've picked up a book on feminist sexuality with the intent of learning some vocabulary.  What I'm learning instead is some of the internal landscaping of women and how much more complex it has been forced to become because of the culture.  More complex than the internals of men, particularly sexually. 

Aside from my son, no one's accused me of objectifying women.  Except me.  I think about it all the time.  And that's a problem in that the culture is my culture too and everything I do or think is influenced by it.  Do I want to own the women in my photographs, either in some real sense or in that photograph as ownership sense?  Well, yes and no I guess.  Viewers of the photographs will make some judgements about my relationships with the models, of course.  And I'm not going to correct any beneficial misconceptions.  But I also want the photographs to be useful in learning about and making judgements about women in general and the models specifically. 

Thoughts?

-Don

"Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy".  From "Take It Easy"  The Eagles

Nov 17 13 09:42 pm Link

Photographer

Lumatic

Posts: 13750

Brooklyn, New York, US

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
People use the term pejoratively, even though when it's used accurately it's simply objective, not subjective.


It's a very safe way to criticize something you don't like.

Yeah, that.  I gotta work on condensing my thoughts.  lol

Nov 18 13 12:12 am Link

Photographer

Drew Smith Photography

Posts: 5214

Nottingham, England, United Kingdom

Mr Nelson Sir smile

Eight years on, would you care to tell us if your son's opinions on this matter have changed?

Nov 18 13 02:22 am Link

Photographer

D. Brian Nelson

Posts: 5477

Rapid City, South Dakota, US

Drew Smith Photography wrote:
Eight years on, would you care to tell us if your son's opinions on this matter have changed?

We haven't revisited the topic, but he's become more practical and less theoretical as he's moved from school to the real world. I'll let you know if it comes up again.

Nov 18 13 05:18 am Link

Photographer

KonstantKarma

Posts: 2513

Campobello, South Carolina, US

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

We haven't revisited the topic, but he's become more practical and less theoretical as he's moved from school to the real world.

Funny how that works big_smile

Nov 18 13 06:36 am Link

Photographer

MJ Images

Posts: 2908

Nashville, Tennessee, US

Social mores have historically dictated that men be strong, hunter/gatherer types, while women are understood to be caretakers, empathetic and loving.

Today's world contains both ends of that spectrum, along with every conceivable variation in-between.  That said, there exists the base instinct of mating and survival that drives human nature down a common road.

Whether you photograph any, all or none of that, you've simply depicted, with the assistance of your model, your particular interpretation of that moment, how you saw it, and how you wanted it to be.

Is that objectification?  Yes.  Is it wrong?  If you are conflicted about it and feel uncomfortable with doing it, it is wrong for you.  If you enjoy doing it, then it is right for you. 

The things society refer to as "art" are merely those subjective forms of expression that aren't necessarily right or wrong for everyone, but to be decided by the viewer. 

When your son accused you of objectifying women, it was due to his world view at that particular moment.  He was passing judgement based on his teaching and beliefs at that time.  He wasn't necessarily right or wrong, merely opinionated.

I think you've delved into one of those subjects which ARE subjective, based on differing values and belief systems, and you'll never find a consensus of thought one way or the other.

Nov 18 13 07:42 am Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 35726

Los Angeles, California, US

At least that’s what we thought. Recent research, however, would suggest that there is a more complex, though no less disturbing, process at play when we objectify not only girls and women, but boys and men as well. In contrast to popular belief, when we ‘objectify’ we don’t treat people as objects with no intelligence or emotions of their own. Several notable psychologists are beginning to argue that, when we objectify someone, we don’t assume that they have less mind overall, but that they have a different type of mind.

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/being-human … ones-body/

"It turned out that naked porn stars are also seen as having less competence but more sensitivity than their clothed selves. And when one actress was shown in an especially sexual pose, the trend only increased, presumably due to greater focus on her body and its pleasures. True objectification, as traditionally conceived of, just did not happen."

Nov 18 13 07:53 am Link

Photographer

I M N Photography

Posts: 2350

Boston, Massachusetts, US

Hi Don,
I am so glad that someone has started a thread that does not deal with Flaking, Escorts, or the Model Release confusion.

For some people, opinions on the arts are not limited to personal interpretation of beauty and aesthetics, but exposure as they were growing up. It could be cultural, but in most cases it is a reaction to what they experience in their immediate surroundings.

That being said, when it comes to art and its appreciation, some people fall into the trap of extending their critique to the artist, not the context of the art.

In your case, you love to portray your subjects in a beautiful way, but your son believes that you objectify them.

He probably finds the portraiture quite beautiful, but feels that your images don't necessarily portray the individuald for who they are, but what YOU would like to portray.

Therein lies the conundrum...

You, like a lot of photographers want to represent your vision, and like most, are categorized based on your most prominent style.

In other words, if every one of your subjects is a "hot chic" that you represent as the ethereal "sexy vixen", then your son thinks that you are objectifying women, because he (like most people) feel that women (like men) fall into a myriad of personalities/social images.

On the other hand, if you have portraiture that captures the individuality of the subject as is done in most "character portraits", then your son would not have a leg to stand on. He would be focusing on only one aspect of your work.

Show him some of your corporate or family portraiture. Those types of images are prefect examples of work that aims to capture the personality, hence individuality of the subject, instead of the photographer's own vision.

Any person that makes such a blanket statement about art, especially about photography, reveals an obvious lack of understanding and/or exposure to the artform as a whole.

Nov 18 13 08:42 am Link

Photographer

What Fun Productions

Posts: 20868

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Feminism is so 1980's.

Nov 18 13 09:27 am Link

Photographer

Carle Photography

Posts: 9271

Oakland, California, US

Carle Photography wrote:
Would you be willing to photograph me again?

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Mariah, depending on the project, yes I'd love to. Given the awful time constraints and light issues we had at that stupid Anaheim hotel, I wanted a reshoot then but our distance was an issue.
Would you be willing to model?

For the most part I still am in front of a camera a few times a year with past collaborators.


As for the idea of objectification, that is why I asked, when I started doing more photography openly, a number of photographers stopped calling me.
I had changed, I was not longer "Just an object they could photograph"


Playing the part of the internet-whore was fun, I still do so upon occasion.


For me my thoughts about your project have changed and evolved, but this is about general objectification, not your "hotel room nudes".

Nov 18 13 09:59 am Link

Photographer

PhotoGenic Concepts

Posts: 21

Natchez, Mississippi, US

Part of the the womens movement was about the right to have choices. If a woman makes a conscience choice to model for a photographer, magazine, video etc... she has that right. If she chooses to go along with a company or photographers vision, cash the payroll checks, again that is her right, her choice. If she is willing to live with her choice then she is not being objectifide. Creating battles when there is no war is what objectifies me. Just like I need to choose my words carefully, people need to stop trying to give a voice/cause to someone who hasnt asked them for one. A slave has no choice or compisation for his/her work, now that is objectifyng.

Nov 18 13 10:49 am Link

Photographer

Don Garrett

Posts: 4984

Escondido, California, US

IMnPhoto wrote:
Hi Don,
I am so glad that someone has started a thread that does not deal with Flaking, Escorts, or the Model Release confusion.

For some people, opinions on the arts are not limited to personal interpretation of beauty and aesthetics, but exposure as they were growing up. It could be cultural, but in most cases it is a reaction to what they experience in their immediate surroundings.

That being said, when it comes to art and its appreciation, some people fall into the trap of extending their critique to the artist, not the context of the art.

In your case, you love to portray your subjects in a beautiful way, but your son believes that you objectify them.

He probably finds the portraiture quite beautiful, but feels that your images don't necessarily portray the individuald for who they are, but what YOU would like to portray.

Therein lies the conundrum...

You, like a lot of photographers want to represent your vision, and like most, are categorized based on your most prominent style.

In other words, if every one of your subjects is a "hot chic" that you represent as the ethereal "sexy vixen", then your son thinks that you are objectifying women, because he (like most people) feel that women (like men) fall into a myriad of personalities/social images.

On the other hand, if you have portraiture that captures the individuality of the subject as is done in most "character portraits", then your son would not have a leg to stand on. He would be focusing on only one aspect of your work.

Show him some of your corporate or family portraiture. Those types of images are prefect examples of work that aims to capture the personality, hence individuality of the subject, instead of the photographer's own vision.

Any person that makes such a blanket statement about art, especially about photography, reveals an obvious lack of understanding and/or exposure to the artform as a whole.

I would just comment that there is no "conundrum". Whatever you do, someone is bound to not like it, Oh well ! (a shrug of the shoulders included).
-Don (G)

Nov 18 13 11:10 am Link

Photographer

Rik Williams

Posts: 4005

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Goodness me, why put a negative spin on something so wonderful, mysterious and fundamentally essential to our very existence.
Women are creatures of beauty and I feel most want to be seen this way, why else would so many put such an effort into their appearance on a daily basis.
Women do have a choice in this, but nonetheless, I'm sure men would still want to be with them as nature had intended.
Women have certain powers over men, as do men over women. Beauty is just one of a woman's many virtues, but if she chooses to enhance it and then prove its existence for all to see, who are we to judge?
I don't know why we have evolved in such a way, but I have noticed the ones often most vocal on the subject of objectification, seem to be the less attractive females... I guess everything has a way of balancing out, or at least trying to.

Nov 18 13 12:28 pm Link

Photographer

Mikey McMichaels

Posts: 3356

New York, New York, US

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Click and I, and Kincaid and I, are old friends. Disclaimer, sorta. This wasn't supposed to specifically be about me, but a general discussion of the concept back when it originated almost eight years ago.

My work has changed, my thoughts on objectification have changed, and Click, some models that have worked with me don't like me very much.

Maybe now "objectification" isn't the dirty word it was back then. As someone pointed out, feminism has moved on. I haven't kept up. Maybe once again it's OK to hold doors for women.

But maybe an underlying topic here is more like this:

Are participants changed by photography? (Maybe it should even be narrowed to men photographing women?)

I know that having been close to many attractive women because of photography has affected how I relate to physically unattractive women. Or maybe how I react. I suspect that women who are valued for attractiveness (i.e. models) may have relationship issues because of that. I expect there are even more effects that go even deeper. Sontag explored the substantial changes that photography made on society and culture - what has this particular kind of photography done to us personally?

Would the above be outside the parameters of the original topic?

Don

It's always been ok to hold doors open for people. Gender is irrelevant.

Nov 18 13 01:15 pm Link

Photographer

Mikey McMichaels

Posts: 3356

New York, New York, US

Rik Williams wrote:
Goodness me, why put a negative spin on something so wonderful, mysterious and fundamentally essential to our very existence.
Women are creatures of beauty and I feel most want to be seen this way, why else would so many put such an effort into their appearance on a daily basis.
Women do have a choice in this, but nonetheless, I'm sure men would still want to be with them as nature had intended.
Women have certain powers over men, as do men over women. Beauty is just one of a woman's many virtues, but if she chooses to enhance it and then prove its existence for all to see, who are we to judge?
I don't know why we have evolved in such a way, but I have noticed the ones often most vocal on the subject of objectification, seem to be the less attractive females... I guess everything has a way of balancing out, or at least trying to.

What you've just done is dismiss a group of women's feelings based in their appearance, which is objectifying, but worst of all arrogant and dismissive, and ignorant. Maybe hypocritical too. If you're going to base the credibility of a woman's feelings on her appearance, than you need to post a photo of yourself so that we can evaluate your credibility.

There's no one who references the feelings and opinions of unattractive men, and that's the issue. You're responding to the woman's exterior or using it to dismiss her interior.


I understand the point you're trying to make. It's like people criticizing an expensive lens out if an emotional need because they can't afford it. There's no question people do both. However, that's not to way to make the point. 

If you want to disprove the opinions of women who are most vocal about objectification, you need to address the opinions, not them as an object, thus proving their point.

Nov 18 13 01:27 pm Link

Photographer

Kincaid Blackwood

Posts: 23492

Los Angeles, California, US

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Click and I, and Kincaid and I, are old friends. Disclaimer, sorta. This wasn't supposed to specifically be about me, but a general discussion of the concept back when it originated almost eight years ago.

Totally. I didn't want this to become a critique of your work, only highlighting yours as an example knowing that you aren't sensitive to such a process.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
But maybe an underlying topic here is more like this:

Are participants changed by photography? (Maybe it should even be narrowed to men photographing women?)

I know that having been close to many attractive women because of photography has affected how I relate to physically unattractive women. Or maybe how I react. I suspect that women who are valued for attractiveness (i.e. models) may have relationship issues because of that. I expect there are even more effects that go even deeper. Sontag explored the substantial changes that photography made on society and culture - what has this particular kind of photography done to us personally?

Would the above be outside the parameters of the original topic?

Don

I think that photography changes. Changes those photographing, being photographed and changes those viewing photos.

Roberta McGrath did a lengthy deconstruction of Edward Weston's work in terms of how (paraphrasing here) photography was equal parts an extension of his manhood and a compensation for inner problems with women. It's an interesting read in a number of ways.

Her stance is that the photography is a one-way act of penetrating the space of the subject. The action of taking photos is fleeting. Even being a part of them is a momentary thing. The lasting aspect is the photo itself which is a thing to be viewed. Still, in a way, the subject and her (I say "her" because here we are shooting naked chicks for you and naked-ish chicks for me) space. The viewer imposes gaze and attention on the subject, neither of which the subject can deny once that photo's created.

I don't agree with all her stances (willing models accept that they'll be viewed) but many were interesting to ponder. Especially given what either of us shoot.

Nov 18 13 03:07 pm Link

Photographer

dragonpancakes

Posts: 82

Denver, Colorado, US

=/ I've been having a really hard time photographing the model's personality without the model being in the shot, admittedly I am still new to the game.

Nov 18 13 04:24 pm Link

Photographer

Jirrupin

Posts: 1755

Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

well oddly  i'm probably a little prudish in my outlook, i see about 70% of images on the MM as objectification of women, for the most part though I can be open minded and look though your port and see an argument that its a representation of sexuality etc etc but i really struggle to interpret the image of a naked women tied spread eagle to a bed and blindfolded as anything but blatant objectification, not hard to see where your son is coming from, especially since there isn't much balance in your port, ie you're not shooting men in this fashion...

Nov 19 13 01:22 am Link