Tim Hammond wrote:
As far as photographs being a way of owning women?  I don't think I buy that either.

I've been trying to remember the book that was from without dragging all my art criticism books out.  In truth early commissioned paintings were of objects owned by the rich patrons:  horses, buildings, wives. mistresses, etc.  One interesting illustration in that book was a painting of the patron surrounded by his other paintings, clearly indicating ownership of not only those objects, but the objects the paintings depicted.  The theory isn't that far-fetched.  Look at the key fobs that M-B owners carry around to make damned sure everyone know what they drive.

From that beginning and within our Western culture the idea of image as proof of ownership still exists.  If one were to try to test that, one could compare typical images of women with typical images of men to see if there are differences.  Subjectively, the feeling of a photograph indicating sexual ownership of a man is far more rare that a similar one of a woman and is almost always made by a gay man, in keeping with the male power ethic.

-Don

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

I've been trying to remember the book that was from without dragging all my art criticism books out.  In truth early commissioned paintings were of objects owned by the rich patrons:  horses, buildings, wives. mistresses, etc.  One interesting illustration in that book was a painting of the patron surrounded by his other paintings, clearly indicating ownership of not only those objects, but the objects the paintings depicted.  The theory isn't that far-fetched.  Look at the key fobs that M-B owners carry around to make damned sure everyone know what they drive.

From that beginning and within our Western culture the idea of image as proof of ownership still exists.  If one were to try to test that, one could compare typical images of women with typical images of men to see if there are differences.  Subjectively, the feeling of a photograph indicating sexual ownership of a man is far more rare that a similar one of a woman and is almost always made by a gay man, in keeping with the male power ethic.

-Don

Having an image made of something you do own is, to me, not the same as feeling you own something/one because you made an image of it.  I just don't see the logic.  If you come up with some references, though, I'd be interested in reading more about the idea.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Having an image made of something you do own is, to me, not the same as feeling you own something/one because you made an image of it.  I just don't see the logic.  If you come up with some references, though, I'd be interested in reading more about the idea.

John Berger - Ways of Seeing.  Wrote about it, disagreeing as you do, here:

http://fotog.net/writing/w12.htm

But in the six years since I wrote that, I'm starting to think he had some things right.

-Don

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
John Berger - Ways of Seeing.  Wrote about it, disagreeing as you do, here:

http://fotog.net/writing/w12.htm

But in the six years since I wrote that, I'm starting to think he had some things right.

-Don

Some men, and women, have problems with being thought of as sexual objects.

But face it we all are sexual objects, and if they have a problem with it, then it's their problem, and not mine.

We were created this way, and if we were not, the human race would die out.

Marvin Dockery wrote:
...we all are sexual objects, and if you have a problem with it, then it's your problem, and not mine.

I  love being a sexual object.  But I am not defined by being one.  I'm a man, I don't have to be only judged that way.  The problem is that women are often only judged that way.

Did you skim the original post?

-Don

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
I  love being a sexual object.  But I am not defined by being one.  I'm a man, I don't have to be only judged that way.  The problem is that women are often only judged that way.

Did you skim the original post?

-Don

Don, I read all of your post.

I dated a woman for several years that thought women were only viewed as sexual objects. She has her masters in the "History of American women" and was once a board member of CORE. She was a larger woman, and stayed upset because only tall thin models were showed in the fashion magazines.

After about seven years I split.  I guess I have a short fuse on the subject.

I have two daughters, and one step daughter, that I am on great terms with. I often show my nude images to my daughters, and they and the women that really know me, know that I am just photographing the sexual side of a woman.  If I were photographing men, and I have photographed a lot of men, I would be doing the images the same way.

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

If you are creating images, you are objectifying... point blank. Making women look as you feel they should be in your mind (which is subjectivity) becomes objectification as soon as you make a representation of that, for lack of a better word, illusion. When you objectify something, you make it concrete or give reality to it. All art is objectification therefore, unless it remains in our minds. Your son had a good point.


Is your objectification devaluing women? That, in my honest opinion, is indeterminate. One's answer could be premised on their morals, values, experiences, politics, whatever. There's no clear cut answer. And while we're on the topic of objectivity & morals,  Ayn Rand wrote: "the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness." So it may be a question of whether or not your photography makes you happy.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
John Berger - Ways of Seeing.  Wrote about it, disagreeing as you do, here:

http://fotog.net/writing/w12.htm

But in the six years since I wrote that, I'm starting to think he had some things right.

-Don

I can see the argument that, at one time in history, having an image of a woman may have signified that the owner of the image had some control over the woman.  However the majority of my work is boudoir photography, and it's almost always a surprise the woman's planning for her husband, not something he requested her to do.  I'm willing to admit there may be some twisted exceptions, but in general I don't see where, in modern society, even in the west, photographing a woman equates to owning or controlling her.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
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.

I just put up my essay on this subject at http://porno.dreampretty.com ... if you really are interested in learning more about the pornography debate and how women have played a part in this debate ... please take a look. I learned A LOT while researching that paper and am still learning how difficult and complex a woman's sexuality can be.

However, you don't need to read the whole thing to understand this point:

Many feminists believe that women must counterract violent pornography with their own types of erotica: “In educating ourselves and each others about pornography, we come to have a say about it and thus to gain a voice; in expressing ourselves through erotica of our own making, we can begin to change the contours of sexual speech,â€? (Carse 1995: 11).

Not all women believe that photography or even pornography is ultimately damaging to the feminist cause.

Dossett Photography wrote:
I WISH I was a sexual object   

Me too!!  LOL

Sanders McNew wrote:
This is a subject dear to me.  One of the reasons I find glamour and lingerie photography troubling is the way it reduces its subjects to pieces in the photographer's fantasy. 

I consider my own work portraiture.  I want to capture something of the person in front of me that is genuine to that person as a person.  I try hard not to reduce my subjects to objects.  (Not that I always succeed.)  That impulse expresses itself in all sorts of ways, some pretty mundane.  For example, with one notable exception -- a portrait of Elyse, which I've just posted to my MM photo page by way of illustration -- I will not decapitate a body.  Faces are everything to me.  (Except, that once, with Elyse, who has put her torso to expressive work.) 

I am the child of a mother, the father of a daughter, and the partner of a model.  I do not want to create images that diminish them.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net

I'm not sure I understand the idea of "diminishing" someone merely by seeing them in a sexual/erotic context.  Last time I checked, sexuality was a pretty powerful source of energy that is central to all our lives [whether we like it or not].  As long as one can be honest and upfront about what one sees and why it attracts/inspires, I can't see how anyone can be "diminished" or "objectified."  Quite the opposite, in fact.  I find the fashion side of photography, with it's habit of making women into little more than ambulatory mannequins is fare less humane than a model and photographer co-conspiring to reveal a story that might otherwise go invisible.  I find the prediliction of some "fine art nude" photographers to make the body into an ossified vessel, no more nor less important than a tree or a rock to be equally disturbing.  The part of erotic art/fetish/porn/whatever that fascinates [me personally] is the creation of images that acknowledge our existence as the point where sensation and emotion meet

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the idea of "diminishing" someone merely by seeing them in a sexual/erotic context.  Last time I checked, sexuality was a pretty powerful source of energy that is central to all our lives [whether we like it or not].  As long as one can be honest and upfront about what one sees and why it attracts/inspires, I can't see how anyone can be "diminished" or "objectified."  Quite the opposite, in fact.  I find the fashion side of photography, with it's habit of making women into little more than ambulatory mannequins is fare less humane than a model and photographer co-conspiring to reveal a story that might otherwise go invisible.  I find the prediliction of some "fine art nude" photographers to make the body into an ossified vessel, no more nor less important than a tree or a rock to be equally disturbing.  The part of erotic art/fetish/porn/whatever that fascinates [me personally] is the creation of images that acknowledge our existence as the point where sensation and emotion meet

I like to shoot The Hot look-Erotic look, Whatever you want to call it..

I will continue cause its what i like...

If I wasnt here None of this would Exist!!

So Im gonna shoot what I want..

I guess untill the point till None of this Exists..

Existence Only Lasts as Long As you Do.....

Then its Gone!!

Sex=Existence

(:----------

Hj

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the idea of "diminishing" someone merely by seeing them in a sexual/erotic context.  Last time I checked, sexuality was a pretty powerful source of energy that is central to all our lives [whether we like it or not].  As long as one can be honest and upfront about what one sees and why it attracts/inspires, I can't see how anyone can be "diminished" or "objectified."  Quite the opposite, in fact.  I find the fashion side of photography, with it's habit of making women into little more than ambulatory mannequins is fare less humane than a model and photographer co-conspiring to reveal a story that might otherwise go invisible.  I find the prediliction of some "fine art nude" photographers to make the body into an ossified vessel, no more nor less important than a tree or a rock to be equally disturbing.  The part of erotic art/fetish/porn/whatever that fascinates [me personally] is the creation of images that acknowledge our existence as the point where sensation and emotion meet

Melvin, I knew I would get myself into trouble with that post.  Let me start by saying that I agree with nearly everything you've just said.  I don't think we're disagreeing.

I think there is a big difference between objectifying a person on the one side, and capturing expressions of their sexuality on the other.  I don't like to make people props.  I know that is what all commercial shooters do every day, whether their client is Saks, or Leo Burnett, or Calvin Klein, or Playboy.  They are shooting to sell a product.  Such is the world we live in.  But I don't want to put my camera to that use.  And because this isn't my day job, I have the luxury of turning my back on it.

The assumption you do make, and that I disagree with, is the connection between sexuality and objectification.  I did not make that connection in my post, nor would I.  I agree with you, that sex is hardwired into us as individuals and woven through the culture.  And I admire those (like yourself) who try to walk the tightrope and find a way of capturing honest expressions of sexuality without falling into the gaping maws of triteness, obscenity, or foolishness.

Sanders

Cspine wrote:
You can't show a woman as a whole in one photograph.
[/rant]

... it's amazing what people can say here on MM!!!!!!!!!!!

Mayanlee wrote:
Welcome to the politically correct liberal I'm ok you're ok education.

Despite what we'd like to do in toeing the line of the feminist ideal, there's still a proponent of women that do not mind being exalted. I won't speak for all women, but I can safely say (however, without empiracal data, you'll just have to take my word for it) that the women who do mind the female of the species being portrayed in image appear to be the ones with the most ... well... for lack of a better term... "hang ups" (can't do this, can't do that).

I'm being intentionally harsh on women because I for one am tired of the hypocrisy we continually exercise as a gender. On one hand, we demand that we be treated equally, and on the other hand we want you guys to treat us like princesses.  Pick one; you can't have both, except for what you can garner in a one-on-one relationship through mutual respect. Even there, there will always be iniquities and a curious equilibrium that is under constant negotiation.  If women were treated with the same callous stereotyping that we currently have of men in advertising (ie. men always playing the clueless sports addicted single faceted moron), you'd have heard plenty about "diminishing". I mean... please....

For all the crap women have to go through (ie unequal pay, PMS, childbirth, supermom-ism), I'm all for a little exaltation without apology. I know I'm not "diminished" (and those who think I am, screw you) and I freaking deserve to be cut a break.

My Hero[ine]!

Cspine wrote:
A womans body is an object, it's her mind/personality etc is what makes her more. Sometimes in a photograph her mind/personality is simply not the point so it's not adressed. Only the ignorant would see a human body as nothing more than an object regardless of how it is photographed. What of photos expressing mind/personality but not sexuality? Is that desexualizing women? You can't show a woman as a whole in one photograph. I have a photo of one of my female friends that is fully clothed and she is smiling. This photo does not address th fact that she is a loyal friend and a trig whiz, is she being objectified?

[/rant]

I've yet to be convinced that being "objectified" is necessarily a bad thing.

Mayanlee wrote:
I'm being intentionally harsh on women because I for one am tired of the hypocrisy we continually exercise as a gender. On one hand, we demand that we be treated equally, and on the other hand we want you guys to treat us like princesses.  Pick one; you can't have both, except for what you can garner in a one-on-one relationship through mutual respect. Even there, there will always be iniquities and a curious equilibrium that is under constant negotiation.  If women were treated with the same callous stereotyping that we currently have of men in advertising (ie. men always playing the clueless sports addicted single faceted moron), you'd have heard plenty about "diminishing". I mean... please....

Who knew you can do both?

https://pic1.modelmayhem.com/1/1/9/4/9/ … 100195.jpg

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I've yet to be convinced that being "objectified" is necessarily a bad thing.

it's not, that was my point.

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.

You could tell your son that objectification takes place in the mind, not by the act of taking a photograph. Depending on who is viewing or thinking of the photograph, there may or may not be objectification taking place. In bumper-sticker terminology:

"Photographs don't objectifiy women. People objectify women."


Alternatively, it can often asked quite fairly if a particular photograph is actually attempting to portray the objectification of a woman, or if it is actually trying to achieve the personification of an archetype with the model's assistance. (I feel that many of my images fall into the later category.)


take care,
Glen

DreamPretty wrote:
My father tried to tell me that simply by being the "subject" of my boyfriend's photography/camera, that I was making myself subject to him/his camera.

I think that's taking it a little too far.

Feminists and women and men all have to realize that it is a woman's blessing and curse that she is considered to be a beautiful object of desire. My father was just as guilty of objectifying me. He always wanted to take me to court with him or on his business trips because, he said, I was "an adornment."

It is up to the woman/model to assert or express her identity as a woman and not to be objectified if she doesn't want to be. The photographer is going to place the model in the context of his own fantasy, and that's why it's so important for a model to choose the right photographer. I have made the mistake of letting myself be objectified for the camera, and I try to avoid it at all costs. What I consider objectification is when I look at the picture and see nothing of interest.

Nonetheless, I think it is okay to objectify when art is the goal. In fact, it is impossible to do otherwise. What sucks is when you translate that into your daily life and treat people without respect. If your girlfriend complains that you drag her around like a rag doll, you might have a problem.

DreamPretty wrote:
My father tried to tell me that simply by being the "subject" of my boyfriend's photography/camera, that I was making myself subject to him/his camera.

I think that's taking it a little too far.

Feminists and women and men all have to realize that it is a woman's blessing and curse that she is considered to be a beautiful object of desire. My father was just as guilty of objectifying me. He always wanted to take me to court with him or on his business trips because, he said, I was "an adornment."

It is up to the woman/model to assert or express her identity as a woman and not to be objectified if she doesn't want to be. The photographer is going to place the model in the context of his own fantasy, and that's why it's so important for a model to choose the right photographer. I have made the mistake of letting myself be objectified for the camera, and I try to avoid it at all costs. What I consider objectification is when I look at the picture and see nothing of interest.

Nonetheless, I think it is okay to objectify when art is the goal. In fact, it is impossible to do otherwise. What sucks is when you translate that into your daily life and treat people without respect. If your girlfriend complains that you drag her around like a rag doll, you might have a problem.

I'm going to have to agree with this point of view.

Sanders McNew wrote:
This is a subject dear to me.  One of the reasons I find glamour and lingerie photography troubling is the way it reduces its subjects to pieces in the photographer's fantasy. 

I consider my own work portraiture.  I want to capture something of the person in front of me that is genuine to that person as a person.  I try hard not to reduce my subjects to objects.  (Not that I always succeed.)  That impulse expresses itself in all sorts of ways, some pretty mundane.  For example, with one notable exception -- a portrait of Elyse, which I've just posted to my MM photo page by way of illustration -- I will not decapitate a body.  Faces are everything to me.  (Except, that once, with Elyse, who has put her torso to expressive work.) 

I am the child of a mother, the father of a daughter, and the partner of a model.  I do not want to create images that diminish them.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net

And I agree with this too, becuase I feel there is no challenge in creating a soft core, lingerie, or glamour image.  You see millions of images like that everyday and it becomes so boring! They are good eye candy, but it translates nothing to me.  I find it equivilant to pop music, or top 40's music......it's for the masses and there really was no deeper meaning behind it.  Or it can be compared to fast food (to satisfy you quickly and cheaply) to a fine cuisine ( it should be eaten slowly and savored, and will cost way more.)

I feel that art should be the main objective, something to make you think or stir some emotion. 

Women are beautiful beings and all women carry their own sexual empowerment, but that's nothing new.  We all know that and that's too easy.  I think the real trick is to find her other sources of empowerment without her having to take her clothes off, or to look like a Victoria's Secret model.

But, sometimes this topic can get complicated because we don't always know what's in the models mind or the photographers mind.  Some women get into this industry because they have low self esteem and need the camera to make them feel valued, sometimes the photogrpaher is really a hornball and is also convincing that he's creating "art".  Sometimes the model is that comfortable with herself that showing some skin doesn't phase her.  This topic can lean in either direction.  Let's just hope model and photographer can take ownership for what message they are trying to convey.

O.k. I'm done ranting.