nice capture

Roland Barthes - Camera Lucida
Susan Sontag - On Photography
John Berger - Ways of Seeing

Seems universities are still peddling the holy trinity of semantics.

attila zsargo wrote:
way too looooooong, what is his point?

Xiǎo xīnsī yǒngyuǎn bù huì míngbái dà wèntí

attila zsargo wrote:
way too looooooong, what is his point?

Either read and find out for yourself or move on to a discussion which only offers info in bite-sized pieces. But don't expect anyone to do the intellectual legwork for you.

Photographe wrote:

Roland Barthes - Camera Lucida
Susan Sontag - On Photography
John Berger - Ways of Seeing

Seems universities are still peddling the holy trinity of semantics.

Errr, semiotics...isn't that what you meant?

Worth finding:
-- rhetoric
-- semantics
-- grammar, context free
-- semiotics


Just my piddling peddle on this forum tricycle

Photographe wrote:

John Berger - Ways of Seeing

“Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at.”

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. Be

auty 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.

We are creatures of beauty ? Only less attractive females complain?
Your reasoning is actually proving that objectification is bad. Do you never consider who we are as people?
When I model I am not doing it for men. When I wear make up or nice clothes I am not doing it for men. I don't consider myself attractive but I think I can model. I guess some feminists would say that some of my images may objectify women; I would vehemently disagree because I hope it's empowering. I am not about pretty pretty cheesecake or wankbank I hope I portray an empowering representation of woman. But what you are saying here kind of wins the feminst argument for them. Please do not judge women on their looks.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
“Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at.”

Man quotes man to confirm their view of what women do?


Without a why....

I was going to say this in answer in the photographers Locker room, but without a padded jock I don't fit in..
" without aesthetics, it's all just black paint on a white canvas.. " -- some famous painter guy

Off to contemplate the cleavage of the male ball strap. Imagine if..

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Eliza, it's called first impressions... we see before we speak.

The problem being Chris is judging on seeing based on preconceived prejudice.
I wear red lipstick seam and heel but men who judge me on that are going to have a bit of a shock aren't they?
If photography contributes to giving the impression that women are just for men's gratification then it contributes to such prejudices.

So I think while I wouldn't have a frilly about porn or glamour I don't think it helpful when women are portrayed as objects solely for sexual gratification. I think it possible to do both genres without doing that actually; but sadly a lot of it does.

The reason women dress up is less for men and more as self expression through style. We want to feel good and respect occasion and other people. But the sad thing is I know many women don't feel confidence to do that any more for fear of being leered at by men and condemned by other women. The result is women often dress more dowdily than they would otherwise like. And so we live in a fairly unglamorous time despite the glamour we see in magazines. Often, our only bastion of expression is shoes and handbags. These are subtle. And intended for other women to admire rather than men. I of course couldn't give a damm about men but it does annoy me when they feel the need to pass judgement, leer, wolf whistle etc. It's pathetic. As though a woman needs or enjoys such lecherous approval. Don't get me wrong - a polite comment about one's style is equally as welcome from men as it is from women. But it's the sexual comments and photos etc that are the mark of the immature mind that certain magazines may have contributed to them thinking they are able to pass such judgement.
So I think some women - myself included - attempt to dress well in a way that says 'out of your league' but it doesn't always work especially on men who are least qualified to judge a woman on her looks/dress!

Mature men of course (not necessarily to do with age) don't judge a woman on her looks and dress as 'available' or 'tarty' or 'office bird' or 'milf' or whatever just because she wears lipstick. And a woman who judges - feminists included - are just as bad if they do that. Fine if you find a woman attractive either naturally or made up/well dressed - but we don't actually need or want that approval. I know that can come as a shock!

annie lomowitz wrote:

Man quotes man to confirm their view of what women do?


Without a why....

I was going to say this in answer in the photographers Locker room, but without a padded jock I don't fit in..
" without aesthetics, it's all just black paint on a white canvas.. " -- some famous painter guy

Off to contemplate the cleavage of the male ball strap. Imagine if..

John Berger - Ways of Seeing ... a very good book.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Eliza what gender is the editor of Vogue ? it might come as a shock.

Vogue does not objectify women in the way we are talking . It is not 'Nuts' or various other mens magazines. Not all those latter mags shoots objectify women. But some do. I think in fact Anna Wintour has done much to bring stronger images of women to the fore.

I think from your comment you are misjudging what I am saying. You saw my .'Provocatively Preened' editorial right? Hardly prudish but I think I have given an empowered vision of a provocative woman not a bimbo one.

What I particularly dislike is imagery representing women as purely sexual playthings. But we can be and look sexual just not demeaned through it. Demeaning images of women can give males the idea that is all women are about and worse still we are for their amusement only. Or for example if we are not made up and provocative we are mumsy or plain - suggesting we are somehow asexual and get called names like minger etc. As if the men delivering either judgements would have a hope in hell with any female with any self respect. But I have to say some of those men's mags do give those moronic males that idea that women are sexual or asexual objects instead of human beings.

Erlinda wrote:
I think if anything photography empowers women. At least the ones that are being photographed. When I see Helmut Newton photographers or Ellen Von Unwerth etc I don't see that the women are being objectified, I find they look strong, beautiful and feminine.

Women want to be valued and be equal as men, photographing them naked or fully clothed makes them valued I believe and free to express themselves.

You can be objectified and still be empowered.

Wardrobe has nothing to do with objectification.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
What I particularly dislike is imagery representing women as purely sexual playthings. But we can be and look sexual just not demeaned through it. Demeaning images of women can give males the idea that is all women are about and worse still we are for their amusement only. Or for example if we are not made up and provocative we are mumsy or plain - suggesting we are somehow asexual and get called names like minger etc. As if the men delivering either judgements would have a hope in hell with any female with any self respect. But I have to say some of those men's mags do give those moronic males that idea that women are sexual or asexual objects instead of human beings.

Are you saying that the images themselves are demeaning, or that the problem lies with the use of the images in a demeaning context?

While I agree with the sentiment towards demeaning attitudes, I suggest that the notion of images giving men that idea is effectively tilting at windmills.  Sexualized images are not the cause of sexualization, but the product of it.  They're just catering to it.  A representation of what's already there.  Not the problem, but the evidence of it.

The meaning of any image is dependent on context.  You can reinforce a demeaning or empowering attitude with the very same image, but the attitude must be established.

R Byron Johnson wrote:
With the definition used for "objectification", it's literally impossible for photography not to be objectifying.  Photographing a woman or a man for that matter instead of an apple or a flower is not equating them with an apple or a flower.  I think most reasonable people can easily tell the difference between an object and a human being.  It's not hard.

Usually when someone complains about objectification, they're really just indirectly complaining about popular beauty standards.  Photographing conventionally attractive women is objectifying, photographing plus-sized women is empowering.

As I said, it's impossible for photography not to be objectifying (or even painting and drawing for that matter), so to solve this "problem", you'd have to abolish photography in general.  Or at least we'd all have to restrict ourselves to photographing objects and landscapes.

I know what you're talking about and you're right about what (I'm pretty sure) you mean, but what you're actually saying it wrong.

Let's look for different words to use than objectifying to discuss the idea objectification refers to.

What's the difference between an object and an animal? What's the difference between an animal and a human - that difference, whatever you want to call it is the key. Let's refer to it as "humanity".

Humanity is many things, the ability to think, someone's identity, especially self-described identity, their individuality. We have a term for people who are identical - twins, but there's no term for cookies that are identical, they're made with a cookie cutter.

With identical twins, sometimes it's easy to tell them apart visually, but they have different personalities. If you know both twins, you can tell who's who, without seeing them.

All of these things that make up "humanity" (by the definition made within this post) are things that are internal. These are things that don't change if your haircut is different, or if you had your face burned off - though people might add "burn victim" to their self-described identity, but even that, the real relevance, the experience of pain, and difficulty of the recovery, the fear of being in public, the way you feel when people react, these are still all internal things.

If a woman, conventionally attractive or plus size, or even unattractive, is photographed because of their appearance, that has nothing to do with their humanity - it's based on their surface, not their individualism. This is especially true if you're talking about conventionally attractive, because that's about conforming to a standard. It's about not being individually beautiful, it's about being as close as possible to the ideal mold - even though there may be several molds.

If a conventionally beautiful woman is photographed because of something she's done, or said, that's because of her internal qualities - her humanity.


If Vogue puts an unknown, conventionally beautiful woman on their cover, that's objectification. If they put an equally conventionally beautiful woman on their cover who's a celebrity, it's not. No one becomes a celebrity without an identity, without individualism and things unique to them. They may have had opportunities and advantages from being congenitally beautiful, and may have been objectified in the past, but in this example they're being selected for who they are. You could also say they've been commodified or are being selected for what they represent, but that's a separate discussion.


Really what you're talking about is people describing things that make them feel good positively and criticizing the things that make them feel bad.


Certain genres are objectifying - beauty for instance. It's solely about appearance. The person is lit not based on how they feel, but to optimize the way they look. Telephoto lenses are used, and it's not about the bond or the interaction it's about face shape.

Take McCurry's photo of the Afgan girl. The reason that that photo is such a big deal is that while she's conventionally beautiful, that photo is clearly about her, her feelings and her experiences. We can't know in precise literal terms what they are, but you can feel what types of experiences she's had and how they've left her feeling. That photo is totally about her humanity.

It's a great photo because while in the most literal sense it's a photo of an object, a person's body/face, it's captured the humanity in the person who's the subject of the photo. And, on top of that, it's captured a specific element of her humanity, which in a general way is showing the humanity of many people - that's the "story". Story is about the way they feel in response to what's happened, not what's happened.

Does it matter whether their loved one was shot, stabbed, poisoned, hit by a car? It's the feelings of loss that are the story. The humanity is the story.


When you photograph someone who's not being their human self, you've objectified them. If you photograph Gloria Steinem as a model for a political ad advocating lower pay for women, you've objectified her. You're not considering her humanity or her views.

If you shoot model in a pose that's not inherent to them, you've objectified them. If you have a model in a photo who's a "clothes hanger" and isn't relevant to the photo, you've objectified them. Fit modeling is 100% objectifying. They are selected not for their inherent human qualities, but for their function as an object.


The subjective view on someone's appearance is fully irrelevant as to whether or not someone has been objectified. If you have 9 conventionally attractive models at a casting and you pick the 10th model because she's plus sized, that's objectifying. The choice had nothing to do with her humanity - her inner uniqueness, her feelings, her experiences in life, her skill. It could have been anyone with the right shape.


There is an accepted belief that it's easier to trample women's feelings (humanity). There's the stereo type of boys being more assertive in classrooms and participating more. If you subscribe to that belief (not the specific stereo type, but what it represents) than women are objectified more than men.

I phrase it that way, because there's also a stereo type of men being less communicative of their feelings. If that's truly the case, then we're not really in a position to asses who's objectified more. Certain types of male objectification are so deeply ingrained that they're not perceived as objectification - soldiers are objects. That's why the Tim Heatherington sleeping soldiers photos are important. They're showing the humanity within people we're used to seeing as objects.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking any form of a position on which gender is more objectified, but the feelings of objectification are certainly more often expressed, and discussed by women.



There's nothing wrong with objectification in the abstract. Sometimes it's necessary to communicate - corporate photos showing diversity - the people in them are objectified.

There's nothing wrong with objectification when it's consensual, which can certainly happen in modeling photos and there's nothing wrong with wanting to be objectified.

That's why there's a belief that it may not be possible to accurately assess whether a photo is objectifying without consulting the subject of the photo.

Certain porn cliches appear objectifying, and when presented as generalizations means ignoring humanity which by definition is based on individualism, but if the photo was conceived of and directed by the female subject because it expressed her feelings, it's not objectifying. It's the act of projecting her individual feelings on to all women that's objectifying.




If you look in my port, third row, all the way to the right, that photo is objectifying. It's showing a shape not an individual or their feelings.

The one below, doesn't show the model's face, but it does show what she's feeling or portraying, so not objectifying, even though there's no face.

The first one in the port, could go either way. If it was posted alone, it could be generic and about the act. On the other hand, the act being portray may specify a feeling. In context with the others, I think they cumulatively portray feelings specific to that individual model, and in that context, the first photo is not objectifying, though it's easy to see why it might be considered that way after only a glance.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
What I particularly dislike is imagery representing women as purely sexual playthings. But we can be and look sexual just not demeaned through it. Demeaning images of women can give males the idea that is all women are about and worse still we are for their amusement only. Or for example if we are not made up and provocative we are mumsy or plain - suggesting we are somehow asexual and get called names like minger etc. As if the men delivering either judgements would have a hope in hell with any female with any self respect. But I have to say some of those men's mags do give those moronic males that idea that women are sexual or asexual objects instead of human beings.

That's the complicated thing. How can you know just from looking at a single image whether it's representing a woman as purely a sexual plaything?

I know specific women, who consider themselves feminists, who "top from the bottom". If they were photographed in certain sexual situations that they choose and control, they would look like a plaything, when they're not. And it's possible that they guy is the plaything.

This is why it's most likely not possible to determine if a single photo is objectifying without consulting the subject of the photo.

When there are patterns of photos, that changes things.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
What I particularly dislike is imagery representing women as purely sexual playthings.

Who's exploiting who ? the models being paid to pose and published in the men's mags where men drool over them !
I think the models are the winners. Some models know how to play the sexual thing.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Who's exploiting who ? the models being paid to pose and published in the men's mags where men drool over them !
I think the models are the winners. Some models know how to play the sexual thing.

That is up to them.
What I am saying is no amount if money would lure me to make demeaning imagery.
Not a big deal that girls do....but not for me. And I do think it can lead moronic males to feel they can comment on the eligibility of females for mating. Those magazines CAN (though I think the majority harmless) give those guys the impression we are nothing but shag prospects to be marked out of ten. Which is ultimately sadder fir then than it is us....they,aren't just being exploited they are having their brains turned into mush.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
That's the complicated thing. How can you know just from looking at a single image whether it's representing a woman as purely a sexual plaything?

I know specific women, who consider themselves feminists, who "top from the bottom". If they were photographed in certain sexual situations that they choose and control, they would look like a plaything, when they're not. And it's possible that they guy is the plaything.

This is why it's most likely not possible to determine if a single photo is objectifying without consulting the subject of the photo.

When there are patterns of photos, that changes things.

Yes I don't disagree with any of that.
It's difficult to tell. What isn't difficult is the intent. So for example check my bum in my port. It's been published in a magazine and used on website and ads. It's to show how cool the stocking tassels are when they move. So I dont think it's bad to use my posterior for such purposes; or even for purely artistically photographed aesthetic reasons. I have a good ass. That doesnt objectify women by using it any more than milliners exploiting my eyebrows. Sure lots of guys will fantasise about it. But lots of guys will fantasize over my hand in gloves ( a massive fetish I have learned but I use them for style and modelling reasons - gloves can accentuate hand gesture). But that image is NOT the same as just shooting my ass for wank bank in a guys mag. The difference being while ten men will send me an email saying wow nice butt; double that in males will ask where they can get the stockings for their wife; 100 women will send me an email asking me where the website is; where the knickers are from; and that they find the image cool. I may get two complaints from women saying that it's pornographic but that's because they don't know the meaning of the word.

So it's WHY an image is created. And if course sometimes that's more difficult to ascertain. As in the ops case. Only he knows genuinely. I feel it concerns him he may be misunderstood which is actually a sign that he has integrity and cares. Most wouldn't worry.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
I know what you're talking about and you're right about what (I'm pretty sure) you mean, but what you're actually saying it wrong.

Let's look for different words to use than objectifying to discuss the idea objectification refers to.

What's the difference between an object and an animal? What's the difference between an animal and a human - that difference, whatever you want to call it is the key. Let's refer to it as "humanity".

Humanity is many things, the ability to think, someone's identity, especially self-described identity, their individuality. We have a term for people who are identical - twins, but there's no term for cookies that are identical, they're made with a cookie cutter.

With identical twins, sometimes it's easy to tell them apart visually, but they have different personalities. If you know both twins, you can tell who's who, without seeing them.

All of these things that make up "humanity" (by the definition made within this post) are things that are internal. These are things that don't change if your haircut is different, or if you had your face burned off - though people might add "burn victim" to their self-described identity, but even that, the real relevance, the experience of pain, and difficulty of the recovery, the fear of being in public, the way you feel when people react, these are still all internal things.

If a woman, conventionally attractive or plus size, or even unattractive, is photographed because of their appearance, that has nothing to do with their humanity - it's based on their surface, not their individualism. This is especially true if you're talking about conventionally attractive, because that's about conforming to a standard. It's about not being individually beautiful, it's about being as close as possible to the ideal mold - even though there may be several molds.

If a conventionally beautiful woman is photographed because of something she's done, or said, that's because of her internal qualities - her humanity.


If Vogue puts an unknown, conventionally beautiful woman on their cover, that's objectification. If they put an equally conventionally beautiful woman on their cover who's a celebrity, it's not. No one becomes a celebrity without an identity, without individualism and things unique to them. They may have had opportunities and advantages from being congenitally beautiful, and may have been objectified in the past, but in this example they're being selected for who they are. You could also say they've been commodified or are being selected for what they represent, but that's a separate discussion.


Really what you're talking about is people describing things that make them feel good positively and criticizing the things that make them feel bad.


Certain genres are objectifying - beauty for instance. It's solely about appearance. The person is lit not based on how they feel, but to optimize the way they look. Telephoto lenses are used, and it's not about the bond or the interaction it's about face shape.

Take McCurry's photo of the Afgan girl. The reason that that photo is such a big deal is that while she's conventionally beautiful, that photo is clearly about her, her feelings and her experiences. We can't know in precise literal terms what they are, but you can feel what types of experiences she's had and how they've left her feeling. That photo is totally about her humanity.

It's a great photo because while in the most literal sense it's a photo of an object, a person's body/face, it's captured the humanity in the person who's the subject of the photo. And, on top of that, it's captured a specific element of her humanity, which in a general way is showing the humanity of many people - that's the "story". Story is about the way they feel in response to what's happened, not what's happened.

Does it matter whether their loved one was shot, stabbed, poisoned, hit by a car? It's the feelings of loss that are the story. The humanity is the story.


When you photograph someone who's not being their human self, you've objectified them. If you photograph Gloria Steinem as a model for a political ad advocating lower pay for women, you've objectified her. You're not considering her humanity or her views.

If you shoot model in a pose that's not inherent to them, you've objectified them. If you have a model in a photo who's a "clothes hanger" and isn't relevant to the photo, you've objectified them. Fit modeling is 100% objectifying. They are selected not for their inherent human qualities, but for their function as an object.


The subjective view on someone's appearance is fully irrelevant as to whether or not someone has been objectified. If you have 9 conventionally attractive models at a casting and you pick the 10th model because she's plus sized, that's objectifying. The choice had nothing to do with her humanity - her inner uniqueness, her feelings, her experiences in life, her skill. It could have been anyone with the right shape.


There is an accepted belief that it's easier to trample women's feelings (humanity). There's the stereo type of boys being more assertive in classrooms and participating more. If you subscribe to that belief (not the specific stereo type, but what it represents) than women are objectified more than men.

I phrase it that way, because there's also a stereo type of men being less communicative of their feelings. If that's truly the case, then we're not really in a position to asses who's objectified more. Certain types of male objectification are so deeply ingrained that they're not perceived as objectification - soldiers are objects. That's why the Tim Heatherington sleeping soldiers photos are important. They're showing the humanity within people we're used to seeing as objects.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking any form of a position on which gender is more objectified, but the feelings of objectification are certainly more often expressed, and discussed by women.



There's nothing wrong with objectification in the abstract. Sometimes it's necessary to communicate - corporate photos showing diversity - the people in them are objectified.

There's nothing wrong with objectification when it's consensual, which can certainly happen in modeling photos and there's nothing wrong with wanting to be objectified.

That's why there's a belief that it may not be possible to accurately assess whether a photo is objectifying without consulting the subject of the photo.

Certain porn cliches appear objectifying, and when presented as generalizations means ignoring humanity which by definition is based on individualism, but if the photo was conceived of and directed by the female subject because it expressed her feelings, it's not objectifying. It's the act of projecting her individual feelings on to all women that's objectifying.




If you look in my port, third row, all the way to the right, that photo is objectifying. It's showing a shape not an individual or their feelings.

The one below, doesn't show the model's face, but it does show what she's feeling or portraying, so not objectifying, even though there's no face.

The first one in the port, could go either way. If it was posted alone, it could be generic and about the act. On the other hand, the act being portray may specify a feeling. In context with the others, I think they cumulatively portray feelings specific to that individual model, and in that context, the first photo is not objectifying, though it's easy to see why it might be considered that way after only a glance.

No I think you are partly right partly wrong.

I think you are right about the Tim McCurry image.
But wrong about the Vogue image. The model will possibly someone known to us like for example Kate Moss. She isn't an object people know her. Or if an unknown model then there is a case for showing the model as pure clothes horse because its about the clothes not the model. I don't think it's objectification on the sense we are talking about. And even the best fashion photography can show us the person or show women empowered, or sensitively vulnerable, free or liberated etc.

Even glamour needn't reduce us to just tits. Take Samantha Fox for example who is a legend thirty years on. Yes she was a page three model but everyone knew her as a person. She was the girl next door, she was/is a lovely person, and a cool singer. I know the session musicians on her album.  They'd never think of her as simply a pair of boobs and I don't think anyone in the UK would.

Much of the rest if what you said I'd go along with eg about needing a generalised stereotypical model for reasons of identification etc. though that can also be badly handled. So for example huge difference between 40s/50s mom as represented to sell fridges and the humanity of Mildred Pierce. But that doesnt mean to say some photography especially glamour and porn can  reduce women purely to sexual objectification.  The best doesn't of course; and maybe it's a better image of women to be an empowered porn model than the fifties refrigerator mum or the hapless young pretty pretty hippy chick.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I think you must be looking at the wrong Vogue's or ID, Pop, W, or Love magazines.

As for sexualizing man's been doing it since he learnt to scratch an image onto a cave wall. Painters/Artists, Victorian post card nudes, Hollywood pin ups.

Lol Samantha Fox was known for her boobs not singing which  was not all that.
Kate Moss does PB.

Sam Fox was loved by women as,well as men and mums too. And now she is perhaps more remembered for 'Touch Me' by a generation (mine) that didn't even know she was a glamour model.

Yeah if you want to talk history I will see your pair of pin ups and raise you on my four of a kind  Boudicca a Cleopatra an Elizabeth I and a Joan Crawford to show that that you can be a sexual female and be strong and human and admired for more than our boobs. And I can throw in s a Bettie Paige and a Christine Keeler if they aren't on you radar.

Starstruck Foto wrote:
Ive heard the same arguement over the years and I don't buy it.If women are to be considered equal then their decisions thus consent to participate in such "objectification" must be given the same respect as a decision not to.You can't exploit the willing or those who are willing to compensate you for your creation. Is a the male model any less objectified when his body is photographed or sculpted or painted simply by virtue of his gender? If one believes that females are the weaken sex and must have special protection to prevent exploitation what does that say about our true belief in their equality? I've heard all kinds of crap about how the fashion industry exploits and objectifies women by outsiders looking in who fail to realize that the power brokers in the industry are not sexist males but women and gay men.Men dont buy fashion magazines as a rule,the market is made up of fellow women. It isnt objectification if the subject does'nt feel objectified.

I don't think you really understand the concepts of exploitation and internalization.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Sam Fox was loved by women as,well as men and mums too. And now she is perhaps more remembered for 'Touch Me' by a generation (mine) that didn't even know she was a glamour model.

Yeah if you want to talk history I will see your pair of pin ups and raise you on my four of a kind  Boudicca a Cleopatra an Elizabeth I and a Joan Crawford to show that that you can be a sexual female and be strong and human and admired for more than our boobs. And I can throw in s a Bettie Paige and a Christine Keeler if they aren't on you radar.

Bettie Page was forced to do fetish work by photographers who refused to pay her for her other work unless she did fetish. She was mentally ill and desperate and posed fro Playboy for a paltry $20 and no royalties. They lied to her and tricked her into it and after she escaped the lifestyle she tried to hide from her past out of shame and regret. Later she was institutionalized. It's a really sad story that really encapsulates the most depressing aspects of the early pornography industry and the stigma of sex work.

Rik Williams wrote:
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 are actually multi-faceted human beings. Beauty, and efforts to conform to cultural feminine ideals, can make navigating life in an oppressive society much easier. That doesn't mean that every woman who puts on lipstick in the morning to go to work wants to be viewed as some kind of sexy animal all the time.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Yes I don't disagree with any of that.
It's difficult to tell. What isn't difficult is the intent. So for example check my bum in my port. It's been published in a magazine and used on website and ads. It's to show how cool the stocking tassels are when they move. So I dont think it's bad to use my posterior for such purposes; or even for purely artistically photographed aesthetic reasons. I have a good ass. That doesnt objectify women by using it any more than milliners exploiting my eyebrows. Sure lots of guys will fantasise about it. But lots of guys will fantasize over my hand in gloves ( a massive fetish I have learned but I use them for style and modelling reasons - gloves can accentuate hand gesture). But that image is NOT the same as just shooting my ass for wank bank in a guys mag. The difference being while ten men will send me an email saying wow nice butt; double that in males will ask where they can get the stockings for their wife; 100 women will send me an email asking me where the website is; where the knickers are from; and that they find the image cool. I may get two complaints from women saying that it's pornographic but that's because they don't know the meaning of the word.

So it's WHY an image is created. And if course sometimes that's more difficult to ascertain. As in the ops case. Only he knows genuinely. I feel it concerns him he may be misunderstood which is actually a sign that he has integrity and cares. Most wouldn't worry.

You're just as objectified in that photo as you would be with any intent for the photo.

You're discussing intent, not objectification.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

No I think you are partly right partly wrong.

I think you are right about the Tim McCurry image.
But wrong about the Vogue image. The model will possibly someone known to us like for example Kate Moss. She isn't an object people know her. Or if an unknown model then there is a case for showing the model as pure clothes horse because its about the clothes not the model. I don't think it's objectification on the sense we are talking about. And even the best fashion photography can show us the person or show women empowered, or sensitively vulnerable, free or liberated etc.

Even glamour needn't reduce us to just tits. Take Samantha Fox for example who is a legend thirty years on. Yes she was a page three model but everyone knew her as a person. She was the girl next door, she was/is a lovely person, and a cool singer. I know the session musicians on her album.  They'd never think of her as simply a pair of boobs and I don't think anyone in the UK would.

Much of the rest if what you said I'd go along with eg about needing a generalised stereotypical model for reasons of identification etc. though that can also be badly handled. So for example huge difference between 40s/50s mom as represented to sell fridges and the humanity of Mildred Pierce. But that doesnt mean to say some photography especially glamour and porn can  reduce women purely to sexual objectification.  The best doesn't of course; and maybe it's a better image of women to be an empowered porn model than the fifties refrigerator mum or the hapless young pretty pretty hippy chick.

Are you considering Kate Moss an unknown model or a celebrity?

90% of Kate Moss's work has been because she was The Kate Moss, not a pretty model, so, not an object.

I'm not following the Samantha Fox point at all. If she's known, then whenever she's in a photo, she's Samantha Fox and never an object.

Any genre of photography can reduce a person to an object, sexual or otherwise. That's neither a good nor bad thing, it's just descriptive. It's when it's done dismissively, coercively or non-consentually that it's a bad thing.

The issue with objectification in porn is not the objectification in porn it's the belief that it's spreading a message that all women are objects, not just the ones in the photos.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

We are creatures of beauty ? Only less attractive females complain?
Your reasoning is actually proving that objectification is bad. Do you never consider who we are as people?
When I model I am not doing it for men. When I wear make up or nice clothes I am not doing it for men. I don't consider myself attractive but I think I can model. I guess some feminists would say that some of my images may objectify women; I would vehemently disagree because I hope it's empowering. I am not about pretty pretty cheesecake or wankbank I hope I portray an empowering representation of woman. But what you are saying here kind of wins the feminst argument for them. Please do not judge women on their looks.

So you allow yourself to be objectified for money and the empowerment of the fairer sex... Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
I'm a married man of 18 years and I have two healthy teenage daughters, please do not presume to understand who I am or put words into my mouth.
I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, however, I do believe PC has driven many beyond the realm and into the abyss.

Rik Williams wrote:

So you allow yourself to be objectified for money and the empowerment of the fairer sex... Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
I'm a married man of 18 years and I have two healthy teenage daughters, please do not presume to understand who I am or put words into my mouth.
I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, however, I do believe PC has driven many beyond the realm and into the abyss.

I agree that it can go too far. My point is unless the intent is to demean women generally by objectifying for the express purpose of purely sex object it is bad. I don't think fashion photography does that in a negative way. Models may be clothes horses rather than people but it's about the clothes after all, and the top models of course we know as people of substantial respect. I don't even think glamour or porn necessarily objectifies women negatively.  So I.am not extremely PC or something.
But what you suggested is that women are reduced to creatures of beauty and only the ugly ones complain about objectification. Which is I repeat exactly what women are worried about men thinking. We are about more than that and even beautiful women want to be judged on who they are as people rather than on how males judge them as sex objects.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I think you must be looking at the wrong Vogue's or ID, Pop, W, or Love magazines.

As for sexualizing man's been doing it since he learnt to scratch an image onto a cave wall. Painters/Artists, Victorian post card nudes, Hollywood pin ups.

Lol Samantha Fox was known for her boobs not singing which  was not all that.
Kate Moss does PB.

You are wrong.
I don't generally view many images in Vogue etc that intend to reduce women to sex objects. The editorials are often presenting women either in strong roles or in narrative ones where they may be pioneers, aviators, riding horses or matadors (just to take examples from a couple I have right here). Others are studio shoots where the women are simply clothes horses but what do you expect from a fashion magazine? And they certainly are not in compromised or demeaned poses.

As for Sam Fox as I said to my generation and younger we don't know her from page 3 we weren't born. So I know her from the songs then the gossip columns but certainly she seems popular with other women
as a person rather than just judged on her boobs.

I raised Keeler because if the iconic photograph. It MEANS something because of who she is and the reverberations she caused that brought down a government. So therefore it is not despite being sexy, objectification. It's sexy because of who she was.

The kind of stuff I consider objectification is some shoots in porn mags and lads mags where they are sometimes reduced to meat, or bimbos. So I am mot extreme on this; and I don't believe on censorship either I just would encourage a stronger representation of women where they are still sexy but not demeaned. Some of the text for example alongside such images are cringeably written and often demeaning to women.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
We are about more than that and even beautiful women want to be judged on who they are as people rather than on how males judge them as sex objects.

Ever since I have posted the photo below... I have been objectified as a sex object... the emails I am getting from womenfolk makes me wanting to take a shower... COLD shower...

udor wrote:
Ever since I have posted the photo below... I have been objectified as a sex object... the emails I am getting from womenfolk makes me wanting to take a shower... COLD shower...

Well thats your cool tattoos isn't it ?

But seriously I know men think it's nice to be admired or judged for their look etc but you would get sick of it 24/7 and no woman ever thought about your work or personality and just judged you a phoaw or a minger!

V Laroche wrote:
Bettie Page was forced to do fetish work by photographers who refused to pay her for her other work unless she did fetish. She was mentally ill and desperate and posed fro Playboy for a paltry $20 and no royalties. They lied to her and tricked her into it and after she escaped the lifestyle she tried to hide from her past out of shame and regret. Later she was institutionalized. It's a really sad story that really encapsulates the most depressing aspects of the early pornography industry and the stigma of sex work.

Yes hers was a sad story but I think the problems of her later life were not necessarily related. She was much later diagnosed as a schizophrenic. In addition by the late fifties she was working with Billy Graham and was a born again Christian.

I raised her because she has left us a legacy of her iconic image which is not one associated with helplessness or domestic slavery which many women were reduced to by media imagery of that time. Normally it would be I think not right to judge a past time with modern values; but in this period several film academics have pointed out that in film noir the strong woman was on a road to a tragic fate (Mildred Pierce) or inherently bad (Build my Gallows High) whereas the virtuous heroine was the domestic variety and thus was done with some intent . So the image of dominant women is more important now than Betty Page's actual story. The later tragic unfolding of her life is sad but I am not sure how related it was or how far she was exploited and how far she was the artist. But I certainly font think her imagery objectified women as badly as the pinafore wearing female kitchen units of the time.  Surely that is why she - and,Joan Crawford, Rita Hayworth etc are admired niw despite also being ill fated often in their movies.  She is an iconic cultural image of female sexual power. I am not sure if your hairstyle and mine are consciously influenced by that but certainly other womens style is influenced by it and it is admired.

What do you think?