Caitin Bre  wrote:
. . . . .
“These pictures look like they were created by people who hate women,” Patricia Phelan, associate professor of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University tells Yahoo Style. “The media industries are notoriously sexist — in the content they create as well as the work environments to which women are subjected. These pictures reinforce the message of our culture:  human life is cheap, and women are merely props.”
. . . . .

I dunno.  Frankly I agree with her, and I don't have a PHD.

Warren Leimbach wrote:
It's edgy stuff.  Crime scene photos and murder victims wearing fashion.

I expect it will get a lot of pushback on various fronts.


I guess the test for this particular professor would be, would she be just as offended if the crime scene victims were male?

And I think this is the more telling question.  I haven't seen male fashion models depicted in this way.  Rather I see them in more of a dom role if they appear in this sort of illustration at all, which would tend to validate her argument.

All IMHO as always, of course.

Marcia Dawkins, assistant professor at USC Annenberg tells Yahoo Style, that the particular way the models are splayed as empty, defenseless, and submissive sends a poor message to readers. “Portraying drunk and unconscious women as sexy/beautiful sends the message that women in their sober and conscious minds are less beautiful and sexy,” she says. “The pictures not only take away the women’s consciousness and voices, but also their ability to consent to whatever happens to them next.”

*facepalm*
some people wake up every morning just aching to be offended by some random harmless thing that they can twist and exaggerate to portray it as part of a sinister plot against their gender/race/religion/whatever because convincing themselves that they're victims and fighting back against some nebulous boogeyman gives their boring, spoiled, pointless suburban lives some meaning.

Rays Fine Art wrote:

Caitin Bre  wrote:
. . . . .
“These pictures look like they were created by people who hate women,” Patricia Phelan, associate professor of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University tells Yahoo Style. “The media industries are notoriously sexist — in the content they create as well as the work environments to which women are subjected. These pictures reinforce the message of our culture:  human life is cheap, and women are merely props.”
. . . . .

And I think this is the more telling question.  I haven't seen male fashion models depicted in this way.  Rather I see them in more of a dom role if they appear in this sort of illustration at all, which would tend to validate her argument.

All IMHO as always, of course.

My point is she is making a assumption that the images are created by woman haters. Rather than using her educated intellect to give a true statement, she fires off from her personal perspective.
How is she so sure that the photographers are woman haters. Does it really look like it is a hate on women? I don't think so. So the true context of the shoot is lost and the vision highjacked and made something it is not. I'm sorry but its censorship.
They are creating the images of passed out drunk women in allies wearing fashion clothes. Like I had said it doesn't matter if I like the images or not. They are a expression that has artistic value and I would think that a Professor would consider all factors before just spouting off something like she did.
I'm not a fan of the Images but I cant see slamming and labeling artist for recreating a moment even if it isn't a proud moment.
Why are so many people hell bent on creating images that life has to be perfect to have value of life? Life is valuable even in its less perfect ways. I think the attitude that the only acceptable art should be that of successes is messed up.
It is human to fail from time to time. Doesn't mean that it devalues human life to acknowledge it.
I put this on the viewer as to what they see in the images. NOT on the artist.

Lallure Photographic wrote:
Actually, the images shown do exactly that. They create the impression of beautiful women, used, and discarded.

I think her comments were dead on.

While the photographer might be within his artistic license to create such imagery, what is gained from the images? The impression that women are to be used and discarded.

We, as photographers, need to be acutely aware of what kinds of impressions we are fostering, on young people especially, and whether those impressions are healthy, or unhealthy, mentally.

Hollywood and TV have become promoters of mental illness, in their programming. We as photographers, need to be aware that our imagery can do the same. The world needs more peace and tranquility, not more violence.

Unfortunately that is one of the problems that inflict our society. The lack of reality. Nobody wants to see pictures of the devastation and loss of human life that war brings. But it is a reality. I am sure that people would much rather hide that side of Humans though and pretend we are perfect.
Sure the world needs more peace, tranquility and less violence. But guess what? It never has and never will be that way. It is simply not human nature. As a matter of fact killing the messenger is the same thing.
Phelan devalues the messenger in her statements very much so. And based on assumption in her opinions rather than the reality. So is that the right? As she is saying one devalues the other by devaluing the one. Doesn't make sense to me. It simply isn't reality.
In the name of more peace, tranquility and less violence people use violence. Doesn't make any sense.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
. . . . .
“These pictures look like they were created by people who hate women,” Patricia Phelan, associate professor of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University tells Yahoo Style. “The media industries are notoriously sexist — in the content they create as well as the work environments to which women are subjected. These pictures reinforce the message of our culture:  human life is cheap, and women are merely props.”
. . . . .

Rays Fine Art wrote:
I dunno.  Frankly I agree with her, and I don't have a PHD.

Lallure Photographic wrote:
Actually, the images shown do exactly that. They create the impression of beautiful women, used, and discarded.

I agree with these statements. I would describe myself as a feminist, though.

KGSF wrote:
I wish people would learn the difference between the meaning of the words "censorship" and "criticism".

Censorship involves the power (usually governmental and done in the shadows) to actually stop or prevent or remove or erase from view something disliked.

Criticism just means someone says or writes they dislike something, without any actual power to do anything about it, beyond just saying "I don't like this".

Censorship is *antithetical* to a free society.
Criticism is *essential* to a free society.

Also this...

Caitin Bre  wrote:
It doesn't matter if I like the photos or not. I still believe that in any situation that the ability to recreate a image is a talent. The artist shouldn't be judged based on what the photo is about. They should be respected for their ability to capture the details.

The subject of the art work doesn't matter at all?  I think the subject is at least as important as the execution.

Viewed without context, the pictures at dispute are interesting (to me at least) in their composition, use of textures, and coloring.  However, viewed while understanding the context, the images are unsettling.  Even if they don't necessarily promote any particular agenda, the scenes themselves are depressing.

KGSF wrote:
I wish people would learn the difference between the meaning of the words "censorship" and "criticism".

Censorship involves the power (usually governmental and done in the shadows) to actually stop or prevent or remove or erase from view something disliked.

Criticism just means someone says or writes they dislike something, without any actual power to do anything about it, beyond just saying "I don't like this".

Censorship is *antithetical* to a free society.
Criticism is *essential* to a free society.

They are in fact diametric opposites, and confusing them destroys or at least weakens the merits of the arguments of the person who gets them confused.

Her article is criticism, no censorship anywhere in sight.

As for the images and her criticism of them, if there's a scale with genuine misogyny on one end and genuine female empowerment on the other, I know which side I'd place them, although the postmodern critical theory language she uses to point this out seems overdone and rubs me the wrong way.

And, I do not subscribe to the notion that all creative endeavors must always be servants to social progress or causes; that idea rubs me the wrong way as well; both Stalinist Russia (extreme left) and Hitlerian Germany (extreme right) harnessed that idea. By force.

I am cool with the photographers having the freedom to create these images (even if I think they're shit, and I do), cool with her criticizing them in any way she wants, and cool with others criticizing her criticism, my criticizing the criticism of her criticism, others criticizing my criticism of (...), etc ad infinitem.

Free and diverse societies are messy and upsetting sometimes.

Very well put. I don't have the gift of being able to communicate so well. I wish I did.

I do fear that people in the position of authority like Phelan have the powers to persuade their criticism into a cause for censorship.
Should they have the right to have their personal opinions and criticisms? Yes. But when they are speaking from there educational authority then I believe they 1st have a responsibility to leave their personal biases out of it.

I have noticed that the majority of the photos of homeless people are that of men. But I hardly think it devalues men.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
I do fear that people in the position of authority like Phelan have the powers to persuade their criticism into a cause for censorship.
Should they have the right to have their personal opinions and criticisms? Yes. But when they are speaking from there educational authority then I believe they 1st have a responsibility to leave their personal biases out of it.

How about rich people? Should they also have to set their personal opinions aside?

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
And if they don't have a PhD:

"Oh, and what exactly are your credentials that we should listen to you?"

Exactly!!! So having credentials gives more authority to what you have to say. So comes responsibility.
She is a educator. She has a responsibility to teach without prejudiced or bias.

Her statement that the artist that made this must be woman haters is even more irresponsible because of her credentials.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

How about rich people? Should they also have to set their personal opinions aside?

I don't understand your point? I don't think how much money you have has anything at all to do with opinions.
I think the opinion of giving me some of it is a really good one though.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
WTF? To me it sounds like she hides behind her PHD to push a personal agenda. That sucks... Using her authority to fuel censorship?

How is that any different than anyone else using their position in one area--or even utter lack of position in any area--pushing a personal agenda?

Saying that someone is hiding behind a PhD for making a comment on something within her field is like saying that a doctor is hiding behind an MD for making a comment on something regarding the body. You can disagree with their statement, but that's all it is: a disagreement with someone with education in their field. You might be right; you might be wrong--but why should someone listen more to someone outside a field than someone inside it?

Wouldn't that be giving extra credit for a lack of education? Doesn't that seem backwards?

Caitin Bre  wrote:
Rather than using her educated intellect to give a true statement, she fires off from her personal perspective.

As opposed to firing off an opinion about her opinion, claiming it's just a personal perspective, and not, just possibly, based on her education?

People have opinions. They start from different points, hold different internal values for 'the same' things, and see the world through those filters. Everyone. Education, formal or otherwise, may influence this, just as a lack of education can do so.

She might be right; she might be wrong. But asserting she shouldn't say something you disagree with because she's hiding behind a degree is kinda silly.

Note that I'm responding to the framing from the title of the thread, and not her particular comments on this particular set of images.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
So having credentials gives more authority to what you have to say. So comes responsibility.
She is a educator. She has a responsibility to teach without prejudiced or bias.

Her statement that the artist that made this must be woman haters is even more irresponsible because of her credentials.

She didn't say that the images were created by women haters.  She said “these pictures *look like* they were created by people who hate women.”

Gallery-MG wrote:

She didn't say that the images were created by women haters.  She said “these pictures *look like* they were created by people who hate women.”

Good point.
I think it still drives the same basic message.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
My point is she is making a assumption that the images are created by woman haters. Rather than using her educated intellect to give a true statement, she fires off from her personal perspective.
How is she so sure that the photographers are woman haters. Does it really look like it is a hate on women? I don't think so. So the true context of the shoot is lost and the vision highjacked and made something it is not. I'm sorry but its censorship.
They are creating the images of passed out drunk women in allies wearing fashion clothes. Like I had said it doesn't matter if I like the images or not. They are a expression that has artistic value and I would think that a Professor would consider all factors before just spouting off something like she did.
I'm not a fan of the Images but I cant see slamming and labeling artist for recreating a moment even if it isn't a proud moment.
Why are so many people hell bent on creating images that life has to be perfect to have value of life? Life is valuable even in its less perfect ways. I think the attitude that the only acceptable art should be that of successes is messed up.
It is human to fail from time to time. Doesn't mean that it devalues human life to acknowledge it.
I put this on the viewer as to what they see in the images. NOT on the artist.

In my opinion this is a valid (and thoughtful) response to Phelan's criticism.  Don't get hung up on whether or not she, as a PhD, should be offering her statements.  That's just mixing up the debates, and most people will disagree with you on that point.

I also think you overestimate the importance of her statements.  Critics have been complaining about the representation of women in fashion for DECADES.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
I was reading an article about Interview Magazine's 'Pretty Wasted' Fashion Editorial.
https://www.yahoo.com/style/interview-m … 88498.html

It doesn't matter if I like the photos or not. I still believe that in any situation that the ability to recreate a image is a talent. The artist shouldn't be judged based on what the photo is about. They should be respected for their ability to capture the details.

I draw my attention to the statement by Patricia Phalen. Associate Professor of Media and Public Affairs
Who's comment was this.
“These pictures look like they were created by people who hate women,” Patricia Phelan, associate professor of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University tells Yahoo Style. “The media industries are notoriously sexist — in the content they create as well as the work environments to which women are subjected. These pictures reinforce the message of our culture:  human life is cheap, and women are merely props.”

WTF? To me it sounds like she hides behind her PHD to push a personal agenda. That sucks... Using her authority to fuel censorship?
She specializes in Politics and Popular Culture; Hollywood Television Production; Women in Media; Audience Research

This kind of crap upsets me very much. I don't know what more to say about it at the moment.
What do you think about it?

Sounds to me like she uses her knowledge and understanding of her area of expertise to make insightful comments.... Why does someone voicing their educated opinion upset you?

Caitin Bre  wrote:
It doesn't matter if I like the photos or not. I still believe that in any situation that the ability to recreate a image is a talent. The artist shouldn't be judged based on what the photo is about. They should be respected for their ability to capture the details.

Gallery-MG wrote:
The subject of the art work doesn't matter at all?  I think the subject is at least as important as the execution.

Viewed without context, the pictures at dispute are interesting (to me at least) in their composition, use of textures, and coloring.  However, viewed while understanding the context, the images are unsettling.  Even if they don't necessarily promote any particular agenda, the scenes themselves are depressing.

I think the subject is actually more important than the execution.  The subject is what is the message being expressed--that comes from the person.  Execution just relates to how much/little skill the person with the message has.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
The ultimate failure of the democratic experiment will probably stem from the notion that everyone's opinion is just as "equal" in merit as their right to vote. 

Opinions have *merit* only to the degree that they are informed and applicable -

they unfortunately have "value" to the extent that they are influential - and it seems today that the more an opinion either conforms to the leading edge of societal opinion or to some standard of "political correctness" to which people pretend a desire to adhere the more influence the opinion has.

so -  in "my" opinion - she's full of shit. 

Whatever....

I agree, although you neglected to add one of the most influential, celebrity as a validation of opinion.

And I see it as the reverse, as an indictment of the fashion industry who considers women and models as disposable objects. And also as a statement of several societies that consider women as marginalized and disposable.

Good imagery can be a reflection of the society where it is born. If you do not like what it says, perhaps you need to look at where and how you live. 

And just because you have a PhD does not mean that you cannot be stupid and pretentious.

Caitin Bre  wrote:

Very well put. I don't have the gift of being able to communicate so well. I wish I did.

I do fear that people in the position of authority like Phelan have the powers to persuade their criticism into a cause for censorship.
Should they have the right to have their personal opinions and criticisms? Yes. But when they are speaking from there educational authority then I believe they 1st have a responsibility to leave their personal biases out of it.

I have noticed that the majority of the photos of homeless people are that of men. But I hardly think it devalues men.

And if the majority of photos of nurses are of women, that wouldn't devalue women.  The point is that the images are to represent women, as a group--or at least women who can afford the brands that the models were photographed in.  To me her point is blindingly obvious--and has been for decades.

Caitin Bre  wrote:

I don't understand your point? I don't think how much money you have has anything at all to do with opinions.

I think maybe you don't realize how opinions are formed...

KGSF wrote:
I wish people would learn the difference between the meaning of the words "censorship" and "criticism".

Censorship involves the power (usually governmental and done in the shadows) to actually stop or prevent or remove or erase from view something disliked.

Criticism just means someone says or writes they dislike something, without any actual power to do anything about it, beyond just saying "I don't like this".

Censorship is *antithetical* to a free society.
Criticism is *essential* to a free society.

They are in fact diametric opposites, and confusing them destroys or at least weakens the merits of the arguments of the person who gets them confused.

Her article is criticism, no censorship anywhere in sight.

As for the images and her criticism of them, if there's a scale with genuine misogyny on one end and genuine female empowerment on the other, I know which side I'd place them, although the postmodern critical theory language she uses to point this out seems overdone and rubs me the wrong way.

And, I do not subscribe to the notion that all creative endeavors must always be servants to social progress or causes; that idea rubs me the wrong way as well; both Stalinist Russia (extreme left) and Hitlerian Germany (extreme right) harnessed that idea. By force.

I am cool with the photographers having the freedom to create these images (even if I think they're shit, and I do), cool with her criticizing them in any way she wants, and cool with others criticizing her criticism, my criticizing the criticism of her criticism, others criticizing my criticism of (...), etc ad infinitem.

Free and diverse societies are messy and upsetting sometimes.

Yep!!!

KGSF wrote:
I wish people would learn the difference between the meaning of the words "censorship" and "criticism".

Censorship involves the power (usually governmental and done in the shadows) to actually stop or prevent or remove or erase from view something disliked.

Criticism just means someone says or writes they dislike something, without any actual power to do anything about it, beyond just saying "I don't like this".

Censorship is *antithetical* to a free society.
Criticism is *essential* to a free society.

They are in fact diametric opposites, and confusing them destroys or at least weakens the merits of the arguments of the person who gets them confused.

Her article is criticism, no censorship anywhere in sight.

As for the images and her criticism of them, if there's a scale with genuine misogyny on one end and genuine female empowerment on the other, I know which side I'd place them, although the postmodern critical theory language she uses to point this out seems overdone and rubs me the wrong way.

And, I do not subscribe to the notion that all creative endeavors must always be servants to social progress or causes; that idea rubs me the wrong way as well; both Stalinist Russia (extreme left) and Hitlerian Germany (extreme right) harnessed that idea. By force.

I am cool with the photographers having the freedom to create these images (even if I think they're shit, and I do), cool with her criticizing them in any way she wants, and cool with others criticizing her criticism, my criticizing the criticism of her criticism, others criticizing my criticism of (...), etc ad infinitem.

Free and diverse societies are messy and upsetting sometimes.

Fuck everyone, just do your thing.
x10

Gallery-MG wrote:
She didn't say that the images were created by women haters.  She said “these pictures *look like* they were created by people who hate women.”

Caitin Bre  wrote:
Good point.
I think it still drives the same basic message.

Not to people who read the words that were said and don't add in their own spin on them...

When I read your concern on this issue I thought to myself, "the author didn't say they WERE women-haters; she said they "looked like..."

To me, "looks like" and "are" hold vastly different meanings. 

This is clearly a hot topic for you.  One that gets your biases bubbling up.  That might be worthwhile for you to examine at some point.

Gianantonio wrote:
Not to people who read the words that were said and don't add in their own spin on them...

When I read your concern on this issue I thought to myself, "the author didn't say they WERE women-haters; she said they "looked like..."

To me, "looks like" and "are" hold vastly different meanings. 

This is clearly a hot topic for you.  One that gets your biases bubbling up.  That might be worthwhile for you to examine at some point.

Semantics, and the point of the both the story and of Caitlin's post isn't to persecute the artist but to talk about the issue as a whole... so there's no reason to defend the individuals in this case, they don't need defending.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
I don't understand your point? I don't think how much money you have has anything at all to do with opinions.
I think the opinion of giving me some of it is a really good one though.

A lot of people take someone's net worth as a credential of a kind.

"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

ontherocks wrote:
were some women willingly involved in this project? apparently so. and if these images are really that bad toward women then why would any women even want to be involved in the project?

Um, seriously...?

Caitin Bre  wrote:
Unfortunately that is one of the problems that inflict our society. The lack of reality. Nobody wants to see pictures of the devastation and loss of human life that war brings. But it is a reality. I am sure that people would much rather hide that side of Humans though and pretend we are perfect.
Sure the world needs more peace, tranquility and less violence. But guess what? It never has and never will be that way. It is simply not human nature. As a matter of fact killing the messenger is the same thing.
Phelan devalues the messenger in her statements very much so. And based on assumption in her opinions rather than the reality. So is that the right? As she is saying one devalues the other by devaluing the one. Doesn't make sense to me. It simply isn't reality.
In the name of more peace, tranquility and less violence people use violence. Doesn't make any sense.

The opinion that the photographer "hates women" is not a valid one as it is purely an assumption.  When it comes to art or music, I don't value the opinion of a "phd" over my own opinion.  These so called "fashion" images have been out for awhile now, and my opinion is that replication of tragedy (be it death, rape, or "wasted") and calling it "fashion" is in bad taste.  The reality is that the ratio of violent deaths for men vs. women is much higher.   So if based on the reality, then why not duplicate the violence of the Valentine's Day Massacre, after all, they were well dressed men of their day!  Have crime scene images ever been used to sell fashion?  I doubt it!

So what would be your opinion of if I took a male model, dressed him in some high fashion of the day, then shoot him laying in the gutter of a street ally looking like he is passed out drunk?  Perhaps empty bottles around him, and his pants undone, pockets turned out?  Maybe some vomit residue around his mouth and on his clothes?  Is that really a fashion shot?  Or do I hate men?