Reducing the subject to an object

[gho]

Let's put a bit spice in here. Today I had a glimpse into some opinions about aesthetics that triggered the following question: Is photography reducing the subject into an object for the viewing pleasures of the audience? What is your opinion?

 

[finguanzo]

Sometimes.. 🙂

 

[DNG]

Of Course, once you take the photo, the subject is the object of attention 😛

 

[squareshooter]

Duh...something less that swift questions demand something less than clear answers. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Depends...

 

[semordnilap]

The issue is the word reducing, isn't it... What is the hierarchy in which the reduction is taking place? Why must the photograph be less than its subject? And isn't the photograph itself objectified, more than its subject, when put on display?

 

[blackwave]

If anything, good photography makes a plain ol' object into a subject. Said another way, it can elevate a "thing" in order for us to examine it more closely, visually or in thought.

 

[jonmanjiro]

If anything, good photography makes a plain ol' object into a subject. Said another way, it can elevate a "thing" in order for us to examine it more closely, visually or in thought.

I agree with blackwave, but I won't attempt to define exactly what "good photography" is 🙂

 

[blackwave]

I agree with blackwave, but I won't attempt to define exactly what "good photography" is 🙂

A wise man! You can't make friends doing that around any forum 🙂

 

[Monochrom]

Ortega y Gasset

Ortega y Gasset

Hi, try these one.

The Dehumanization of Art

Ortega y Gasset

I think it will help you a nice deal.

😉

 

[shadowfox]

If yes, then what? are you going to do less photography because of it?

If no, well, then carry on.

My answer: it differs from person to person. How you perceive anything (including photography subject) depends a lot on how you view life in general.

 

[rluka]

Personal shallow opinion (disclaimer), depend on the observer/viewer.

Even if the photographer is as heartless and detached as is possible, if peoples viewing the picture is interested more in the pictured and could engage in discussion about it (whether it's people, scenery, object) then they're the subject.
If those looking is paying more attention to the picturing (composition, techniques), then it's just an object in the whole picture.

In short: what grabs your attention more, the pictured or the picturing ?

 

[Addy101]

This reminds me of a thread the other day about Susan Sontag. To me it was nonsense, she was trying to sound clever with some simple ideas. This is the same.

When I take a picture of a person, that person remains a subject. The picture changes nothing about that.
The picture is an object, true, with the image of a person. But as Magritte already noted: "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (this is not a pipe). The picture is not a substitute for the original, it is just a representation of it. It might remind us of the original, the subject, but it never ever is the original.

In the end, this is just playing with definitions. It has no meaning. Hence, the answer to the question is a resounding no!

And to the people who say it depends on the viewer: not true. Whatever you think of a picture, has nothing to do with the FACT that it is just a representation of the original.

 

[helen.HH]

I say...
Reducing No
Glorifying Yes

 

[FrankS]

Wonder what Susan Sontag would have said on this topic.

😉

 

[helen.HH]

Wonder what Susan Sontag would have said on this topic.

😉

Hehehe, here we Go again 😛

 

[mfunnell]

But what if the subject of a photograph is an object? Is representing one object with another object really "objectification"? And could that really be considered a "reduction"? In any event, are the feelings evoked while viewing a photographic object not "subjective"? Even if the subject of the object is an object. Those feelings are certainly not "objective" although certain types of photography strive to be objective in their representation. Some object that no form of representation can truly be objective, while others might say that viewpoint, considered objectively, is a subjective one. Or not. Subjectively, I believe I've given up objecting.

...Mike

 

[f16sunshine]

I don't think this one should be made too complicated.

In 2 dimensions everything/one is an object. A photo is 2 dimensional.
That's why activities like online dating are more akin to online shopping than actually having a interpersonal social introduction (traditionally how one meets new people).

A photograph is not alive even if the original subject was. It's an object.

 

[Darthfeeble]

What else could it be in a photograph?

 

[FrankS]

S.S. would say that photography turns a subject into a target, and ultimately a victim, me thinks.

 

[tunalegs]

Let's put a bit spice in here. Today I had a glimpse into some opinions about aesthetics that triggered the following question: Is photography reducing the subject into an object for the viewing pleasures of the audience? What is your opinion?

Depends on your audience.

Some people will watch a movie but remember that the stunts they saw were done by professionals on a movie set. Others will go home, try them, and learn painfully that they are not professionals on a movie set.

If your audience cannot understand that what they're seeing is an object depicting an actual person - well it's not your fault they're stupid.