mdarnton
Well-known
Thank you.
Reduction of Humanity - the Objectification of People in Photography.
- Thread starter tunalegs
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 56
- Views 5K
Thank you.
emraphoto
Veteran
i disagree with the notion that modern photojournalism is not delivering the same potent images that circulated during Vietnam. there is a lot of deeply disturbing work out there depicting modern warfare.
http://noorimages.com/feature/marine-wedding/
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a4/3b/7c/a43b7c1db87f086f0cb106e596096252.jpg
https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2015/spot-news/jérôme-sessini
i think it's more an issue of desensitization than it is a lack of images being produced and shown.
sjones
Established
Well, why don’t we get to the heart of the matter. How many people would like to ban street photography from this site, with a clear understanding of the deep historical linkage between rangefinder cameras and street photography?
Are we asking for elucidating discussion or interrogative justification, because the tone points to the latter even if that’s not the intent. The thread's title itself doesn't exactly suggests a neutral starting point.
And how far do we want to take it? A photo of just hands; now that’s pretty reductionist if you ask me, even if prior consent was given.
And why stop at photography; how much do I know about that gal in an 18th century nude painting in relation to how much I can find out about any given Playmate of the Month? And should that dynamic determine how much artistic value I should place on one or the other?
And what about those folks dotting the bucolic scenes of expressionist paintings? I don’t know much about them; and I don’t even know if consent was given for their likeness to be used. And does any of that matter?
And when a person feels lust for a stranger, are they not objectifying or exploiting that person? I had one person tell me that when a man feels lust, he is effectively raping the female object of his lust (she failed to address any issues regarding women who feel lust). The point being that sanctimonious oneupmanship can get pretty political, as opposed to actually ethical, and intensely subjective.
Photography is a visual medium; and, within the bounds of legality, its aesthetic is often vindication enough. That might seem superficial or egregiously cosmetic, but how these aesthetics affects the viewer is not for others to judge; and such effects could prove far more personally or emotively substantive then others might realize.
After all, photographs don’t tell stories; if you want the narrative, then you’ll need the text, and even this is suspect in our current climate.
But photographs illustrate, and much can be gained from this alone on various levels. And with street photography in particular, the subject is life; even if the person is just a “prop,” there is life, and in its least contrived form even if the focus is just on form.
Moreover, all photography is documental. The old snapshot of a relatively nondescript building might nevertheless hold incalculable value to the person who spent decades working there, in that building, where now stands a gas station.
As Jamie Pillars put it, “But all the photographs tell me SOMETHING.”
All of this said, because I have my own ethical limits, I understand that other folks will also have limits even stricter than mine; that’s fine. Humans are complicated, morality is complicated, which is why I don't impose my restrictions on others.
And ultimately, what a wretched disservice it would have been had any one hypothetically succeeded in preventing or permanently censoring Robert Frank’s “The Americans,” as just one example; there are many others. While some might argue that Frank’s book objectified its subjects, I contend that seldom has there been a more expressive visualization of humanity.
Anyway, said my bit; you can PM me, but to continue on in this thread would get quite circuitous. And besides, I’m not out to change anyone’s approach, but yeah, let’s try to keep the self-righteousness in check. It’s a rangefinder site for God’s sake, lo and behold, it’s going to attract street photographers.
Are we asking for elucidating discussion or interrogative justification, because the tone points to the latter even if that’s not the intent. The thread's title itself doesn't exactly suggests a neutral starting point.
And how far do we want to take it? A photo of just hands; now that’s pretty reductionist if you ask me, even if prior consent was given.
And why stop at photography; how much do I know about that gal in an 18th century nude painting in relation to how much I can find out about any given Playmate of the Month? And should that dynamic determine how much artistic value I should place on one or the other?
And what about those folks dotting the bucolic scenes of expressionist paintings? I don’t know much about them; and I don’t even know if consent was given for their likeness to be used. And does any of that matter?
And when a person feels lust for a stranger, are they not objectifying or exploiting that person? I had one person tell me that when a man feels lust, he is effectively raping the female object of his lust (she failed to address any issues regarding women who feel lust). The point being that sanctimonious oneupmanship can get pretty political, as opposed to actually ethical, and intensely subjective.
Photography is a visual medium; and, within the bounds of legality, its aesthetic is often vindication enough. That might seem superficial or egregiously cosmetic, but how these aesthetics affects the viewer is not for others to judge; and such effects could prove far more personally or emotively substantive then others might realize.
After all, photographs don’t tell stories; if you want the narrative, then you’ll need the text, and even this is suspect in our current climate.
But photographs illustrate, and much can be gained from this alone on various levels. And with street photography in particular, the subject is life; even if the person is just a “prop,” there is life, and in its least contrived form even if the focus is just on form.
Moreover, all photography is documental. The old snapshot of a relatively nondescript building might nevertheless hold incalculable value to the person who spent decades working there, in that building, where now stands a gas station.
As Jamie Pillars put it, “But all the photographs tell me SOMETHING.”
All of this said, because I have my own ethical limits, I understand that other folks will also have limits even stricter than mine; that’s fine. Humans are complicated, morality is complicated, which is why I don't impose my restrictions on others.
And ultimately, what a wretched disservice it would have been had any one hypothetically succeeded in preventing or permanently censoring Robert Frank’s “The Americans,” as just one example; there are many others. While some might argue that Frank’s book objectified its subjects, I contend that seldom has there been a more expressive visualization of humanity.
Anyway, said my bit; you can PM me, but to continue on in this thread would get quite circuitous. And besides, I’m not out to change anyone’s approach, but yeah, let’s try to keep the self-righteousness in check. It’s a rangefinder site for God’s sake, lo and behold, it’s going to attract street photographers.
rbelyell
Well-known
well, it might be important to you to consider how others view your work, and thats fine for you. but please dont tell me it needs to be important to me. it isnt. i dont do photography for anyone but me. thats who i need to please. like most art i consider it a wholly selfish act--it brings the artist happiness to engage in the process. it fulfills some creative need the artist has. its about the artist, not the audience. i detest what mapplethorpe communicates, so i choose to ignore it. i conciously choose not to criticize his art or lecture him about his choices. theyre his for him to live with, not for me to correct according to my beliefs or the belief of some policing group to which i might belong. but then again, i dont feel the need to run the world per my parochial povs. thank goodness, many wouldnt like it! ):
Tim Murphy
Well-known
I like you!
I like you!
Dear rbelyell,
I like you. You may now consider yourself cursed.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂
I like you!
Dear rbelyell,
I like you. You may now consider yourself cursed.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂
mdarnton
Well-known
That's the wonderful thing about internet forums: I personally think looking at amateur street photography is a massive waste of time, and never open those threads, but I have the ability to do that, not look at it here, so its very presence doesn't bother me.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I guess you would have more information about this than I do but I remember hearing an interview with some photo journalists who had returned from Iraq and commented on the fact that not one of them was able to get to the front line and they were pretty much told what they were and weren't allowed to photograph. Maybe that was unique to this conflict?
emraphoto
Veteran
well, i know that large, established military forces do spend a great deal of time and effort on controlling their 'image' 😉
peterm1
Veteran
I pretty much agree with all of this including what rbelyell wrote. Sounds to me like you guys (hope I am not putting words in your mouth) I get sick and tired of people assuming they have the right to lecture me on what "should" be important to me. And in many cases these days, though thankfully not on this forum, assume they have the right to threaten me, accuse me or insult me if I do not agree with their viewpoint. One reason I support this forum is that there is not much, if any of that, here. People here, including those starting or contributing to this thread, seem to respect each other's right to have differing views and I like that.
But I never the less take photos for me not for others as said in these posts. And although as I also said I try to respect others always I don't get too hung up on whether my (respectful) images "objectify" others. In fact I am not even sure what "objectify" really means (as opposed to what people pretend it means). It sounds to me like one of those words some people use to sound erudite and virtuous while denigrating benighted souls who are less moral than they are. (My apologies to the originator of this thread - I am sure this is not your intention).
So I guess my message is this - First respect people, especially your subjects. Then take photos. Finally do not worry too much about other people making judgments about your motives or your work. Unto yourselves be true as they say.
seany65
Well-known
Aren't the abstract photos of people, in which you can't always tell what bit of them you're looking at, more 'objectifying' than 'porn'/erotica? After all, in most porn/erotica you can tell it's a real person and if you look closely you may be able to glean some clues about the personality of the subject(s), clues such as what they are wearing or doing.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
If you don't care what other people get out of it, and you're only doing it for your own satisfaction, then there's no point in showing anybody else what you make. And if nobody sees what you make, then there's no point in being responsible about the work you display, as you don't display any work. 😉
Yes, but in a rather different way.
I agree.
Though I think whenever somebody endeavors in any project they need to be willing to take responsibility for what they create. Although my personal feeling is that art is self centered, and the artist's intent should take precedence over an audience's interpretation, one always has to remember that when they create something and then let it out into the world there will always be the risk that the audience gets it wrong, or possibly that the audience gets it "right" but in a way the creator didn't necessarily think about. Oversights sometimes happen, and sometimes even plain stupid things sneak out right under one's nose as well. But that's the risk one takes putting work out there.
However that's a bit beside the original point of the questions I posed. I was more just wondering how much thought people give when going out and snapping candidly. If those thoughts about what they might really be doing occur to them.
Tim Murphy
Well-known
Consider yourself cursed as well
Consider yourself cursed as well
Dear Peter,
I'm kidding of course and before you agree with anything I ever say you might want to go back up the thread and re-read what I wrote above.
I stand by my words, unlike some people, so you might not want to align yourself with me.
That said please do as you wish and photograph what you wish. Myself, I'll stick to shooting birds and trees and rocks and things. Boring I know, but no one gets offended by the subjects.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂
Consider yourself cursed as well
Dear Peter,
I'm kidding of course and before you agree with anything I ever say you might want to go back up the thread and re-read what I wrote above.
I stand by my words, unlike some people, so you might not want to align yourself with me.
That said please do as you wish and photograph what you wish. Myself, I'll stick to shooting birds and trees and rocks and things. Boring I know, but no one gets offended by the subjects.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂
roscoetuff
Well-known
I agree with those who say, "I take photographs for me"... 'cause most of us will be long forgotten and our photographs, too, much as we make take our efforts seriously. I think the ethic of the photographer is free to cover a lot of ground, and whatever our philosophy may be in terms of what motivates us... is our own inner voice. If someone else finds some joy in what we do, then we are blessed to have made more than one person happy, and that's a gift. But it is also a gift we cannot control. IF we can make the person IN the photograph... if there is one... happy as well, so much the better.
But is there not an exploitation of nature, too? Sure there is. No escape from the over-sensitive (often also referred to as the "professionally sensitive class"). The concern for man/woman is one thing, but Wendell Berry (leading light of the class btw) long ago took the Sierra Club to task over their interest in preservation and conservation of only the "pretty places"... and believe it or not, to their credit, they changed their practice and on top of that, funded the republication of Berry's dyspeptic book. Before that, the Sierra Club had been funded by the Oil Companies to preserve and conserve "those places we're not able to drill oil". He's right btw on everything, and he'll tell you that, too. I bet he's a lot of fun at parties? Uh huh.
But is there not an exploitation of nature, too? Sure there is. No escape from the over-sensitive (often also referred to as the "professionally sensitive class"). The concern for man/woman is one thing, but Wendell Berry (leading light of the class btw) long ago took the Sierra Club to task over their interest in preservation and conservation of only the "pretty places"... and believe it or not, to their credit, they changed their practice and on top of that, funded the republication of Berry's dyspeptic book. Before that, the Sierra Club had been funded by the Oil Companies to preserve and conserve "those places we're not able to drill oil". He's right btw on everything, and he'll tell you that, too. I bet he's a lot of fun at parties? Uh huh.
mdarnton
Well-known
I know you're just saying this in your capacity as a Saint, to point fingers, but there are some interesting ethical questions here that people do actually think about, starting from here, for instance, and going on much further than this piece indicates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar. Basically, some suggest a distinction between things you are forced to do versus things you choose to do. I don't know anyone who is forcing you to ambush people on the street for your own private entertainment, doing something to them secretly because they wouldn't willingly have it done to themselves.
Nathan King
Established
Photography on its own doesn't cheapen humanity, but photographs taken without respect for the subject and regard for the overarching message certainly can. Documentary photography is always about the subject and not the photographer. My opinion is that the best documentary photography often acts as a bullhorn for the subject, distilling their personality, laying bare their feelings, and amplifying their message.
Take, for example, the below image. The solemn expression, distant gaze, cardboard sign, and setting sun convey the message. The photograph was taken from a slightly low vantage point to increase the sense of determination. Had I stayed I'm sure I could have found a sliver of time that appeared unflattering or where her body language betrayed her message, but agree with her position or not, that would have been unethical (not to mention extremely rude and unfair to the subject).
Take, for example, the below image. The solemn expression, distant gaze, cardboard sign, and setting sun convey the message. The photograph was taken from a slightly low vantage point to increase the sense of determination. Had I stayed I'm sure I could have found a sliver of time that appeared unflattering or where her body language betrayed her message, but agree with her position or not, that would have been unethical (not to mention extremely rude and unfair to the subject).
bushwick1234
Well-known
The only possible "reduction of humanity" is when we still are having so many wars going on where innocent people must die and so many poor, homeless, and starving people in our so-called democratic countries.
Photographing (but also painting, writing about) the human condition is not a sign of lack of humanity. Questioning it, yes.
bushwick1234
Well-known
willie_901
Veteran
Very Disappointing
Very Disappointing
Will tunalegs ever reply and to the these responses?
Very Disappointing
Will tunalegs ever reply and to the these responses?
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
What?
The only possible way to reduce one's humanity? Are you sure? I would think there are many ways.
And if they're not?
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I'm asking what if one is not a saint according to their own scale of saintliness. Or if you like, what if one is?
Similar threads
