Reduction of Humanity - the Objectification of People in Photography.

[jsrockit]

I took ten years off from photography. Once I decided to do it again, I decided that I was just going to go out and have fun and not worry about if the photo was a cliche, was worth making, was current, offered something more than aesthetics, etc. It's also the most fun I've had photographing as well.

There is always someone out there that will tell you whatever you like doing is wrong. This is in everything in life. You cannot please everyone.

 

[RedLion]

I like John Free's philosophy: Respect your subjects. This may mean different things to different people. For myself, one expression of this principle is photographing people enjoying themselves. Here's a set I took a week ago that illustrates the point:

People Dancing to music.

 

[Arbitrarium]

A lot of the time, adding a human figure into the shot gives a bit of perspective/context to a scene. But mainly, like you said, I just use people as props in the composition. It's not photographing people, It's photographing human bodies. If their body works in the composition, great, it doesn't matter who they are or if they're going through a divorce or have terrible indigestion.

Portraits are a totally different matter of course. But even then, the most you can do is make the lighting moody and have the model pull a sad face. Without a commentary, there's no way to genuinely portray the subject as a person.

 

[tunalegs]

There is always someone out there that will tell you whatever you like doing is wrong.

The question is not so much whether or not this or that is bad, so much as it is whether people examine cause and effect and their role in it.

There are a lot of people who say their photographs are "about people" but who don't actually care much about people except when they can see them as photographs.

 

[gns]

... the most you can do is make the lighting moody and have the model pull a sad face. Without a commentary, there's no way to genuinely portray the subject as a person.

Right. Let's not forget that photography can only deal with the surface of things. It is, by its nature, superficial. The camera objectifies everything. Because it provides an abundance of detail, it appears to tell us a lot, but it really tells us very little. Pretty much everything interesting about photography is wound up in this contradiction.

 

[jsrockit]

There are a lot of people who say their photographs are "about people" but who don't actually care much about people except when they can see them as photographs.

I get what you are saying completely. I've had to come to the realization that I'm one that cares about photographs more than developing relationships / changing the world... and that's why I say my photos are about NYC as a city and not the people that may appear in them.

 

[tunalegs]

I'd say, there's a word that is etymologically very very close: sanctimonious.

Ok, so what's the really interesting part about that?

I get what you are saying completely. I've had to come to the realization that I'm one that cares about photographs more than developing relationships / changing the world... and that's why I say my photos are about NYC as a city and not the people that may appear in them.

About scenery, not people. Which I get, being my photographic taste is somewhat similar.

 

[cz23]

A lot of the time, adding a human figure into the shot gives a bit of perspective/context to a scene. But mainly, like you said, I just use people as props in the composition. It's not photographing people, It's photographing human bodies. If their body works in the composition, great, it doesn't matter who they are or if they're going through a divorce or have terrible indigestion....

I think many of us are adopting this model—the human figure or figure group as an element in a larger composition. Fan Ho's work is about as good as it gets for this approach.

John

 

[airfrogusmc]

Painters have used human form as design elements for centuries. Why is it a problem if photographers do it? Human form, as Arbitrarium and John pointed out, is also a great way to give scale to a piece. If you don't like something just move on. Lotsa room to move around in the visual arts. I do have a problem with people telling others what they should turn their cameras to. I also do not like it when others try to push their own morality and views on what should or should not be photographed on others. If you don't like it don't do it. Don't look at it but I feel it's wrong to push that on others.

 

[tunalegs]

Painters have used human form as design elements for centuries. Why is it a problem if photographers do it? Human form, as Arbitrarium and John pointed out, is also a great way to give scale to a piece. If you don't like something just move on. Lotsa room to move around in the visual arts. I do have a problem with people telling others what they should turn their cameras to. I also do not like it when others try to push their own morality and views on what should or should not be photographed on others. If you don't like it don't do it. Don't look at it but I feel it's wrong to push that on others.

It's rather a false equivalence, given that paintings were always known to be made by hand, whereas photography right from the earliest days was viewed as a "science" that produced perfect visual copies of reality. In fact it was this idea of photography's objective recording of reality that kept photography from being accepted as an art during the first several decades of its existence. And it's an idea that still sticks fast even though photoshop has been on the scene for two decades now, and fakery and manipulation are as old as the invention itself.

I don't like prudes shoving their ideals down artists' throats (particularly as they rarely have any understanding of art) but I also wonder how many people think about what they're really doing with their photos. Thus the questions in the original post. Do people have a genuine interest in their subject? Or do they only see them as photo opportunities? Further if they do actually see their fellow humans as people, does their work reflect this?

And does it matter either way? I'm not sure that it does, but as of yet in this thread I've not seen an explanation of why it wouldn't.

Obviously photography doesn't have to be about people, even if people are in it. But there's a difference between taking a scene with some people in it, and composing a shot around a particular person. So why that person? And what for? Do people think about it, or do they just think "this photo will get me some attention" and click the shutter.

 

[fireblade]

Exactly, basically everything what someone does or omits, is political.
This is why I find it really interesting to explore whether or not people who talk about «oppression», or «exploitation», etc., are Saints, according to their own scale?
It's then often very disappointing when they who talk a lot about these enormously important questions wear clothes, made in a sweatshop, or use a mobile, made in a sweatshop, and so on …

Every man is a liar and a hypocrite, and I'll say it again, the world starting turning to **** when instant coffee was invented. It's been a downward spiral since.

 

[airfrogusmc]

It's rather a false equivalence, given that paintings were always known to be made by hand, whereas photography right from the earliest days was viewed as a "science" that produced perfect visual copies of reality. In fact it was this idea of photography's objective recording of reality that kept photography from being accepted as an art during the first several decades of its existence. And it's an idea that still sticks fast even though photoshop has been on the scene for two decades now, and fakery and manipulation are as old as the invention itself.

I don't like prudes shoving their ideals down artist's throats (particularly as they rarely have any understanding of art) but I also wonder how many people think about what they're really doing with their photos. Thus the questions in the original post. Do people have a genuine interest in their subject? Or do they only see them as photo opportunities? Further if they do actually see their fellow humans as people, does their work reflect this?

And does it matter either way? I'm not sure that it does, but as of yet in this thread I've not seen an explanation of why it wouldn't.

Obviously photography doesn't have to be about people, even if people are in it. But there's a difference between taking a scene with some people in it, and composing a shot around a particular person. So why that person? And what for? Do people think about it, or do they just think "this photo will get me some attention" and click the shutter.

Why not that person? I photograph people as well as things that I find interesting. I work for a reason and purpose and I have my own code but like sjones pointed out I think that works for me and maybe not others. The bigger question is why others care what others produce. If those who worry so much about others would clean up their own back yards before they try and clean up others their own work would probably see a vast improvement. Like I said lotsa room to move around so don't agree with something don't shoot it and you have plenty of other things that might float your boat.

Maybe some should just have a degenerative art exhibit and be done with it.

 

[tunalegs]

Why not that person? I photograph people as well as things that I find interesting. I work for a reason and purpose and I have my own code but like sjones pointed out I think that works for me and maybe not others. The bigger question is why others care what others produce. If those who worry so much about others would clean up their own back yards before they try and clean up others their own work would probably see a vast improvement. Like I said lots'a room to move around so don't agree with something don't shoot it and you have plenty of other things that might float your boat.

Because most people who view works don't make works. And it's a pretty rubbish argument, like those who tell people if they don't like a movie, they should produce their own blockbuster hit before criticizing it.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Because most people who view works don't make works. And it's a pretty rubbish argument, like those who tell people if they don't like a movie, they should produce their own blockbuster hit before criticizing it.

Lotsa room to move around. Those that do...do. I think people that try to push their moral and visual views on others hold views that are the real rubbish. So I say time to move on. Maybe make an image or two. Shoot what you feel in your heart and do it honestly whatever that may be. Whatever that is there will always be those that don't think you should do it.

 

[tunalegs]

Lotsa room to move around. Those that do...do. I think people that try to push their moral and visual views on others hold views that are the real rubbish. So I say time to move on. Maybe make an image or two. Shoot what you feel in your heart and do it honestly whatever that may be. Whatever that is there will always be those that don't think you should do it.

Ok, move on. Nobody's making you read this thread.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Ok, move on. Nobody's making you read this thread.

I am moving on and I agree with sjones completely

Have fun with all the censorship. How creative, huh?

 

[tunalegs]

Funny, I don't think anybody in this thread told anybody else not to do anything. Although several have mentioned things they themselves do not do.

I'm sensing some are extremely uncomfortable with their own work.