I think the term "objectifying women" has lost its literal meaning. In
our PC world it has come to mean depicting women in a way that is
blatantly sexual. However, that being said, I find that a difficult
line to draw. Human beings are inherently sexual. Its part of the
package. I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object.
Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body?
Paul
On Nov 26, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Bob Shell wrote:
On Nov 26, 2005, at 12:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OTOH, objectifying women does annoy me.
You know, I hear this comment a lot, and I just don't understand it.
The main definition of objectify is "exteriorize: make external or
objective, or give reality to; "language externalizes our thoughts"".
As artists we always objectify that which we depict, we make it
external and objective. If I photograph a bowl of fruit, I objectify
it. I was drawing, painting and sculpting nudes before I took up
photography. Yes, I was objectifying them. That's what
representational art is all about, what it does. When I photograph a
nude I am objectifying the subject. I don't have a problem with that.
My models don't have a problem with that. Galleries that hang my
shows don't have a problem with that. People who buy my prints and
hang them in their homes and offices obviously don't have a problem
with that. But there is this perception on the part of some that I am
somehow harming "women" by creating objective images of them. I think
maybe this says more about the critic than about my work.
Bob
