On 11/28/05, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That was my point, which somehow seems to have zoomed right past > Frank. It doesn't matter a whit if the subject is an object in the > first place. > > As for objectifying people, that goes back at least as far as the > "Venus of Willendorf", no doubt the "pinup" of her day. > > Every day as I work I am overseen by a little stone figure on a shelf > above my desk. She is Ishtar. Carved from sandstone by some unknown > artist 5,000 years ago in Babylon. She brings me luck and > inspiration. My personal little objectified goddess.
I don't think anything zoomed by me at all. Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes, but I think I understood what you meant. I merely disagreed is all. I don't see every portrayal as objectification. Far from it. I think what I'm talking about is the difference between illustration and art, the difference between a mere likeness and a portrait. If you think that every rendering of every subject is objectification, well, I'm not going to change your mind (and I'm not trying to). I'm just telling you my point of view. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
