So there's a photo of a woman naked above the waist and the viewer has sexualized her?
Are you serious? Bruce took that photo knowing that part of its appeal would be sexual. And Dorrie agreed to have the photo taken, knowing that sex was a part of it. Does that mean Bruce exploited Dorrie? No. By agreeing to be photographed in that way (indeed, being part of the creative process) was Dorrie being exploited? Yeah, I think so. Not by Bruce but by a society that puts a value on the sexualization and objectification of women. Being a consenting part of the process doesn't mean one isn't being exploited. We're all socialized to see this as normal and acceptable but does that mean it's okay? Men and women are portrayed far differently by the media. Yes, men can be sexualized, but in a very different way, and certainly far less frequently than women. My problem isn't necessarily with this individual photo or with Bruce. It's that this is a part of the exploitation and objectification that goes on every day on TV, in movies, magazines, and advertising of all kinds. Women ~are~ treated differently than men especially in sexual portrayals, and to the extent that this photo is a part of that, I feel very uncomfortable. Thanks for listening, frank On 2 August, 2015 3:28:59 PM EDT, Bill <anotherdrunken...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 01/08/2015 9:06 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: >> Thank you very much for your kind words and support, Frank! >> >> >> If it is of any comfort to you, the model, Dorrie, fully participates >> in and approves of every part of the image creation process. > >I think this is where the whole "exploitation" via sexualization and >objectification argument falls on it's face. >When the subject is a willing participant in the process, who is being >exploited? > >Who is sexualizing the model? Is it the photographer who has taken a >picture of the model? The artist who sketches or paints a likeness of >the model? > >Or is it the viewer who sexualizes and objectifies the model with his >or >her own preconceptions? > >There is a very tired old argument that art was invented to get women >out of their clothes. Perhaps it is true, perhaps it isn't, but the >argument ignores the reality that the subject has to be a willing >participant in the process for the process to happen, which effectively > >torpedoes the whole exploitation argument. > >This is almost an aside, and should go into another post, but the image > >in question is quite nice, though not one of the best pictures I've >seen >you do of Dorrie. > >bill -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
