Yes, Frank makes a good point. And because people are not objects, it's actually somewhat difficult to "objectify" them. The very act of photographing them is almost certain to reveal something about their personality or situation. Clothing can say a lot. The lack of clothing can sometimes say even more. The expression, whether it be a vacuous stare or a smile of enjoyment, says a lot. The position of the hands and the tilt of the head can be meaningful. Even the portrayal of a deviant sexual act says a lot about a person -- perhaps a lot more than we want to know. Paul
> Well said, Frank, and I pretty much agree with you 100%. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: frank theriault > > > Bob Shell said: > > > > 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. <snip> > > > > I disagree. > > > > A bowl of fruit is already an object. You can't objectify it, you can > > merely portray it as an object. > > > > People are more than their physical selves. If you choose to > > photograph or otherwise portray them in such a way that nothing more > > is communicated about them than their bodies, if you ignore or choose > > not to tell us something of their personality, their "soul", their > > "spirit", then you objectify them. > > > > I'm not saying that objectification is necessarily bad; but that in > > my mind is what it's about. > >
