By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger.
Re-posted and slightly edited from the original 2015 BF post. This topic reminds me of recent (2017) debates about the definition of “harassment” of women.
Definition of objectifying women: ” Female sexual objectification by a male involves a woman being viewed primarily as an object of male sexual desire, rather than as a whole person.” (Wikipedia )
But the definition of objectification includes more than just that. It also includes a broader statement as “treating anyone or any idea as a physical object.”
The painting “Nu Couché” by Amedeo Modigliani (above) sold yesterday (2015) at Christie’s for $170.4 million and made headline news all over the world, but the reporting did not raise the issue of Modigliani’s objectifying women.
After all, ever since man could draw a picture on a cave wall he would draw a naked woman. When photography was invented in the early 19th century, what do you think was first photographed? And, of course naked women have captured the creative juices of many male and female artists over the years, and the images are not always complimentary of the female form.
There are some female photographers who have achieved fame by photographing women, sometimes in a highly sexualized way. I wonder how many of those critics who attacked Blogfinger would have criticized Ruth Bernhard, a famous artist known for her erotic black and white images of the female nude. Her work was compared to that of Ansel Adams, and in 2014, a retrospective of her photographs was shown in New York City at the Peter Fetterman Gallery. The exhibit was called “The Eternal Nude.” She also has published a number of books of her work and she has won many awards. Can anyone seriously claim that only men can be accused of “objectification?”
Picasso is a good example of an artist who loved to paint and sculpt women, often with bulging eyes and multiple breasts (see below.) That painting (“Les Femmes d’Alger” 1955) sold for $179.4 million in 2015. Would any of you feminists accuse him of objectification? And how about Georgia O’Keefe whose paintings of flowers were often likened to female genitalia?
The sale of the Nu Couché reminded me of two incidents this past summer when Ocean Grovers, two women and one man, accused me of “objectifying” women in our series “Girls in Their Summer Clothes.” You can search above to see some of those photographs from that series, but you will find that none of the women are naked, disrespected, or even objectified.
On one occasion we posted a photo of a female OG lifeguard in a bikini munching on a Weezer ice. The image was taken by a woman on our staff. Would she be accused of objectification? Here is a link to Jean Bredin’s photo;
There are incidences when the phrase “objectification of women” might fairly fit, as when a woman’s body is used to sell a product, but our photographs do not fit by any reasonable standard, and I believe the accusation has been overdone in our society.
Sometimes political correctness results in nonsensical allegations, such as when feminists say that photographing or looking at a woman in a mini-skirt is objectifying her. The attacks on Blogfinger fall into that category.
Women have been making great strides in the US in an effort to be appreciated as whole individuals and not the sum of their parts. Attacking responsible segments of our society such as Blogfinger for objectification of women is to be small minded, to distort reality, to divert attention from the important goals of women, and to turn them into victims when just the opposite is necessary.
TONY BENNETT:
Hi Jane: Thanks for keeping abreast of the situation.
Paul
I think that it is something that when babies are born the first thing they look for is food and so men are attracted to the female breast probably from the time they were born and are still looking for food! Men just haven’t gotten over it. Just an observation.
Last summer we were photographing morning scenes on the OG beach, and one of our pictures was of some lifeguards, men and women, setting up for the beach opening. The female guards wore bikinis. There was one complaint about the lifeguard photos.
Yesterday, 7/26/21, Pete Ackerman of the Asbury Park Press took and published 35 beach photos in OG including quite a few of bikini clad women, and some were lifeguards. Will there be any outrage?
I do not mind the girls in their summer clothes photos. In particular I am enjoying this one of the lovely young lady on the front porch at #7. She is my progeny and I do NOT object.
Thanks.
E.S. Hart,III
So while we are knocking down sculptures, maybe we should demand that the Modigliani painting be destroyed.
Studying the nude is a very important part of an artist’s education. As a 17 year old art student attending an all women’s art school…I was drawing and painting nude women and men within the first week. This was required throughout the entire 4 years. After a while you start to capture the essence of who the model is as a person. Both challenging and thrilling.
Thanks Mom —Paul
It’s Paul’s website and he can put up whatever he wants and doesn’t need any negative remarks about anything.
Rakittner: You are right to a point—when there is a gray zone. But sometimes objectification is clearly happening, as in the Victoria’s Secret window display at the Freehold Mall; and other times it is clearly not happening as in our image of the young woman on the boardwalk. And, by the way, that photo of the woman on the boardwalk was accompanied by text about her accomplishments.
And finally I would dare to suggest that objectification of women may be acceptable and normal at times. What’s wrong with appreciating a woman’s looks? Context is important. For example, I wouldn’t say that pornographic portrayals of women are acceptable, in fact they are potentially harmful and dangerous to the women and to society. Yet, distasteful as they may be, they are not illegal.
If you review the writings on objectification, you will find that it is a complicated subject. —-Paul
Objectification happens in the eye of the beholder.