- Messages
- 695
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Come on surely this is a critique section, not a what's right or wrong in the world of objectification.
Trashy?
- Thread starter rbrown74
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,687
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Maybe, but the OP did open the door to the debate by asking if the work was 'trashy'. And it is an interesting debate too....probably worthy of an entire thread rather than being hidden here.
- Messages
- 1,290
- Name
- Drew
- Edit My Images
- No
there's one already going over here: http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=21747
feel free to put some more wood on the fire....
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
that - although that said of this set only the last one is really what I'd consider trashy - I don't really have a problem with that, if that's what you and the model wanted then fair play , and technically they are fine.
I wasn't talking about your comments about objectifying women or men in images more the fact that you added that glamour type images are trashy,unnecessary and have no place in this world.
Then comment on his images being nothing more than soft core glamour and theres loads more interesting things to shoot.When the images you take are exactly the same ....
Then you go on about people wanting to look a certain way to fit in and be accepted and how sad this is.
Your images could be said to be doing exactly the same, what differences is there having a pretty young women showing of her body compared to a man doing the same? Do men not also look to these images similarly?
- Messages
- 1,687
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't think they do. Women are constantly bombarded with unattainable images of perfection. The instances of teenage girls with poor self body images and associated disorders is worrying here in Manchester (and I assume elsewhere). Whereas we don't see the same with boys. Yes there are a few cases which is cause for concern, but nowhere near on the scale of girls.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 23,627
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
While there is a difference in some respects, the body-building universe is full of guys whose concept of beauty has been twisted inside out by images they are presented with as being ideal. There have been studies (which I can't cite right now) where men have generally wished they carried 10-12lb more muscle bulk than they do, and often significantly less fat. Both sexes are manipulated regarding image, but respond differently to that manipulation because we think and behave differently, rather than because we are not bombarded too.
- Messages
- 270
- Name
- lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The top and bottom of this story is, everyone wants to look good, some cant be bothered to try but deep down they really do want to be adored by someone and look good regardless of sex, i go to the gym 3 to 4 times a week, there are different people with different goals, some want to be thinner and more ripped but some want to be massive and 20 stone, and there are both of these where i go, but to achieve the 20 stone of muscle, they inject steroids which in my opinion is not good and they know its not good for them, so what is it that makes them poison their body's with this muck ?, basically what i'm saying is, it is the same for men and women alike. Deal with it or don't but regardless of what anyone says, we all know it is
Hi all this was a good read. I am sorry but i'm no great intellectual and just look at photos on face value. The images look great to me, well expsosed studio type photos. Yes you could read into some of the poses that they have a trashy "feel" to them but that is the pose and look you went for.
On thing I must say though. As I read the replies and came to Charlotte's which I may say was very informative, all I could think of was the photos on her own website I had viewed a few days previous and liked. All I could think of was that Charllote's images are no differnt to the above in my eyes. I apologise for my ignorance in these matters but I was thinking along the same lines as Gerard.
Gaz
On thing I must say though. As I read the replies and came to Charlotte's which I may say was very informative, all I could think of was the photos on her own website I had viewed a few days previous and liked. All I could think of was that Charllote's images are no differnt to the above in my eyes. I apologise for my ignorance in these matters but I was thinking along the same lines as Gerard.
Gaz
- Messages
- 1,687
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not sure if we should be critiquing Charlotte's work here, but I see it very differently. The lighting and focus and depth of field she used on the photo you refer to, tell a different story. The effect is subtle and makes me think of a DH Lawrence stlye scenario. I don't place it in the same category at all.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 23,627
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
You certainly should Ged - that's only the second time I have EVER heard of that word actually being used, and the first time was by my wife in an exam.
- Messages
- 4,274
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
hell's bell's, there are some posh words coming out here i'm struggling to keep up
To be honest, my eyes just started glazing over...
Do I find the images trashy? Not particularly but I can easily imagine that someone else would. Well processed and good lighting
Hi Steve. Yes agreed probably not best to debate Charlottes work. I replied to the thread purley as I felt just the same as Gerard before he posted. I didnt refer to one picture in particular either.
Like I say everyone sees things so differently which I guess is what makes the world go round would be pretty dull otherwise.
Gaz
Like I say everyone sees things so differently which I guess is what makes the world go round would be pretty dull otherwise.
Gaz
- Messages
- 946
- Name
- Denyer
- Edit My Images
- No
Is that a white BG or light grey? I'd go after whoever made the "trashy" comment and ask them to expand. If it's provoked out of jealousy they won't have anything to add, if they've got a valid standpoint then they should be obligate to explain it to you in terms you can absorb and respond to.
- Messages
- 25,348
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Really?The top and bottom of this story is, everyone wants to look good, some cant be bothered to try but deep down they really do want to be adored by someone and look good regardless of sex, i go to the gym 3 to 4 times a week, there are different people with different goals, some want to be thinner and more ripped but some want to be massive and 20 stone, and there are both of these where i go, but to achieve the 20 stone of muscle, they inject steroids which in my opinion is not good and they know its not good for them, so what is it that makes them poison their body's with this muck ?, basically what i'm saying is, it is the same for men and women alike. Deal with it or don't but regardless of what anyone says, we all know it is
I judge people, not on how they look, but how they behave. I like people that are caring and intelligent. I have a real issue with the TOWIE fixation of modern youth. The idea that a sparkly vagina is more important than a grasp of politics and economics would be funny if it wasn't so flipping serious.
So, don't assume that everyone is so image obsessed, you might be miles wide of reality.
- Messages
- 270
- Name
- lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Miles wide of reality ? I think not, you only have to walk down the street or go through town, its full of people who are trying to look their best, male and female, so who are they trying to impress?.
I love people who are caring and intelligent too, in fact I was talking to a college the other day about a certain person who he thought was very nice, my reply was she may be good looking but her personality makes her ugly, I agree with you, but I would say the biggest percentage of people do want to look good, no? and I cant remember saying that a vagina is more important than politics, saying that though I cant speak for bill Clinton, I think he may have liked a sparkly vagina.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
The image is objectifying women... like all glamour shots do. This is critique, because in all likelihood, this is the "trashy" that was being referred to.
Sorry the crit is not all about f-stops and stuff, but what the image says is just as important as how it was taken.
- Messages
- 25,348
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Seriously, plenty of people put a little effort into looking nice, but it's far from an important part of their lives.
Then there are people who put far too much effort in, and they're more likely to judge people on how they look. I hear it every day at work in an office full of younger people. I see it in the descriptions of people on FB and if you want to see the worst of it, the Mail online. Look at the average age of the male TV presenter, compared to the female presenters. There's no female list equivalent to the 'weird crush' list, because men who aren't conventionally attractive are given a chance to impress society and can sneak into women's fantasies. However, unattractive women stand no chance of doing the same. Blokes that fancy older ladies, or larger ladies are considered freaky enough to be the subject of TV documentaries.
It's a twisted mixed up world, and if all you're seeing is everyone being image obsessed as a nice thing, and still being nice people inside? I have no clue how to respond.
- Messages
- 270
- Name
- lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It certainly is a strange mixed up world, that's why I think the broader minded you are the more you get though life and enjoy it, I just say what I see, I don't know about been image obsessed, there are plenty of people who are, but I'm certainly not one of them.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
And why do you think that is?
It's because the idealised view of women is perpetuated by the kind of images that objectify them as sexual objects - Page three... glamour, pop stars... all conventionally beautiful (or made to be so via retouching). This is why it IS damaging to portray women in such a way. It just perpetuates the idea that to be attractive in any way shape or form is to conform to the ideal set by the media.
Men aren't objectified in the same way, and hence aren't measured against such a benchmark.
Most in here probably don't give a damn, because most in here are men
If the tables were turned, you'd all be moaning fast enough I guarantee you. It's for this reason why I hate glamour photography. It's usually talentless, unimaginative crap, and it just relies on women getting their baps out for the gratification of dirty old men.
Last edited:
I have never commented on images such as these. Why? I simply find such images vulgar. Whether male or female in states of undress I just think it is pornography? Although I accept that there are varying levels of such pornography with these being closer to the milder end.
If these were images of your daughter / son being portrayed on the internet how would you react / feel? Just a simple question.
If these were images of your daughter / son being portrayed on the internet how would you react / feel? Just a simple question.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 67219
Guest
The problem is that the entire world is image obsessed... with women. Not with men to anywhere near the same degree.
Look at this article for instance. I'm *not* trying to get into the page 3 debate here (although it's a little relevant to the OP) but rather the fact that a woman who was saying something incredibly intelligent and worthy was shot down because she chose to wear a blue skirt.
To people who say that the objectification of women and men is equal or even just not important, consider this. If you are a woman who does a job where you require gathering the respect of people you have to consider every single part of the way you look and dress. Being a man, all you need to do is put on a suit and a pressed shirt. But for instance, say I am going to an important business meeting or to present something intellectual, these are the things I will consider as I get ready, from the moment I get out the shower:
- Should I shave my armpits? People will comment if I don't. Even though I prefer to let them grow naturally.
- Should I shave my legs? I really need to if I'm going to wear a skirt because otherwise people will comment.
- Should I shave my head? I prefer to wear my hair shaved, but people make comments about my sexuality if I do.
- Should I wear make up? People will make comments if I don't.
- How much make up should I wear? If I get it wrong, I'll be called a slut.
- What top should I wear? I can't show too much cleavage or people will call me a slut. Even though I naturally have large breasts and can't really do much about them.
- Or should I wear a dress? I like wearing cute dresses. But people say I'm 'mutton dressed as lamb' if I do.
- Should I wear the DM's that I love and feel confident in with my dress? No, people will comment on my sexuality.
- Or perhaps I should wear a skirt suit? Better get the right length skirt, or people will say I'm a slut. Or dowdy. Either way, I can't win with a skirt suit.
- Maybe a trouser suit would be best. Risky, might get people try and insult me by calling me a feminist. Not that it insults me, but it makes them feel good.
- I'll just put on these comfy flat shoes... Actually, I'm called unfeminine if I wear flat shoes. Best make it heels.
Imagery is one of the main ways that we reinforce this kind of behaviour over women's looks, and glamour imagery is one of the prime culprits especially because of the way it is pushed to young men. And this is why many people find glamour imagery of women so distasteful. It's also the reason why glamour imagery of men is not even in the same league.
- Messages
- 2,196
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can't see image number 3.
If image number 2 was full shot and cropped, then the crop could be misconstrued as 'suggestive' (the bust, and the suggestion that there is no clothing).
Number 5, the tattoo could be considered suggestive too.
However, I wouldn't say that they are trashy as such, there is nothing more than a suggestion (and I would consider trash to need to have slightly more of a suggestion).
(I am not keen on number 2, the ring/stud spoils what would otherwise [to me] be a lovely face. I know we are not intended to comment on models directly, and this isn't really, the model is pretty, however the ring is not to my taste, and this shot draws attention to it).
If image number 2 was full shot and cropped, then the crop could be misconstrued as 'suggestive' (the bust, and the suggestion that there is no clothing).
Number 5, the tattoo could be considered suggestive too.
However, I wouldn't say that they are trashy as such, there is nothing more than a suggestion (and I would consider trash to need to have slightly more of a suggestion).
(I am not keen on number 2, the ring/stud spoils what would otherwise [to me] be a lovely face. I know we are not intended to comment on models directly, and this isn't really, the model is pretty, however the ring is not to my taste, and this shot draws attention to it).
- Messages
- 2,196
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wouldn't think that number 4 could be considered pornographic.
2 strictly isn't, it is a headshot (although, as I have stated it is suggestive that the lady is naked).
1 isn't, but it could in some ways be thought of as sexual.
5, she has everything covered, but a lot of leg showing, and suggestive.
If I had a daughter, I wouldn't be concerned of images 4 and 2. Maybe how she got into the positions of 1 and 5 though.
- Messages
- 2,196
- Edit My Images
- Yes
People relating a lady's shaved head to her sexuality, is their problem. (Personally I think that people look better with their hair though). People making a judgement about another's sexuality, is their problem also so long as it isn't thrust unwilliningly upon them.
I know several ladies who don't wear make up, I am not sure what comments should be made of them. Perhaps sometimes men are not as catty about women as women are?
I don't see women wearing trouser suits being called feminists just by what they wear, what they think inside is only shown by the way they act. So if it is an important business meeting, then putting on a trouser suit should be as easy a decision as a man making the same decision.
However, I hold doors open for women and men, does this make me a chauvinist?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,290
- Name
- Drew
- Edit My Images
- No
My experience of the creative field is that the things on your list are considered normal (that is the choices, rather than people judging or commenting as you describe). No one cares how you look, just whether you can create what they want, get on with the team and deliver to their budget. What sort of important meetings are you going to to deliver intellectual information where you get called a slut? Seriously? Who are these narrow minded and shallow people that you encounter so frequently and what do you say to them when they insult you in this way?
D
Deleted member 67219
Guest
I used to work in the logistics industry. I think that's enough of an explanation! My last job I was hired into a firm because of specialist knowledge I had, yet my male boss always explained things over the top of me when we went to meetings (with creative firms like Apple, who were my main client). He would make comments that I should show a bit more leg, or that 'all women who work in the city wear high heels'. The thing is, this wasn't unusual and I also had the same comments in warehouses I would visit like 'why do you wear safety shoes that look like trainers? you know you can get nice court shoe ones'.
Please don't tell me that no one cares how we look as women. Because they do. Telling us that no one cares just silences our voice and tells us that our experiences aren't valid.
What do I say to them? I used to say nothing because I wasn't brave enough and I was afraid to lose my job. Now I work for myself and I've already ditched two clients for being chauvinistic arseholes. Sadly they probably just thought it was my time of the month.
- Messages
- 1,290
- Name
- Drew
- Edit My Images
- No
I can imagine (even remember) those attitudes in a male/manual labour dominated environment, but you did say you get would get called a 'slut'. If that was poetic license, it doesn't help your argument. You imply that you have this choice angst every time you get out of the shower. If that was your experience in that line of work, I sympathise. I understand how this can still prevail in that kind of environment, and while that doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it universal either.
When I said no one cares, I was referring to the creative field and its breadth of diversity. Women with shaved heads, wearing DM's, shaved/unshaved armpits/legs would not raise an eyebrow. You can probably add tattoos and piercings to that, as well as gay, lesbian and bisexual orientation (to date, I have yet to meet anyone transgender although I'm sure they would be treated with the same regard as the aforementioned). I know and have worked with, many MUA's, stylists, hair stylists as well as other photographers and anyone sporting any of the choices on your list would, in my experience, be treated with complete indifference (although I think cute dresses and DM's can be a great look and would probably go down quite well!)
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
people of both sexes are judged on how they look though - my job requires me to move seamlessly from a practical feild to an office environment
If I wear tectors, combat trousers (spattered with mud), a fleece and duvet jacket , and leave my face unshaved and my hair uncombed (with the net result that i look a bit like a werwolf ) my experience is that i won't be taken seriously in a business setting when making a funding presentation or negotiating with various parts of officialdom - i'll generally be talked down to and my opinion disregarded because I am "clearly" a manual labourer and "therefore of lower IQ or importance . I will however be taken seriously by contractors on site who see someone who walks the walk rather than just talking the talk.
On the otherhand if I wear smart shoes, a nicely ironed shirt, a silk tie, and a business suit , shave my face and style my hair - I will be taken seriously in the business setting as i'll be perceived as one of 'them' - and my opinion will be valued (or at least not disregarded) because i am "clearly" someone qualified to hold it. However if i go on to site dressed like that i'll be just another suit, and while the contractors may do as I say because i have the power to fire them, they won't take me seriously or be willing to listen to suggestions on how to do the job because I am clearly " a suit who knows nowt about getting his hands dirty"
You could argue that both judgements are wrong and morrally corrupt as who I am doesnt change with my clothing and style, but that argument is fundamentally pointless as it is just the way things are and never likely to change.
If I wear tectors, combat trousers (spattered with mud), a fleece and duvet jacket , and leave my face unshaved and my hair uncombed (with the net result that i look a bit like a werwolf ) my experience is that i won't be taken seriously in a business setting when making a funding presentation or negotiating with various parts of officialdom - i'll generally be talked down to and my opinion disregarded because I am "clearly" a manual labourer and "therefore of lower IQ or importance . I will however be taken seriously by contractors on site who see someone who walks the walk rather than just talking the talk.
On the otherhand if I wear smart shoes, a nicely ironed shirt, a silk tie, and a business suit , shave my face and style my hair - I will be taken seriously in the business setting as i'll be perceived as one of 'them' - and my opinion will be valued (or at least not disregarded) because i am "clearly" someone qualified to hold it. However if i go on to site dressed like that i'll be just another suit, and while the contractors may do as I say because i have the power to fire them, they won't take me seriously or be willing to listen to suggestions on how to do the job because I am clearly " a suit who knows nowt about getting his hands dirty"
You could argue that both judgements are wrong and morrally corrupt as who I am doesnt change with my clothing and style, but that argument is fundamentally pointless as it is just the way things are and never likely to change.
- Messages
- 270
- Name
- lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Very very well said, I totally relate to this with the business I run it is exactly the same as you describe here, the only difference is I don't let it get to me, it's life.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It doesnt get to me either, i was just sayin
I don't judge female colleagues on looks either ... but i do make value judgements if colleagues of either sex are inappropriately dressed for the task at hand (if you are visiting a building site shoes with a 3 inch heel are not appropriate... for either sex )
I don't judge female colleagues on looks either ... but i do make value judgements if colleagues of either sex are inappropriately dressed for the task at hand (if you are visiting a building site shoes with a 3 inch heel are not appropriate... for either sex
)
- Messages
- 270
- Name
- lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It doesnt get to me either, i was just sayin
I don't judge female colleagues on looks either ... but i do make value judgements if colleagues of either sex are inappropriately dressed for the task at hand (if you are visiting a building site shoes with a 3 inch heel are not appropriate... for either sex
Lol sorry I didn't mean you let it get to you, I mean some people do
- Messages
- 31
- Edit My Images
- No
Great shots, and the peaking tattoo on the last - love it!
- Messages
- 3,724
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Having trawled through this thread, I think there are a lot of different issues that are being merged into one for whatever reason.
Given that first impressions are formed within the first minute of meeting someone and that 60% of communication is through body language, it is fair to assume that looks play a big part in society regardless of sex. If I turned up to a client meeting without being suited and booted I would be laughed out of the door! The issue is around stereotypes and the whole short hair, DM's, tattoo, piercings etc are just examples of this and cant be blamed on glamour. One of my friends in covered in tattoos and piercings and is one the most polite and thoughtful men I know. Whilst Glamour does objectify women to some extent, it also been used over the years by women as an expression of power and control. Whilst you could argue that lapdancing is also exploiting women, I know a few dancers who do it because of the control and power they have. Knowing that men will do pretty much whatever they say.
As to the whole self image arguament, I dont think glamour can be blamed for this one and it isnt exclusive to women and girls. This has been around for years and I would say it is down to the media and marketing companies. It wasnt long ago that fashion was blamed for this with the size 0 catwalk models. Personally I know I could lose with shedding a few pounds and all all my male colleagues at work obsess about their images and visit the gym to bulk up in the right areas. I'm happy as I am
Anyway back to the OP. If by trashy you mean do they objectify women. Then yes, however that is what glamour is about. You could also argue that the women are expressing their control and power in the most primal way. It is very easy for a woman to get her own way, us men are simple creatures So you could argue that rather than degrade women, glamour could actually empower them.
Given that first impressions are formed within the first minute of meeting someone and that 60% of communication is through body language, it is fair to assume that looks play a big part in society regardless of sex. If I turned up to a client meeting without being suited and booted I would be laughed out of the door! The issue is around stereotypes and the whole short hair, DM's, tattoo, piercings etc are just examples of this and cant be blamed on glamour. One of my friends in covered in tattoos and piercings and is one the most polite and thoughtful men I know. Whilst Glamour does objectify women to some extent, it also been used over the years by women as an expression of power and control. Whilst you could argue that lapdancing is also exploiting women, I know a few dancers who do it because of the control and power they have. Knowing that men will do pretty much whatever they say.
As to the whole self image arguament, I dont think glamour can be blamed for this one and it isnt exclusive to women and girls. This has been around for years and I would say it is down to the media and marketing companies. It wasnt long ago that fashion was blamed for this with the size 0 catwalk models. Personally I know I could lose with shedding a few pounds and all all my male colleagues at work obsess about their images and visit the gym to bulk up in the right areas. I'm happy as I am
Anyway back to the OP. If by trashy you mean do they objectify women. Then yes, however that is what glamour is about. You could also argue that the women are expressing their control and power in the most primal way. It is very easy for a woman to get her own way, us men are simple creatures
So you could argue that rather than degrade women, glamour could actually empower them.