[Leica] Women

[imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)]

> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Philip F  
> <photo.forrest at earthlink.net>wrote:
>
>> Let me preface this with the statement that I'm not trying to be  
>> hurtful at
>> all. Just posing some questions to the list about "proper" "street
>> photography" and were we all draw the line between art,  
>> documentation and
>> objectification.
>>
>> I pose the question: "If were to take a photo of a woman's bottom
>> with my Leica is it street photography?"

We can only answer the question as it relates to a real photograph(s).
Many of our revered photographers have had "a woman's bottom" in their
"street"  or documentary photographs. Elliot Erwitt, Eve Arnold,  
Robert Capa and Henri Cartier - Bresson
have all photographed women candidly. Some of their images have an  
erotic tone, some a humorous tone
some an ironic twist. Most (but not all) that I've seen by them have  
an artistic aesthetic as well.

If, on the other hand, you intend to describe some hack hunting tail  
and collecting snapshots of same
to show his friends at the bar on his iPhone - well that's another  
matter all together.

>> Further: "If I were to ask that woman before I took the photo if i  
>> could do so, would she allow me?"

Only "she" can answer this question.

>> Further still: "If I took the photo with my nearly silent digital  
>> rangefinder THEN
>> told her and showed her the photo, would she approve or would I get
>> slapped/arrested/have my camera confiscated or destroyed?"

Again, "she" will have to let you know.

>>  i strongly believe that photographers all over the world have a  
>> duty to be
>> respectful in their work and respectful towards other people.

I believe this as well.

>> The taking of photos in
>> this manner

I'm unclear of what you mean by "in this manner."

>> actually does harm to the rights of photographers around the
>> world. Making the case that this is not a social more or  
>> convention in other
>> countries only serves to prove that objectification in those  
>> places is the
>> norm and is acceptable.

It would be so very helpful if we could discuss a specific photograph.
I see, in my small town, as well as Milwaukee and Chicago that many
men and women choose to objectify their sexuality by choice of clothing
or lack there of. To photograph this trend in style and fashion  
whether on the street
or the billboards showing same documents the times and places we live  
in.
Images will date this epoch just as wide brimmed hats ties and jackets
did in the 30's and 40's; and tie dyed t-shirts and bell bottom jeans  
date the 70's.
The bare midriff presented by jeans with "waist bands" inches above  
the crotch
and shirts with their hem line inches below the breasts are a sign of  
our times;
as are tattoos, etc.

Do you suggest that we should turn our eyes and cameras away from those
who choose to dress seductively; or tan topless on public beaches?

Should Erwitt not have photographed the wedding at the nudist colony, or
the art class where the students disrobed along with the model?

>> As English is the language of the LUG, the very nature of calling  
>> them
>> "senoritas" takes away from them being women. it makes them  
>> "other" and as
>> such more acceptable to objectify.

This feels like a stretch. i've not seen any exploitive images posted  
by LUG members.
And any language's name for the female human being will be understood  
by the list members.
Senora, Senorita, Femme, Donne, Frau, these are not objectifying  
terms on an international list.
They may be used playfully - but I haven't seen women as a gender  
disrespected here -
neither in words nor photographs.

>> It is a long established tactic of
>> distancing the subject of conversation to create an other and  
>> feeds sexism,
>> racism and all those other traits which we claim to be making our  
>> way past
>> in the 21st century. It's a way to make her not a woman but an  
>> acceptable
>> object. If there were more women on the LUG would we see as much  
>> of this?

See as much of "what?"
and
Probably depend on the temperament of those hypothetical new female  
members.

I've seen far more flowers, churches, weddings, dogs, cats, and city  
architecture from around the world
than I've seen women's behinds on this list.

>> Would it be as accepted?

See above.

>> If the language of the LUG were Spanish would it be as accepted?

Occasionally discussions in other languages do take place here.

>> Its objectification is what it is. Sorry, but the few years I've  
>> been here
>> on the the LUG I've seen my fair share of very non-interactive  
>> photos from
>> afar with the celebrated 85mm Sonnar or 90mm whatnot. Who are we  
>> kidding
>> when talking about the "low contrast" or bokeh or whatever  
>> smokescreen we
>> all put up to allow ourselves to gaze without guilt or shame on a  
>> blatant
>> photo of a woman's ass?

or legs or shoes or lips or eyes or noses or hairstyles or tattoos
many of which belong to our wives, daughters and grandchildren
and are presented with the utmost love and respect.
or a bird's beak or a tiger's eye or those erotic peppers by you know  
who

>> I don't want to be pushing my morals on people but
>> this is not photojournalism or street photography or whatever you  
>> want to
>> call it. Its borderline lecherous subversive image capture is what  
>> it is.

Which photograph (or photographs) are you referring to?

>> All the talk of subtle tones and resolution and all that jazz are  
>> just up
>> there to make us feel less dirty in our own viewing of the photo.

I have never felt dirty looking at a photograph posted on this list.

>> Sometimes when I take/took photos of that part of women, they have  
>> often been tied up
>> & suspended completely nude or almost so, but knew that I was  
>> there, hired
>> to make those photos.

Now I'm feeling a little dirty.

>> There was a sort of pact of personal integrity and each other's  
>> morals th
>>  at the model and I had between each other.

Making money as nude model in fetish imagery
and
making money by photographing sexual and fetish imagery
involves integrity and morals; is not exploitive or objectifying of  
women; or men;

but photographing human beings as they present themselves in public is?

This doesn't compute for me.

>> In spite of the release form and legal documents, if I were to  
>> make any of them uncomfortable for any
>> reason, I'm out of there.

But your product is still being used to stimulate the prurient  
interests of those who see them as sexual objects.

>> This street photography

Which street photography?

>> is not ironic or cheeky or academic or making some statement other  
>> than a woman has a nice bottom.
>> That's just not the best way to pursue street photography if you  
>> were to ask me.
>> I'm disappointed in what this esteemed community finds acceptable  
>> and while
>> I'll not quit the list, I'll not  be complicit either.
>> Again, I'm not out to hurt anyone. Just to maybe open some eyes to  
>> what I
>> view as photographic hypocrisy and lack of respect.

Which photograph(s) do you find unacceptable, hypocritical and  
demonstrating a lack of respect of women?

Regards,
George Lottermoser
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist