Glamour photography, fine art nude photography, lingerie photography, swimwear photography — all of the above involve nudity. Sex sells — no explanation needed here. Or, at the very least, it will get you more likes on your page or your Instagram account. Is the sexiness in itself a problem? This is a recurrent debate. The #WomenNotObjects campaign, launched by Advertising Executive Madonna Badger, is calling on the advertising industry to put a stop to objectifying women for marketing purposes. As photographers, do we have a responsibility in this controversy?
Badger, co-founder and chief creative officer at New York advertising agency Badger & Winters, was inspired by a Google search and decided to raise awareness on the way women's bodies were used to sell pretty much anything. The loss of her children in a tragic house fire in 2011 made her see her industry in a different manner: "I want my life to have a purpose."
The video of the campaign has been released and it's going viral. UN Women tweeted about it and it got support from Ashton Kutcher, Alanis Morisette, and George Takei. Will it have an actual impact on the advertising industry? Unless Congress passes a bill to that effect, I doubt it. The goal of campaigns is not only to get results, but also to start a discussion. So, let's chat for a second here, because ignoring the problem is part of the problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21vOSVojv8o
Sex is in every visual genre: conceptual art, film, and photography. It is not an underground current; it is in your face on a daily basis. The campaign focuses on the problem of using sexualized women's body parts in a commercial capacity. But what about the norm of sexualizing women in imagery in general? Why would we frown upon Burger King implying oral sex with a seven-inch sandwich and not frown upon the fact that when a woman gets into a bikini, we photograph her on her hands and knees looking up, whether it is for a swimwear catalog or a personal series? If we want to show respect to women, does that mean we should not shoot them in a sexy manner at all? Are men's bodies just not sexy enough to become objects? Or maybe retouching male hair on torsos, thighs, and calves is too big of a deal?
We might fully agree with the precept of equality, frown on sexism, and generally treat women with respect in our personal lives. And yet, when we are editing our last shoot, don't we choose the image of the girl with a slightly open mouth and a lascivious pose to post on social media?
It would be easy for me to point an accusing finger at all the male photographers out there. Yes, the photography industry is dominated by the male human species, and it is a common assumption that men think about sex every seven seconds, so adding the two together could lead me to heated arguments.
Yet I am just as guilty of using sex in my imagery in order to get more traction. Hey, I am a photographer that loves skin and curves. Sexualizing has become an industry standard to the point where I am anesthetized. When I see those billboard ads that are accused of objectifying women, they do not shock me, or even worse, they do not get me thinking of all the possible implications that they could have. In that sense, I might be more of a photographer than a woman.
What does that say about the standards we commonly accept in our industry and keep reproducing without even being aware of them? As image makers, don't we have a responsibility in the way we portray the world, even if it is for a commercial purpose?
I do too! I always show her/his best feature to make them look their best and sexy. But when I tell my female model to open her mouth I know I am close to asking her to become a sexual receptacle. It's on a tricky border. If it's just the mouth and a sexy gaze but the rest of the body is lets say more toned down I feel ok with that. She is a fantasy but she is not shown in a degrading manner. At least in my opinion. Maybe somebody else will tell me that is not the case. But whatever their opinion, I know what I am flirting with, I don't hide behind "it makes her face look better because it's more oval". There are so many ways of shooting a sexy woman and the border between making her alluring to the senses and being just an object can shift in a second. The devil is in the details.
And why then is the oval face form lauded as the "ideal"? There are haircuts and make up tips for women with long faces to "hide" this and make it appear more oval. As the open mouth is often combined with a finger in the mouth I'd say this is about sexuality.
In beauty shots, headshots, yes:) sorry i don't see a lot photos with fingers in mouth, and if see it's more "sensual style", and not in mouth, but just near lips.
Some great points being made by a lot of men on this topic. I'd love to hear the opinions of a few more women on this topic as well.
I agree, it can be shocking how different men and women's opinions can be. Very dependant on class as well, more so for women than men. (In general, mind.) But then again, lots of men on here with drastically opposed sentiments! Always good to have a balanced discussion.
And now we know how sexist and male dominated the Photography industry is! Thanks Fstopper community!
Ian, I'd be curious to know what your take on this is. (Please don't take this as a confrontational tone, I agree that there are many heated and ill-advised comments on here that show some poor character.)
However, all the comments are currently attacking strawmen, using this article as a springboard for an entirely different discussion.
Thanks Bill. Of course my comment was a blanket statement based on the comments, but it's important to take note of the problem. I think that the industry itself- the marketing leaders, CEO's, are primarily responsible for such sexist content being released. That's crucially because there are not enough women in the industry to say "that's not okay" AND the fact that from what I have gathered, the men in such positions to talk about it either are 1) not aware of the problem 2) aware, but feel no wrongdoing or 3)just very greedy/sexist/misogynistic. Now, I'd like to group most men into #1 and #2, men who support the feminist movement and equality. The issue is that they are bystanders, simply watching the problem unfold. And NOT to attack men in such positions, but I think it's extremely important for them to acknowledge"hmm, this isn't right" and speak up about it. Because it's not only the women who have to fight for such things, but also the men who tend to have the position to change things. ( in this case, because there are more men in the industry.)
Ultimately, I think that it's important that men, along with women,participate in the fight against sexualizing and objectifying women, because it's our fight, not just women's.
That's a good point. It can be hard to take action if you don't notice that something needs to be done. How do you think we can move towards equality in photography? I'd like to hear your thoughts on how these images oppress women and how we can fix it. (Seriously - while I may be in the camp of blissful ignorance right now, I am always looking for new perspectives. I treat my viewpoints as hypotheses, always looking to disprove them.)
Look at who works in the fashion industry. Gays and women
That is completely and totally inaccurate.
How do most of the mega wealthy all-powerful celebrities dress?
http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/marc-jacobs-030613-0...
Completely false.
Who reads fashion magazines?
People of every gender and sexual orientation.
I don't know a single straight male, other than photographers, who would look at a fashion magazine.
I know plenty.
Not to mention the majority of the most successful photographers in the fashion industry are heterosexual men.
I saw this commercial on tv the other day..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsXGf-U7II
And i feel so offended..I feel so misunderstood... i think im going to cry...
This is wrong on so many levels, where to start...
For one, I'm no good with a bow and arrow... Therefore I'd rather see it left out as it shows my shortcomings as the predator of a man that I am, incapable of even wielding the basic weaponry of my ancestors.
Those bottles are definitely an analogy for men that are climaxing! It's a disgusting innuendo and they're not even trying to hide it...
Look at them dancing on that stage, the vast majority of the audience are women and guess what... The prettiest girl has her eyes set on one of the guys up on the stage. Whereas I, being the average joe that I am, am being disregarded and left out!?
And will you just look at that slow motion walk out of the water emphasizing their muscular upper bodies. Looking in the mirror I realise I'm pretty much down to wearing a sweater for the rest of my life, thanks Jillz!
All jokes aside (I know they are poor), this is pretty much how modern day third wave feminists over-analyse everything...
I love that, thanks for sharing. Funny, upbeat, unapologetically salesy. Not bad product photography either.
1976 perrier ad, to promote the entry of new sizes of bottles in their range of products.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV4OHniLMps
Do you not see the difference between the ad you posted and this?
The truth is, every photograph objectifies its subject. That is the very nature of it - you reduce what's in front of the camera down to a two dimensional grid of colour. Such a shallow representation of reality will never reflect the personality of the subject, and must rely on the pure visual stimuli conveyed. Can we argue with the fact that sex sells? Photos aren't meant to show normalcy, as we get plenty enough of that in our own lives. When we look at photos, we want to see fantasies. Mansions, convertibles, gorgeous girls, gorgeous men. It's a way to escape reality for a bit and send your mind to a happier place.
That is what photography is for, when it comes to media. No one wants to waste time looking at photos of what they can experience in full reality, and to try to sell that kind of imagery would put any photographer out of business.
So yes, we objectify women in our photography. We objectify everything. Sometimes we need a break, and photography gives us that portal to the imagination.
Please stop with the one dimensional freshman year justice politics. Yes corporate American advertising is abusive and sexist, to everyone! That isn't "photography" and photographers aren't responsible for what creative directors pitch and what clients sign off on in corporate advertising. By the way, advertising world wide is way further past us in sexual content.
Our personal work isn't the same thing as advertising and talking about it in the same breath as if all photography has the same place is naive. Besides all that, sex is just sex, it's human. I've never shot a model in a sexual way without the model being fully aware and into the scenario. That means women are in control of their own sexuality and they don't need us telling them that they're victims.
Then for pretty much every charge of sexism against women in media you will find the flip side for men. There really are only one or two desirable types of men in media and they're all false. All men in video games are idealized in 2 to 3 ways, all unrealistic. Men on TV are there to provide money and keep you safe. Men in movies are supposed to kill shit and fuck. This could go on and on. When we tell stories in art and media we create these things out of who we are, it isn't wrong, it just is.
Advertisers clearly believe that we need boobs to tell us when to eat and a dreamy log cabin dude with a trimmed beard to make us a cup of coffee in the morning. So what?
Blame the "creative" (not so much) talent and the suits who pay for it, not us.
Women are the number 1 offenders according to a 10yr Harvard study. Not the men. Let stop giving women a pass on their bad behavior and all this feminist Diva crap. They are also the most violent by a factor of 10!! Stop tolerating women's manipulative sociopathic behaviors and hold them responsible! There are however, good women out there, but the bad ones deserve the same treatment as men period!
Sorry in a portrait setting (clothed or not clothed) a woman's body is more pleasing than males. If woman get to worked up over a photo you have taken. Just look at their account and you will most likely see them flaunting their ass, boobs, well their whole body and we (photographers) are the bad guys? Shits too funny to let it ruin your day. Its like Vegans having cats and feeding them ground up meat.
I have no opinion on outside issues. One might say "it is forbidden to forbidden".
It seems all biological things come hardwired to propagate. People might not like it, but I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon. We are all drawn to beauty like it or not. Pretending it doesn't exist seems silly.
We can argue all day about whether sexualization of women in public imagery negatively affects the status of women in society. I just think that relying on sex to sell your imagery is leaning on a crutch that keeps you from ever learning to stand upright. It's lame.
Question is: What to do about it? Ban women's swimwear ads? Ban mens fitness ads? Ban retouching? Or psychoeducation? I'm leaning towards the last one... It should not be a war between men and women, but a conversation between the initiated and uninitiated.
Well, evolution made women the beautiful sex.
Every photograph/advertiser etc. are naturally want to make their work beautiful.
So why not choose the most beautiful option.
And since (for legit work) models are payed and choose the contract of their on free will... no harm done!
Feminists that bring up this topic over and over again, without haveing legit complains from e.g. models, are just seeking attention. (Or are male models piss about not getting enough work).
I mean sure sex gets exploited. But why complain about it if no harm is done and every1 involved is doing it by their own free will??
Just here for the comments..
Firstly, photography (of anything) is by nature a form of objectification. However, questions we need to consider are perhaps "Why are there more overtly sexualized photos of women than men?", "Is this a bad thing?", and "Can we do things differently?"
The answer to the first question is probably down to physiology – Men are more sexually motivated by the visual part of the brain. Women are more sexually motivated by the touch part of the brain. This could lead to more overtly sexualized pictures of women taken by men (particularly as the historical gender imbalances have led to more male photographers than women).
Are sexualized images a bad thing? I would say that would probably come down to the attitudes of society... but if they start to limit how society see women (i.e. as sexual objects and nothing more) then YES, that would be a bad thing (in my opinion).
What do we do...? MAKE SURE AS A PHOTOGRAPHER that you are are forging your own path. Break the stereotypes... Look for images that are enlightening and inspiring. Don't treat any subject with less than it's true value. Done!
Great article and I don't think people are over sensitive. As photographers we have a responsibility to be artists. Produce great work that raises the level of our viewers emotions and add good to our culture and humanity, without demeaning the model: woman, man, children or animal. If you find this hard to comprehend, place someone you love, your wife or life partner, mother or your daughter in front of the lens and then compose the shot. And oh yes another thing, men think about sex every second not every seven seconds
*Scrolls past multiple F Stoppers website pics of semi naked women to arrive at this F Stoppers article* How ironic.
I was unaware of the sexualization of women in advertising for the longest time. It never occured to me why it was always only women and never men who were shown naked. Until I went to college, it was the first time that I was confronted with feminism. A year later I walked into a store that sold car parts, so definitely a testosterone laden environment. And next to the counter there was a life size poster cutout of a blonde woman, dressed in a bikini and she was holding a tire. And suddenly, it all seemed so incredibly ridiculous. The sales clerk stared at me. I just thought, what does the woman have to do with the tire, why is she naked, why does she look like a porn star. It didn't make any sense.
So what am I getting at? Yes, women will be women and men will be men. Of course men are going to look at young, attractive women. And why not, that's just how nature works. There's no need to apologize for it. But there is too much of anything, even if it's a good thing.
Female beauty, especially teenage beauty, is being idolized and worshipped. We're sourrounded every day with pictures of young models, edited in Photoshop and crafted to perfection. It's a vehicle to sell everything, from tires to hamburgers to constipation medicine. And that's what bugs me. Most of the time there isn't even a logical connection between the sexualization and the product.
Traditional advertising is dying a long, excruciating and slow death. Yes, it's easy to slap a hot young blonde on a picture of a hamburger. But what people really want is to be entertained. You don't get brand loyalty with skimpy women, you get it with emotional connection. A viral campaign that brings some kind of USE to the lives of the customers will get far more attention and most importantly, loyal clients. That's where the money's at. And maybe sexualization will be included in a viral campaign, but that's ok if it makes SENSE to include it.
The advertising environment is just flooded with sexualization and to stand out it's important to do something different. This isn't only a feminist issue. This is also about advertising and the change it goes through.
But there is something distinctive about sexualization in the photogropher's world. Old men taking pictures of barely legal teenagers in their basements, I never thought that this was true. But I've seen it multiple times now and that's a whole beast of its own. A very interesting foray into psychology and the science of attraction.
Thank you, you've very nicely summed up my issue with advertisements as well as many of the photos of women I see on photo-sharing sites (this one included). My significant other and I have joked about running around to all of these sites and tagging them #whynopants?
If there is no logical reason for a woman to be pants-less, why do it? If there is no logical reason for her shirt to be just barely covering enough to be considered PG13, why do it? The reason is quite obvious.
I have no problem with sexuality. It just needs to make sense within the context of the project. Looking through the advertisements and popular photo-sharing sites, its obvious that context is not the strong suit of most of these people...its literally "sexy girl because sex sells!". Whole lot of thought put into that one guys...very artist you are, much creative...
Sexualisation and sexism are two different things which a lot of people get wrong - sexualisation targets men also, so I don't understand why we're focusing on women - this is general problem. I had a similar discussion with a "feminist" friend and in the end it appears that showing well built female body is bad, but well built male body is not a problem...? IMO it's equal.
It's not about showing well built women's bodies but they way we do it. The context. The message behind the image.
What is the message, and why is it harmful? Is it hurting the model or the viewer?
Genuinely curious - as I mentioned earlier I'm using this discussion to challenge my viewpoints and try to come to a better understanding of all this. Getting to the heart of this matter is deeply important for any photographer.
Hi Bill, Thanks for actually wanting to hear varied opinions. It is refreshing! Peter Timmer posted a video ad of men for a drink. It's fun and teasing. The ads I posted as a comparison are not necessarily as fun for me as a viewer. (I can't speak to the models opinion ) Why ? Because one is celebrating a gang bang and the other looks more like an Ad for porn hub. But it is not even the act represented in them that has me twitching: who am I pass judgement on how people want to enjoy their sexuality. It's the context: When that type of imagery is shown in mainstream mass media and when it is used to sell product it validates an opinion that a woman can be treated as an object: her sexuality is defined by what is done to her not what she does with it. Similar images in an art gallery with a concept behind them might not have the same impact. Kinbaku, the art of japanese rope bondage does not shock me because it is an illustration of a form of sexuality and its visual beauty. The images may sell but they don't sell a product. So it really is the context that gives a different perspective.
Yes, you're right - I was extrapolating.
I wonder how many of the defenders of commercial misogyny would feel differently if some creep were leering at their daughter. I boycott companies whose ads encourage creeps to to view the women in my life as victims and targets.
Misogyny is a hatred of women. Do any companies hate women? That seems unlikely, since women are a key demographic keeping most companies in business. I'd say most companies love women, and do everything they can to encourage their success so that they can continue to buy more products.
Companies love profits. If they can make more of them from men by portraying women as victims, targets or objects, they will and do. Let's not get all kumbaya about how companies love women. And, let's not make the Romney mistake: corporations are not people.
Also, your definition of misogyny is overly narrow. From a dictionary:
"dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women".
I'd call some of the imagery under discussion clearly representative (or manipulative) of an ingrained prejudice against women.
Exactly, companies do love profits. And, on average, companies are selling to a market that is half women. Therefore, does it not follow that companies love women? You can't love half your money and hate the other half.
But more importantly, is prejudice a bad thing? We all have it. If you didn't have a million prejudices, you'd have no way to make judgements. Prejudice makes our society functional. So what prejudices in particular are we talking about here, and what specific harms are they causing?
Objectification is not an easy conversation, simply because it ties into the rhetorics of feminism, and male stigmatized culture. This is actually one of my senior thesis studies when I was in photography school, was the study of exploitation and objectification through sexuality and photography.
One of the big things I realized about objectivity is that people who are generally objectified, do not mind the fact that being objectified, as long as they know what they're consenting to.
A lot of people of you the word of objectivity as a means of negative exploitation, but in many respects, most of the female models that I've worked with, know exactly what they're getting into, and actually enjoy the prospect of being an object of desire. It's a confidence thing in some cases.
On top of which, the negative connotation of objectification also ignores the fact that women have the right to say no to particular project. If a woman decides that she is not into the idea of being objectified in a certain way, and she feels that it's more exploitation than anything, she has all the power in the world to just say no. In fact, a lot of models that I have worked with, often turned down jobs that they feel or too objectifying in the wrong ways.
I think it's important that we learn to respect the responsibility of women's choices, and if they also choose to be put in a position of their own free will, then to say that is automatically negative objectification exploitation, is ignorant. Part equality is understanding the woman's choice in the matter is well, & I understand that someone will enjoy being objectified within reason because they enjoy their job and what they do.
The only time I see objectivity as a negative thing, is when someone is not up front about exactly what narrative is being told and portrayed.
Just reading the title, not reading the article, pretty sure that short of politics it'd be the dumbest thing I'd read today.