[Leica] The perfect Photographer

[jbm at jbm.org (Jeff Moore)]

2010-12-16-17:38:53 tedgrant at shaw.ca:
> Jeff,
> 
> This is a damn fine photograph depicting a photographer on a ladder
> at work! That's all it is, as simple as that. Like where is your
> mind?

Now, Ted, you know (or should by now) that I have the greatest respect
for you, and have for years - but I think you have some blind spots,
as well.

This is a photograph, from behind, prominently featuring a young
woman's ass.  It's a lovely ass, as others have remarked.  But because
of the angle from which it was shot, not showing her face at all, it
doesn't (to me) seem to engage with her as a person.  It feels a
little sneaky and objectifying.

And when this was posted, a few (male) list members praised it, in
what (perhaps in my madness) felt to me like a mildly leering way.

Now... maybe, as someone suggested, the woman in this photo has seen
it, had a good laugh, and approved its posting.  If so, that would be
swell.  But taking the image by itself, I don't see within it a reason
to believe this.

I, personally, would be embarrassed to post a picture like this.
Maybe that's just my own hangup.  Maybe I'm just too shy to let on for
the world to see just how much I like ladies' bottoms.  Maybe I'm
projecting my own hangups onto Lluis's work.

But I think it's something different.  I think that taking and sharing
pictures which prominently feature attractive parts of a woman's body,
yet seem to have been taken from an angle such that the woman involved
is completely unaware that this is going on, makes me uneasy.  Why
this in particular bothers me more than all the other types of candid
and street photography, which I generally quite enjoy, I have trouble
explaining completely coherently.

Maybe it's the objectification, maybe it's the resonance with what has
and hasn't changed in the roles of men and women in society.

I do have a suspicion that sensitivity to this sort of thing is
probably both cultural, and, probably even more, generational.

There was an earlier thread in which some contributors (was it maybe
Rabs and Phil Forrest?) expressed some doubts about a photo of a
seated woman's legs, showing her just from about the knees down.  They
were soundly flayed by an angry mob from the LUG, and I felt guilty
that I hadn't been reading the posts in time to chime in in their
support, because what they said made sense.  At the time, I thought of
an analogy, which I'd like to trot out and ask for people's reaction
to.

Picture in your mind the movie "Gigi".  Maurice Chevalier is singing
the song, "Thank Heaven For Little Girls".  Is your gut reaction to
his character that he's:

  (a) A charmingly urbane gentleman, with an appreciation for the good
      things in life;

  (b) A creepy old lecher;

  (c) A bit of both;

  (d) something else - please share!

I suspect that the answer to the above question may track well with
one's reaction to these photos.  And I suspect that both may track
with the factors I suggested above.  For instance, I expect that
having been born after, say the mid '50s, and educated in the US, may
make you more sensitive to the things which are bugging me.  Coming
from Western Europe may make you less so.  Being a woman may make you
more so.  Having grown up a few decades earlier may make you less so.
But do chime in...  especially the women in the crowd, if you have any
reaction.

My answer, by the way, is (c).  Which is what I'd expect, given where
and when and with whom I was raised.

I believe that Lluis is a charming man whom I'd be pleased and honored
to share a meal or a drink with, should that ever be my privilege, and
I greatly enjoy the majority of the glimpses of life he's been kind
enough to share with us.  But I do (just occasionally) find some which
make me uneasy.  And I think it should be just as valid to bring this
sort of thing up as to comment on f-stops and light and shadow and
cropping.  Although I admit that my initial comment wasn't long on
explanation.  Truly, it didn't seem to me at the time that much
explanation was needed.  But I guess there was, because there exist
such different worldviews.

> EXCUSE ME?  Embarrassed to post this? Where have you been in the
> super stores and magazine stores with near naked women all over the
> place?

Ah.  But the vast majority of near-naked woman we see in magazines
(at least in ads) are models, who've been hired to be near-naked.
They've entered into an agreement to be portrayed however they've been
portrayed.  They've gone into the situation with their eyes open, and
are doing what they're doing "for good and valuable consideration", as
the lawyers might put it.

That seems different to me from a sneaky(-seeming) picture of a
woman's bottom from behind.

> I mean if her bare ass were hanging out that would be an
> embarrassment! But it isn't and fully clothed.

It's not a question of skin or no skin.  I'd have no problem with
someone's bare ass, if it were a voluntary bare ass.  I have no
intrinsic problem with naked people, whether arranged artfully on some
rocks in monochrome or full-on goin' at it in living color.  I love
naked ladies, as long as they're consenting naked ladies who are being
true to themselves.

And actually, your observation kind of reminds me of my dad, who made
an arbitrary distinction of "skin is bad" (at least if you're talking
about it publicly) and "not-skin is fine".  So he didn't understand why
I turned up my nose at the leeringly intrusive quality of the National
Enquirer he wasn't at all ashamed to subscribe to - it "wasn't porn",
therefore it was okay.

Whereas I think good honest smut is far more honorable than the
leeringly suggestive.

> What's your problem?

Actually, Ted, I'd love to ask you the same question.  What exactly
about my comment caused such an immediate and intense flare-up of
anger?  What were you reacting to, or what did you feel you were
defending?

> If I sound annoyed, I damn well am! As that's the most ridiculous
> question posted I believe I've seen in all my years on the LUG!

If you truly believe that, I think you've forgotten some of the
nonsense which has gone on here over the years!

Respectfully,

 Jeff