Earlier this year I posted photos from my other blog, shadowsexposed.com, about an art series I created titled, I objectify women (IOW). In it I present my thoughts on how I objectify women through my art. For me, there are many different types and degrees of objectification of another human.
This morning I read an article at Slate.com about the artist Hannah Price who photographed men that cat-called her while she walked the streets of Philadelphia. I suggest you look at the photos and read the article. I found that her photos are brilliant in how they transgress the sexist boundaries of cat calls by not returning them with a sharp retort. She both humanizes the cat callers and also objectifies them in a way. From what little I learned of her series she engaged the cat callers in dialogue and took their portraits. I wonder if this has changed their attitudes about their verbal outbursts? Hopefully.
Ms. Price is exposing one of the many types of objectification. Cat calls can be range from pretty subtle (yet in their way still very intrusive) like, "Smile for me, beautiful" to horrifically vulgar, degrading and threatening. I guess that is true of many types of objectification.
All of this makes me wonder on the intent of the objectifiers. I think there are a few major categories of objectifiers.
1. They (and society) know they are doing it and it is accepted as normal by most. This is the most common with advertising, movies, television, etc. There are dangers still, but until society shifts, it will be there.
2. They know what they are doing even though it unacceptable to society. This may be porn, cat calls, comments on forums, jokes, created art, materials, etc. Much of this stuff has to be kept underground or on special interest websites. Depending on the content, it may be protected under free speech, but maybe considered dangerous or directly threatening to the "othered". Some are ashamed they do these things, others do it blatantly and may have ill intent behind them.
3. They don't know it is objectification (both at the individual and societal levels). I am guilty of this. Many times it is subconscious, yet pretty pervasive (and may also be perverted?). Examples of this are the male (and female gaze), unconscious thoughts, jokes, and other subtle and not-so subtle manifestations.
I believe that objectification will always be part of our world and that not all forms of objectification are bad. Sometimes they are necessary filters to get information quick and make decisions. The major danger though is when they become the only form of information we gather about the objectified and also how we treat and interact or act upon them.
.jpg) |
| IOW Jacqui - gel transfer onto old cotton shirt - 102413 |
This morning I read an article at Slate.com about the artist Hannah Price who photographed men that cat-called her while she walked the streets of Philadelphia. I suggest you look at the photos and read the article. I found that her photos are brilliant in how they transgress the sexist boundaries of cat calls by not returning them with a sharp retort. She both humanizes the cat callers and also objectifies them in a way. From what little I learned of her series she engaged the cat callers in dialogue and took their portraits. I wonder if this has changed their attitudes about their verbal outbursts? Hopefully.
.jpg) |
| IOW Jacqui - gel transfer onto old cotton shirt - 102413 |
Ms. Price is exposing one of the many types of objectification. Cat calls can be range from pretty subtle (yet in their way still very intrusive) like, "Smile for me, beautiful" to horrifically vulgar, degrading and threatening. I guess that is true of many types of objectification.
All of this makes me wonder on the intent of the objectifiers. I think there are a few major categories of objectifiers.
1. They (and society) know they are doing it and it is accepted as normal by most. This is the most common with advertising, movies, television, etc. There are dangers still, but until society shifts, it will be there.
2. They know what they are doing even though it unacceptable to society. This may be porn, cat calls, comments on forums, jokes, created art, materials, etc. Much of this stuff has to be kept underground or on special interest websites. Depending on the content, it may be protected under free speech, but maybe considered dangerous or directly threatening to the "othered". Some are ashamed they do these things, others do it blatantly and may have ill intent behind them.
3. They don't know it is objectification (both at the individual and societal levels). I am guilty of this. Many times it is subconscious, yet pretty pervasive (and may also be perverted?). Examples of this are the male (and female gaze), unconscious thoughts, jokes, and other subtle and not-so subtle manifestations.
I believe that objectification will always be part of our world and that not all forms of objectification are bad. Sometimes they are necessary filters to get information quick and make decisions. The major danger though is when they become the only form of information we gather about the objectified and also how we treat and interact or act upon them.
Boy, she must be some beautiful woman to get so many catcalls, or the city of brotherly love is a unique place, because you just don't get any in a small town like mine. Even when I visit downtown Chicago, I don't get catcalls. Did she say why they do this so much where she lives??? I'm serious. Maybe she hangs out at construction sites????
ReplyDeleteDon't you think the human race, male and female, objectifies others in numerous ways? Some women see a well dressed man with a great car and say, "Money! Let's go!" Isn't that objectification? I think the distinction you're making is what happens when the objectification is sexual in nature. But what isn't sexual?
Great post, Karl.
Thanks UL for your comments. I think your last two sentences summed it up best. "I think the distinction you're making is what happens when objectification is sexual in nature. But what isn't sexual?".
DeleteIf we go by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, sex is at the most base and heavily emphasized levels. Sex is the only need at that level that is not about the immediate survival of he organism, but survival of its genes. Maybe the root of objectification is basically seeing each other as a bag of genes we want to mix and spread future generations with.