If a man photographed these images, would they be different? If so, how and why?
Consider the relationship between Schorr’s images and photographic images found in
advertising or magazines. Describe the similarities and differences.
e-mail me your responses
Shiera
I think absolutely they’d be different, although I think they’d be different if anyone took them to be honest, be that because of gender, race, etc. I remember a professor telling me a story about how he asked a bunch of people to draw him a house, and no two images came out alike. They had universal themes between them, but everyone’s drawing was different because of their personal background and what their conditioning of a “house” looked like, and I think the same idea would play here. Although she’s trying to capture the work in sort of genderless ambiguity, I don’t think she can help approaching it as a female who just so happens to be fascinated with gender ambiguity. The lighting, how she has the man sitting, where he’s sitting at, what she’s chosen to be in and out of the picture I think plays into that. If it was, say, a conservative male taking these shots, his vision of photographing a male without clothes by the lake would look different.
Her work has a sort of photographic quality where it looks like it’s capturing a non-posed moment, but it’s not so random that it’s boring and uninteresting to look at. Some are in fact posed, but not to the point where they look like something you’d find in a magazine. There’s an artistic narrative that seperates her work from being an image found on advertisment, although it looks like it could be if the product lends itself to her work.
Sara
Schorr has an artistic eye for the male body, in the sense she seems to almost envy it. The way she takes pictures, enhances the adolescent male teen bodies. If a man were to take these photos, I think it would change the pictures dramatically. A straight man might have a totally different idea about what is beautiful on the male body verses what Schorr thinks is beautiful. Their approaches would be different.
There are some similarities between photographic images of Schorr’s work and that of a magazine article. Both are slightly posed but more so with a magazine article. In Schorrs series of the Army uniforms she seems to have more of that snapshot quality in her images. Her images are also not trying to sell anything to the viewer but rather tell a story through the poses and expressions of these teen boys.
With her series of high school wrestlers, we see action shots that that illustrate a companionship between the boys. Something I think Schorr is really interested in along with the beauty of the male form.
Philippe
If a man photographed these images, would they be different? If so, how and why?
Consider the relationship between Schorr’s images and photographic images found in
advertising or magazines. Describe the similarities and differences
A task of an artist to present his or her view/idea in the most truthful manner is indeed a difficult one. Regardless of the artist’s gender, he or she is faced with such problem and is responsible for providing an answer or a point of view. Hence, if Schorr’s images of boys were to be taken by a man, obviously they are expected to receive different responses from the viewers. In fact, some photographers in the early twentieth century were also faced with the same challenge as Schorr was. However, those artists who took similar images of boys without clothes were accused of being homosexuals, and their works were condemned for being pornographic. Likewise, those images would receive distinct reactions and have a slightly different outcome.
Although the argument is sound, the fact of the matter is that Schorr’s portrayal of a boy is in essence no different than that of those aforementioned artists. Thus, even if the content and the artists’ intention may be similar, the societal response may vary.
Schorr’s images are therefore singular compared to photographic images found in magazines for the same reason that Schorr’ work is similar to that of the artists. Since the images in magazines are taken with an intention to portray male beauty for marketing purposes, they serve a different role. The only similarity between those images and Schorr’s work is that they both are products of this society, which is in serious Adonis complex.
Chris
Absolutely would the images be different if a man took them. First and foremost, the man would be accused of being a homosexual pedifile instantly. Secondly, the meaning behind the photos would no longer be about an artist’s study of the male body and how it differs from her own, it would become a study into male nudity and sexuality. As a gay man, i find these images hard to look at without the feeling that everyone in the room is assuming i am looking at them in a sexual way when, in actuality, i find them anything but sexual. i find them disturbing on many levels. i understand what Schorr is getting at and what her reasoning behind it is, i just question the effectiveness of this particular solution to convey her message.
As far as the relationship to these images to photographic images found in advertising….umm, have you seen a Abercrombie catalogue before? Its filled with this exact same imagery. Young, athletic, men scantly clad and generally in some homoerotic pose either by themselves or with another male model. i think the goal for Abercrombie is to appeal to a certain demographic: the young gay man which are the backbone of that company’s sales. I dont see Schorr’s work as trying to appeal to any demographic for the sake of sales, but i think her work could be misconstrued as that same “sex sells” tactic.
Kristi
I really doubt if a man did these images if they would give any different feeling to them. There was a very strange feeling of almost objectification in the photos and that would not change if a man had taken them.
The images Schorr takes are very similar to those found in ads and magazines. They have that very static posed quality a good deal of the time. The lighting is also very reminiscent of ad photos in that it isn’t very dynamic because it usually takes away from what you are trying to sell. The subject matter is probably the only true difference between her work and ad and magazine photography.
Wait… Collier is not a man! I think these images would be looked at totally different if they were taken by a man. If they were taken by a man, and i am not sure they were not, they would probably be looked at as homosexual art. Im not sure what that means. “Her?” images give me a uncomfortable feeling and I cannot figure out why.
Wait… Collier is not a man! I think these images would be looked at totally different if they were taken by a man. If they were taken by a man, and i am not sure they were not, they would probably be looked at as homosexual art. Im not sure what that means. “Her?” images give me a uncomfortable feeling and I cannot figure out why. They do look very much like photos from a fashion ad and suggest some sort of sexuality, perhaps that is why they make me feel uncomfortable. The photos seem to be doing something wrong, like they were taken by a peeping tom.
Jamie
If a man took these pictures they would seem even more sexual than they already do. They already have pretty homoerotic connotations and the fact that a woman took them doesn’t seem to change that very much. As far as advertising goes I don’t really see much difference between these pictures and the type of pictures used in advertising clothing lines such as Abercrombie & Fitch. They look almost exactly like the pictures in the catalogue which almost says more about the inappropriate nature of the Abercrombie pictures than about Schorr’s pictures.
Thomas
If a man was to photograph these images he would be viewed
differently because it would be a man taking photos of a naked man. It
would seem stranger then normal because to most of the population men
don’t view other man in this way. In the main stream popular culture
this is starting to be viewed as a normal thing and is now okay for a
man to look at men naked. This still to me is not as normal as a women
looking at a male without clothes then a man wanting to photograph them. But man
have always made pictures of naked men throughout time and this is
always was acceptible to everyone inculding me i just think its kind
of different when a man looks at anther man in this way then a women.
Schorr’s images she uses in her photographs started to look like a
magazine add because i think people started to copy her way of viewing
a picture and her children got older and changed how the pictures were
viewed. Once they reached this older age the picture toke on a whole
new meaning and felt strange even to her so one can just think how one
outside the family views them. I don’t think Schorr’s wanted her
photos to look like an add thats why she stopped when she felt that
was so and turned to landscapes which are normally not the focus in
adds. Schorrs’ pictures are a beauty to look upon even if the subjects
in some of her photos are not as normal as most would think.
The things that make them the same are the way the subjects look in
the photos and the way they are different are who the subjects are in
the photos.
Amy
a) if a man had photographed the images, there would
be different connotation. Other than the sexual
edginess already apparent in her images, if it were a
man, it would have a whole other sense of sexuality.
It would be a guy taking pictures of guys, but instead
it is a girl exploring the differences between gender
and appearance.
b) lately in advertising, pictures of men with other
men is quite common. Take Abercrombie and Fitch ads,
they exploit sexuality to shill clothing. In Shorr’s
work, there is a much more quiet contemplation of
these boys’ sexuality.
Jennifer
I believe that Schorr’s images would not be recieved
any differently if they were done by a man. Her images
are slightly disturbing, but at the same time too
boring to be of any interest. Perhaps someone would
think them to be in a homosexual context it was a male
photographer, but I do not believe that the images
would be any more controversial then they already
are. The photographs are just like a magazine
advertisement in the sense that I would simply flip
past them if I ever saw them in a publication.
If this were to be photographed by a man, then yes I would think it would be different. However, I think the artist is able to capture both the masculinity and femininity aspects of the subject. I do think that if a man were to want to photograph a man that he would focus primarily on the masculine aspect. As far as comparing this image to magazines I don’t know if I agree with them as being similar at all. Schorr’s work are more snapshot like and with magazines it’s usually posed. I don’t really see many similarities other the artist and in advertising and magazines both capture portraitures. I can’t see an advertisement or ad with the artist’s images.
Jessica,
It would be different if a man photographed this images because Schorr is a very androgynous individual. She seems to be living through her photographs by embracing the experiences of young boys. She explores what it is to be a young boy through a women’s eyes. She might be able to capture things a man would over look because he might take certain experiences for granted, and not long for the experience how she appears to be.
Schorr’s photographs are usually not glamorous or stylized like those in magazines. Her photographs of the wrestlers are pretty basic and straight on. The exception to that would be where she has a boy pose like women from works of art. These images are very posed like the images in magazines.
I think these images would be different if a man photographed them, only because of the viewer’s response to their knowledge of which gender was the photographer. I agree with most on here that it would, unfortunely give that vibe of homosexuality if a man had photographed these images. But they already feel that way in some sense, especially since Schor’s own sexual ambiguity.
Schor’s images are similar to images in magazines because her photos have a detached coolness about them. Which seems to be what frequents many clothing catalogues and magazines. The whole “we are too cool to care that we’re cool, because we are wearing X label”. They are different in the sense that magazines are far more superficial and Schor is trying to explore something a little deeper like gender roles, gender boundaries and sexuality and how they are seen by the public at large.