In Discussion: Photography and The Law

What are the Morals and Ethics?

Reading on the infamous photography legal case between renowned photographer Philip-Lorca diCorcia and Erno Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew it raised question on the morals and ethics of reproducing images, photographing the public and who should own the copyright. Read more on the case here [1].

Philip-Lorca diCorcia's photo of Nussenzweig from his portraiture series 'Heads' (2001)

Image Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dicorcia.jpg

After acknowledging various viewpoints I have come to agree with the consensus that the photographer has the right to take pictures in a public place and photograph people unknowingly. In Philip-Lorca diCorcia's case, I agree with the New York State Supreme Court's ruling in his favour.

In today's surveillance society everyone is subjected to being watched, by who, we are not knowing; in a sense we are continuously being photographed, frame by frame. A student from my photography course, Rebecca Sharplin-Hughes, states 'The only difference about having your photograph taken is that the photographer has the right to do whatever they please with the photograph, this may mean that a photograph of you is published for all of the public to see,' .

Technology and accessibility have allowed practically anyone to own a device that can take a picture such as a phone camera, DSLR, compact camera and many more. In today's globalized world social networking is particularly prominent today; so an innocent photograph of the street which can capture many people's faces and then published online can be viewed by hundreds and more. This can be seen as a violation of privacy as the people in the photograph have not consented yet this is not necessarily frowned upon or unethical as such yet the viewership can be considerably higher than if a photograph was published in an gallery for example.

If someone, a photographer per se, decides to take this street photography further and to make a 'professional' body of work and publish unsuspecting people of the public in art galleries etc. it is seen as an invasion of privacy. I can relate this issue to instances such as wanting to take a 'professional' DSLR to a concert which I am not allowed purely down to the fact it looks 'snazzier' but compact cameras are accepted yet the function and act of taking a photograph is exactly the same. So in many cases many people see that if a photograph is 'professionally' being taken it can be more unethical but if it's done in an amateur manner it isn't. For example, if a professional photographer used a tripod & camera in the street one may seem more uneasy however an amateur tourist snapping pictures, one wouldn't seem so suspecting. The issue of taking photographs in public can come down to the professional instance however questions such as 'what is professionally taking a photograph' are debatable.

I found this statement interesting by fellow colleague, Sarina Langer's: 'Richard Billingham said that all photography is exploitative, and that all we can do is make the photograph so artistically good that this becomes relatively irrelevant.' I agree with the fact that taking photos in public is fair, but when forcing yourself onto someone's property/land is not only unlawful by trespassing but morally wrong. 

Overall I don't believe in intruding someone's space (in which Philip Lorca diCorica did not do as he used a powerful telephoto lens) is morally right, especially someone's home, however in public people should have the freedom to take photographs and publish them with respect. Then again this raises questions such as 'what is respectable?'.

References:

1. Wikipedia - Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

Useful Links:

Tate Modern - Exposed: Philip-Lorca DiCorcia http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/video/exposed-philip-lorca-dicorcia

In Discussion: Is Digital Photography Devaluing the Photograph?

There has been a long-lasting debate over digital photography vs. analogue and where photographers all over the world are arguing each side. After reading an interview by James Weston discussing Ricky Adam's new book; 'Destroying Everything' points were raised on the role of post-production. See full interview here [1]. There are various factors to consider in this debate such as photographers shooting style, image quality, cost & efficiency, accessibility, manipulation capabilities, archiving, credibility, processing effects etc. which photographers take into account when shooting an image. Thus there are pros and cons of each.

Many photographers use film for its nostalgic quality however increasingly the younger generation are picking up this traditional mode and embracing the processes involved. Many regard film as being outdated though it is one of the first things one learns on a Photography course: the darkroom. Ricky Adam states 'You have to be a lot more resourceful when shooting film. For one you shoot fewer photos, but in doing so I think you learn a lot more about composition, lighting' For this reason we (photography students) are taught the importance of composition which someone doesn't seem as important in digital photography where we have the luxury of shooting many images stored on a small memory card. Especially when I was shooting on medium format film I had the added pressure of getting the 'right' shot in 10 frames meaning I carefully thought of how I created my images. Though the downfall of this is that it is difficult to experiment with ideas and adjusting lighting when you cannot see the image instantly (except Polaroid style cameras) whilst on a budget (film is expensive to buy as it isn't as in demand).

Though the digital camera is superior for image quality with incredibly advanced technology such as the Hasselblad's 200-megapixel camera [2] many pro photographers, especially in the commercial market opt for digital. The ease of transferring and uploading files quickly through the internet and having the ability to manipulate the images is favourable especially in a 'perfection' obsessed society. The 'flaws' such as grain noise, colour leaks usually found in film do not fit with non-blemished image of today.

Despite this I am firm user in Photoshop and admittedly have airbrushed and retouched both digital and scanned film images in what I believe is enhancing the image. Below are 2 photographs, one before post-production, the other after. The original image is a 120mm colour negative that I scanned in. I believe that without digital advancements and availability I would not be able to produce an image I was satisfied with.

(From my Hollie Beauty Shoot, 22/02/12, using a Mamiya RB67)

In some aspects images are a portrayal of something/someone and never the true likeness; how can one capture the 'truth' in a photograph when it is only two dimensional? Therefore digital photo-manipulation does not devalue the photograph but is a means to reach the photographer's intentions for the image. Film photography does not possess the technical capabilities unlike digital photography. It all really depends on what the photographer wants to achieve and the necessary means, either digital or film, to reach that. The question is not which is better as I believe they are equally powerful mediums in their own right.

References:

1. DigBMX.com - Ricky Adam: Destroying Everything http://digbmx.mpora.com/photo-ops/ricky-adam-destroying-everything/ [Accessed 16/05/12]

2. Hassleblad 200 mpx camera: $45,000 http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20066021-264.html [Accessed 16/05/12]

Useful Links:

Wikipedia - Digital versus film photography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

Kenrockwell.com - Film vs. Digital http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

In Discussion: Semiotics (How to decode an image)

One of my photography seminars consisted around the understanding of semiotics: the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis) [1]. We looked at how meanings are made and what we associate with signs in social life (semiology). This leads to how a sign consists of a signifier, the material aspect (what we see) and signified, the mental aspect (what we learn through our society and culture). Studying semiotics is the foundation of understanding photography as there are many ways of seeing images (see John Berger's Ways of Seeing) and different ways of applying our interpretation that is influenced by society and our own personal experiences. But by first realizing the components of how an image is read one must understand semiotics.

There are 3 ways to analyse:

• 'Linguistic' message - any/all words: this is both the connotation and denotation in the analysis of the image
• 'Non-coded iconic' message - the denotations in the photograph: these are the recognisable/identifiable (the signifier) objects in the photograph
• 'Coded iconic' message - The connotations that derived from the larger sign system of society (the signified) in the photograph. This is is dependant on external factors like culture, race etc.

These steps can be applied to this simple image:

Image Source: Kristianne's seminar in semiotics (Powerpoint presentation) [2]

Linguistic message: 'Toilet' (or for braille readers underneath)

Non-coded iconic message: A shape resembling a female figure wearing a dress

'Coded iconic' message: Put the two together and we are taught that this sign indicates a female toilet. The blue background signifies cleanliness/freshness. If the background were to be red it may give a different meaning, possibly the toilet was dangerous, as in western society we associate red with danger.

Though the decoding of the above image was simple the 3 steps can be applied to everything we see and gets more complex when an image gives us an emotional response or has differing cultural meanings making a common image/sign in one society completely different in another. This post has been a very basic introduction to semiotics and I'm still learning about this vast topic! There have been many books and philosophies on the study of semiology so I will continue to be reading!

References:

1. Wikipedia - Semiotics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics [Accessed 14/05/12]

2. Drake, Kristianne; Semiotics Powerpoint Presentation; 13 Feb 2012

Useful Links:

Google books - Semiotics https://www.google.com/search?q=semiotics&tbm=bks&tbo=1&oq=semi

Beauty In Discussion: Valeria Lukyanova - Is this the Real life Barbie doll?

Image source: http://www.geekologie.com/2012/04/look-at-what-youve-done-to-yourself-ukra.php

After reading responses on ‘Katie Price Vs Orlan’ forum on my university photography website^[1] and discussing the concept of beauty I was particularly interested in the case of Valeria Lukyanova, 21, where it is believed she is the ‘real-life’ Barbie. Barbie represents perfection and she is the icon for aspired beauty. Barbie is an American manufactured girls’ doll that launched in March 1959. During this time multiculturalism and globalization was a new concept and isn’t as prominent as it is today yet Barbie still circulates in its millions across the globe. Barbie is supposed to represent the population yet there is only a minority with white skin, blue eyes, blonde hair and is 5’9” tall. Why choose these features to symbolize ‘perfection’ when the world is so diverse? There has been much criticism for the doll’s unrealistic proportions and the damaging effect on females’ body image especially when socializing girls from a young age. Statistics show that ‘if Barbie were an actual women, she would be 5'9" tall, have a 39" bust, an 18" waist, 33" hips and a size 3 shoe.’ ^[2] This would be the case of Lukyanova from Russia who is obsessed with the Barbie ideal. She is dubbed ‘the real-life Barbie’ due to her extensive plastic surgery (including removing two lower ribs), heavy make-up and revealing clothes. Lukyanova is willingly allowing herself to be objectified after posting hundreds of images of herself and her transformation. There has been quite a stir with her as despite the common perception of beauty being of Barbie, when it is seen in real-life there is some backlash. ‘One Twitter user wrote: “She looks not only ugly, but ridiculous.”’ and “A woman with completely perfect features is a boring woman.” ^[2] Despite Lukyanova extreme efforts to achieve ‘perfection’ not everyone believes so thus making the concept of beauty subjective. So this raises the question what is beauty?

What are your views?

References:

1. Various authors; Mycourse forum; published Apr 15 2012; http://mycourse.solent.ac.uk/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=42596 [Accessed 07/05/12]
2. Slayen, Galia; Huffington Post; published Aug 4 2011; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/galia-slayen/the-scary-reality-of-a-re_b_845239.html [Accessed 07/05/12]

3. Evon, Dan; The Inquisitr; published Apr 23, 2012; http://www.inquisitr.com/224402/valeria-lukyanova-model-seeks-to-be-real-life-barbie-doll-photos/#tzIAJXuqFuDQEyKk.99 ‘[Accessed 07/05/12]

Useful Links:
V.E.S.T: What do you think is beautiful? http://nishahaqvisualexploration.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/beauty-your-views-on-whats-beautiful.html

Wikipedia - Barbie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie

The Beauty of Society http://webpages.scu.edu/ftp/kmarume/the%20beauty%20of%20society.htm

Daily Mail - Valeria Lukyanova http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2133552/Valeria-Lukyanova-pictures-Real-life-Barbie-seeks-worlds-convincing-doll.html

Beauty In Discussion: What you Think is Beautiful

One module for my Photography degree includes Representation where we have to create a portrait on medium format colour film. I was quite excited about this project as I love portraiture and found printing in the colour darkrooms both rewarding and challenging. For this project I was struggling to find what to base my theme on but after looking at street style and fashion and engaging in the discussion on Orlan and Katie Price I was inspired by the concept of beauty and what we determine is beautiful.

Barbie: The beauty icon

Image Source: http://collider.com/barbie-movie-in-production-because-girls-deserve-brainless-toy-based-features-too/8107/

I began researching the relationship between race and beauty and why it is still uncommon to see dark skinned models on the runway and billboards for example. Being dark skinned myself looking into this idea made me see myself in a different light and made me realize I was beautiful too, with my curves and Bengali ethnicity. I was appalled to see the media especially advertising encouraging lightening skin products and this is a billion dollar industry in Asia and Africa. This advert in particular made me want to shake society's narrowed minds on their perception of beautiful and that blonde hair and white skin doesn't equate to beauty. I am not saying that people with these characteristics are not beautiful but the fact they are seen as superior due to these qualities regardless of the beauty inside.

Video source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahdvo70fRhk

In response to this I decided to post a question on Facebook to my friends and see what they thought beautiful was. My question:

'Just wanted to ask you a question in regards to my photography project about the idea of a beautiful person. You can write as much/little as you want. I'm doing a mini survey.

What is your concept of beauty in a multicultural society?'

This is what they responded:

beauty in my mind is the pursuit of an ideal rather than the ideal itself. nobody sees the same idea of beauty because everyone has a differnet idea of their ideal situation. whever its how someone acts and behaves or just pure cosmetics. i think beaty is purely the human urge to be better and climb higher in the social rank, we see people as beautiful because we want to be more like them

Cool, Well as regards to beauty I feel that I'ts every where not just in people and not in looks. What makes a beautiful person is not just the way they look, but how they act. Are they trust worthy, kind, funny things like this make a beautiful person to me. As far as people are, natural is beautiful

Confidence obvs can make anyone attractive if there not afraid to be who you really are

I think you can find beauty in almost everything. But regarding people I think being your natural self is beautiful

Everyone is beautiful in some way or another whether it's skin deep or their personality. 'Beauty' has unfortunately fallen into the grips of a commercial stereotype, so unless you are a certain height, weight, skin colour, etc, many people feel that they are not beautiful if they don't meet this ridiculous criteria

Beauty can be found in anything! With people, I think being able to believe in yourself & express that in a way you feel is right is beautiful - though music, art, your personal style, etc. You need to feel comfortable in your own skin.

Without reading all of the posts above me, I'd say that everyone is beautiful. Everyone defines what makes a beautiful person differently, so we can't generalise to anything specific.

In the words of David Bailey: no one is the most beautiful woman in the world

well i know its said that symmetry makes a beautiful face - if you're talking solely about looks but im not sure how far i agree with that. But i certainly think confidence is key, and also to look healthy - maybe that comes from natural instinct in seeking a healthy partner to have kids with - survival of the fittest and all that! (no pun intended...)

well considering the aspect of beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder i guess, as for the context of multicultural societies and beauty, i would agree that yes aspects of their race, their religion, characteristics can be beautiful, how many times do we see in national geographic the tribes of the Amazon, the slums of India, etc etc and yet all are portrayed in ways that are beautiful, though perhaps in real life are not instantly beautiful, we can appreciate it after thought

Beauty is like art, we all view it differently. It is easy to assume your question refers to people and faces however beauty can be seen in all aspects of society, albeit a multicultural one. A baby suckling on its mother; loving couples hugging/kissing; different races together playing and enjoying each others company; to me these are all images of beauty. To appreciate beauty in a multicultural society, one has to first embrace multiculturalism and what its diverse culture can offer. Some women who wear a hijab for instance can have the most beautiful eyes, equally a Jewish man wearing a kippah could have a beautiful smile or Africans and Caribbeans have a beautiful way of expressing themselves and so on. Yes, to get a real feel of beauty within a person one needs to know what their heart and character are like. As this is not always possible, what we see at first glance depicts what we view as beauty. The fashion industry have taken on different aspects of global culture to introduce and set new trends thus creating a new wave of image and style to beauty. Beauty is all around us and in a multicultural society it continues to grow. Sadly, humans have prejudices and preferences and sometimes the beauty that is portrayed is not always noticed.

im saying that natural beauty is better

I'll be covering other issues and artists that look at the concept of beauty so watch this space!

In Discussion: Viewer or Voyeur?

As part of my photography degree we are encourage to engage in discussions on online forums such as morals, sociological and legal issues in photography. This post will discuss the morality and ethics in reportage photography.

I had read an article on The Guardian: 'Viewer or Voyeur? The morality of reportage photography' (Mar 8 2010) [1] looking at the ethics of bearing witness to horrific events and where you drawn the line for what is accepted. In response I do believe that today's society is more desensitized to sensitive material such as Farah Abdl Warsameh's 'Stoned to Death' Associate Press photograph in Somalia (see below)

Image Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/mar/08/world-press-photo-sean-ohagan

Dominating newspapers and press organizations are demanding more shocking imagery to show to the world which is pushing the boundaries of what is acceptably seen on the news. Today's generation is growing up in a world where globalization continues to grow and where technology and 'freedom of speech' have allowed reportage photography to be simultaneously sent through the world meaning in turn we are getting used to these 'shocking' images.

Regarding morality and ethics in response to Sean O’Hagans The Guardian post I do not think the photographer had prior communication to the victim or had been granted permission; to raise these concerns is absurd. War photography is gritty, violent and ultimately shocking due to the horrific acts of what humans do to each other; to fully sensor what really is happening is masking the truth and I believe photography is a mode of trying to tell the truth to an extent. To a point the viewer can feel shocked to a ‘kind of impassioned helplessness’ but for Susan Sontag to suggest that ‘we’ do not have the right to view a photograph, only those who can do something to alleviate it undermines the power of the average good-willed citizen; anyone can make a change. In this respect we are viewers.

I agree with this post: http://politicstheoryphotography.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/on-ethics-of-representation-missing.html in response to Sean O’Hagan’s post and enjoy the tone it is written in.

What do you think?

References

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/mar/08/world-press-photo-sean-ohagan [Accessed 19/03/12]

Useful Links

Answers.com - Oxford Companion to the Photograph: Ethics and photography http://www.answers.com/topic/ethics-and-photography
Associated Press http://www.ap.org/

Beauty In Discussion: Katie Price Vs Orlan

In the world of art the concept of beauty has been a popular topic to explore, often being the basis of many creations and ideas. In this discussion I will be comparing the idea of glamour (Katie Price, former glamour model known as Jordan) Vs art (Orlan, a eccentric French artist known for her unusual performance art) and their methods of beauty modifications in relation to conformity.

Katie Price (Glamour) Vs Orlan (Art)

After reading the Guardian's article on Orlan's work (Orlan's art of sex and surgery) and the BBC video interviewing Katie Price (Price: Breast implants 'need age limit'), the discussion on the concept of beauty and using cosmetic surgery as a means to alter a person’s appearance is certainly interesting with varying viewpoints.

Orlan's work can be seen as extremist especially in her unorthodox ways of presenting her ideas through art in particular her performance art. She is renowned for her many cosmetic alterations to her face where she has 'altered her mouth to imitate that of François Boucher's Europa, another changed her forehead to mimic the protruding brow of Leonardo's Mona Lisa, while yet another altered her chin to look like that of Botticelli's Venus.' (The Guardian) The idea of filming herself conscious in the operating theatre is hard to digest particularly as no other artist has done this before. Many people see this as crazy and that she's taken 'art' too far, however this raises questions such as 'what is art?'. Personally I find her work interesting especially her concepts but I am put off by her method of execution as I am not too keen on conceptual performance art as I am not as appreciative of this form. It is rather eccentric and radical.

Still from Orlan, Carnal Art by Stephen Oriach

The fact that Orlan is strong rooted in her feminist beliefs makes her work much more powerful and without this the concept of beauty would be completely changed. Beauty through female eyes are perceived and received differently than the man's. I like how Orlan challenges the idea of 'what is beautiful' and by representing her concepts by physically altering her body, she not only goes to show that the human body is a canvas but makes you think of ideas of conforming to a social norm (the standardized beauty, if there is one?) and whether cosmetic surgery really does make you beautiful.

In relation to glamour (Katie Price) Vs art (Orlan) their concepts and procedure are the same yet the perception is completely different. Stereotypically men would find Katie more appealing after her breast implants etc, as large breasts, blonde hair, small waist etc. is the 'comic-book' image of an ideal desirable woman whereas Orlan has created a protruding brow etc. which isn't seen as beautiful. Perhaps if society was socialized in accepting protruding brows as being desirable more men would find Orlan attractive. This debate returns to the idea of 'Standardized idea of beauty' Vs 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

In conclusion there isn't any difference between the idea of altering your appearance to 'conform' to a particular ideal of beauty whether it's Katie Price or Orlan doing it, the question that is being asked is 'Conformity to the majority or minority?'

(This discussion has been a response to my Photography degree forum on 'Orlan: Narcissist or Cultural commentator?)

Image Sources:

Katie Price Portrait

Orlan Portrait

Still from Orlan, Carnal Art

Sources:

The Guardian

BBC News Health

Further Reading:

idebate: Cosmetic Surgery

In Discussion: The Photograph as Contemporary Art by Charlotte Cotton

In preparation for a seminar, Charlotte Cotton's popular photography theory book 'The Photograph as Contemporary Art' (Thames & Hudson, 2009) was the topic of discussion, in particular Chapter 2 'Once Upon a Time'. This chapter brought to light contemporary art photography which is often described as 'tableau-vivant photography'. This means 'living picture' in French. Google Dictionary describes tableau-vivant as 'A silent and motionless group of people arranged to represent a scene or incident'. In relation to photography this is posed image to construct a narrative.

The image below was interesting to deconstruct and draws inspiration from a particular popular painting.

Diary of a Victorian Dandy 19:00 hours' (1998) by Yinka Shonibare

It features five moments in the day in the life of a dandy (Dictionary.reference.com: 'a man who is excessively concerned about his clothes and appearance; a fop.'), performed by the artist. An apparent reference is to 'The Rake's Progress' (1732-33) by William Hogarth about the young cad Tom Rockwell. There are 7 episodes in Rockwell's life that Hogarth paints vividly following the character's pleasures and consequences of his debauchery.

The first painting in the series ' The Rake's Progress'

Shonibare's tableau-vivant photograph represents different moments in the day all set in historical interiors and Victorian fancy dess. Interestingly the roles are reversed showing a contemporary satirical twist. Charlotte Cotton writes 'The Caucasians are shown to be 'colour-blind' to the artist and his skin colour. His place within Victorian society appears to be protected by his guise as a dandy, the declaration of self-fashioning and authenticity being assured through pronounced artifice in manner and dress'. Shonibare's Victorian Dandy was commissioned to be shown first as posters on the London Underground system thus intended to align with today's popular commercial imagery.

Realizing this genre of photography has certainly been insightful as tableau-vivant photography is becoming increasingly popular especially in modern art galleries and understanding the origins and meanings behind these 'posed' images widens knowledge about photography and art history.

Sources:

The Photograph as Contemporary Art (New Edition) - Cotton, Charlotte (Thames & Hudson, 2009)

Google Dictionary - 'Tableau-Vivant'

Dictionary.reference.com - 'Dandy'

Wikipedia - The Rake's Progress

Further Reading:

Yinka Shonibare - Website

In Discussion: Ways of Seeing by John Berger

In the first Visual Exploration seminar the topic of discussion was John Berger's influential book Ways of Seeing (Penguin, 1972) which is based on a four part BBC documentary of the same name.

Discussing this book was certainly interesting as many topics were conversed such as the layout of the book, similarities of images and readings of images changing over time. Berger states on the front cover 'Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak... The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled'. Berger brings to light the idea of what we see and what we know and how the knowledge 'never quite fits the sight' meaning how we see is about perception and that images is the first form of communication. As photography is considered one of the newest form of visual communication how we read images is important so Berger's book has certainly been a recommended read for photographers and artists alike.

The first thing a reader will notice is the layout as it is quite unusual making the experience of reading this theoretical book different as would expected. It is split into 7 chapters with alternating pictorial chapters and written analysis of the images from the previous chapter. A reason for having solely image based chapters could be that the viewer is subconsciously storing read images into their memory preparing for the next chapter so images can be retrieved in relation to the text. Although this is a clever way of reading the page layout itself is quite distracting especially in the written chapters where all the text is in bold font and there are no clear spaces between paragraphs; the eye is forced to dart around the page rather than focus on the text itself. However, regardless of layout Berger writes in a manner that is accessible to all ages rather than make the reader decode his words which could be lost in translation.

Two images from chapter 6 were discussed: (please note the images in the book are monochrome however the paintings are in colour)

Woman with White Stockings by Gustave Courbet (1819-77)

Demoiselles au bord de la Seine by Gustave Courbet (1819-77)

These paintings by Gustave Courbet are particularly interesting in relation to the meaning of images over time. Throughout art history the perception of female beauty has been quite curvaceous with a fuller figure and pale skin (seen in the above paintings) however the idea of beauty today has changed considerably to tanned 6ft slim model figure such as Gisele Bündchen. A reading of these paintings are that the voluptuous figure denotes a perception of status and wealth. Despite some readings changing over time, one that is seen today is the idea of the dominant male painter/photographer and the submissive female. These paintings are innocently erotic yet there is an element of a 'man's gaze'. (read Laura Mulvey's feminist film theory essay 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema') Berger states in chapter 3 (page 47) 'The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object - and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.' In Courbet's paintings he is depicting his women an 'object of vision'.

Overall John Berger's 'Ways of Seeing' has been an insightful read and the issues discussed are still relevant today despite being published 1972. Our lives will always consist of images and understanding why and how we see and read images in a certain way is a vital part of how we communicate.

See the BBC 4 part documentary here:

Sources:

Ways of seeing - Berger, John (London : BBC 1972)

'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema' - Mulvey, Laura 

Further Reading:
Gustave Courbet