Objectifying With Consent

I objectify women. Commercial photographers frequently objectify women for advertisement, treating their bodies as objects that complement a particular product’s sales pitch. Pornographers objectify women, commoditizing their eros to be sold as an element of sexual fantasy. In Emphasis Mine, I try to walk a line somewhere between the two, taking the image and using it as an object of study in its own right.

But I disagree with those who see erotic art as a form of violence or exploitation. The notions that photographers document things that “really” exist, that photographs represent “truth” to a greater degree than other art forms, are unfounded. With the advent of digital manipulation, photographs can be altered as easily as a painter can paint a single new stroke.

This misconception of Photographic Truth encourages some people to blame commercial and fashion photography for creating feminine ideals that they find unhealthy or disagreeable, rather than targeting the success of sexually charged advertisement itself. If sexuality and fantasy weren’t so effective, commercials wouldn’t use them. Many who want to address the destructive aspects of commerce are more willing to make blanket judgments about what sort of creativity a model or a photographer “should” be willing to participate in than they are to come to grips with the fundamental nature of our species.

The reality of a photo shoot is a dialogue between photographer and model. In the shots comprising Emphasis Mine, I waited until I believe that I had an inherent understanding of how my models wanted to be idealized.

In other words, I waited until I thought I could objectify my models as they wanted to be objectified. At the same time, it is a series about objectification itself; I put the creatures I photographed on a stage, sometimes removing all traces of identity from my subjects; blacking out their eyes, covering or cutting out their faces. Yet the models knew this in advance, and all were freely consenting participants. Where, if anywhere, is the moral wrong?

I avoid referring to my work as erotic, since I feel that term has developed connotations of primal sexuality that I do not want to associate with Emphasis Mine. Regardless of what it is called, it bothers some people to associate with sexually charged art, even when the art is a critical study of the elements they object to, and the place those elements have in the world as it exists.

When I think about how casually we respond to images and notions of violence, despotism, tyranny, and enslavement, I find it very peculiar that people are offended by my work. Yet, many have been.

My current feeling is that what unnerves these people is the consensuality of my sensual photography. They are disturbed not by the subject matter, but by the idea that it is so obviously done with the permission of the model. They would on some level be more comfortable looking at grainy paparazzi shots of a singer’s accidentally exposed nipple than a woman boldly identifying her insecurities and challenging them.

I objectify with consent. Shouldn’t that be a different moral landscape than nonconsensual objectification? In Emphasis Mine, I objectify subjects who want to be objectified, and I do this unabashedly. While I objectify, I do not create a false ideal. My models are not air-brushed, I do not alter the lines of their bodies to reach some more idealized notion of beauty.

Each photograph in this piece highlights an insecurity. Those hesitations come from not just the model, but sometimes myself. More than one person has told me that I have no right to address such insecurities, arguing that they should not exist to begin with.

While I do have a limited selection of male models I use, I most frequently objectify women in my art. This is a matter of availability rather than preference. I’ve found that women more frequently want to be objectified than men, or perhaps I am more comfortable asking to objectify one sex over the other. I take pictures of things that appeal to me. When photographing nudes, I pay particular attention to photographing the aspects of the model’s beauty that I am most hesitant about photographing.

There are still hints of the America’s founding puritan values hidden within our society. Many subcultures actively seek to redefine the way we are taught to treat our bodies and our spirits to match a controlling agenda. Yet in communities as diverse as animal rights activists, anarchists, consumer consciousness advocates, fetishists, feminists, and ravers, one can find substantial segments who believe that public sensuality cannot exist without exploitation. I cannot believe this is a healthy way to think of our bodies or address our insecurities. I think we cannot hope to effect the world without first examining how it is, and how that makes us feel about ourselves and each other.

Amul Kumar, 31, is a freelance photographer, whose numerous hobbies include clothing design, mask making, game design (computer and rpg), volunteerism, shibari, and clubbing. Widely known for his ability to talk to anyone about anything, he’s had half a dozen exhibitions around the country since 2004, when he first started keeping track. You can view more of his work at http://www.amul.biz/