Gender bias in photography analyzed (by some interesting empirical data) and an essay

CatLABS · Oct 23, 2015

1. http://onwardphoto.org/gender-diver..._medium=fb-group&utm_source=lf_photog_society

This is a pretty interesting article, though its conclusions should be no surprise to users of this forum, where non white male users/posters are an extreme rarity.

2. This interesting essay was published in the last Papersafe magazine, and is now available for free download here:
http://papersafezine.tumblr.com/post/131746502812/over-the-next-few-weeks-we-will-be-making-nearly

In light of the AIPAD research above, it seems there is a live discussion about questions of inclusivity of various aspects of art, and photography in particular. This article hits some nails right on the head and is well worth the read.

BrianShaw · Oct 23, 2015

What a f'd up site - pop up after pop up. (1)

Ok well, interesting what you say. I never thought of it that way. I have no idea who here is white or "of color". I'll have to look in the mirror to figure out what I am. Ha ha.

wy2l · Oct 23, 2015

Why does our government not suppress these evil undesirables from buying photographic material?

juan · Oct 23, 2015

Perhaps some people are not neo-Calvinists kneeling before the Buddha of diversity.
juan

gone · Oct 23, 2015

I didn't get any pop ups, but then I use pop up blockers, flash block, and ad block. I'm pretty well covered for this sort of thing.

This is not that unusual, especially since men are/were the usual gallery owners. And yet Georgia O'Keefe, Berthe Morisot, Alice Neal and Mary Cassatt were some of the great painters of our times. There are a lot more, and you could make a case for including Helen Frankenthaler, but I never cared for her work. Cassat was a REAL painter!

In photography, we have Dorothea Lange, Diane Arbus, Margaret White, Helen Levitt, Eve Arnold, Sally Mann, Tina Modotti, Imogen Cunningham, Lisette Model, Annie Leibovitz, and on and on. Oh, and Lee Miller, who was one of the best. So I disagree that there is that much gender bias in either medium, especially considering women's role in society during earlier times. Nowadays, the door is wide open to every gender and race, as it should be.

Buddhists don't kneel before anything, or worship anyone. I'm a Zen Buddhist now, but when I was a Catholic I sure did a lot of that. It was OK. Had no issues w/ that. The fold down deals were nicely padded.

CatLABS · Oct 23, 2015

momus said:
Nowadays, the door is wide open to every gender and race, as it should be.

Indeed it should but sadly, reality (and numbers) suggests otherwise.

mooseontheloose · Oct 23, 2015

Even if the door is open, not everyone is allowed through.

The second link has a great write-up about bias, which even if you think you don't have, you most likely do.

The numbers in the survey don't surprise me at all. If we look at APUG I'll bet the gender disparity is even greater - not for the general membership, but for regular (or semi-regular) contributors.

BrianShaw · Oct 23, 2015

My woes may be the burden of seeing on a mobile device.

And about kneeling Budhists I know not much except I bought a house from one and there are knee prints still in the carpet where the shrine was.

doughowk · Oct 23, 2015

We humans are a rather stupid species. We handicap ourselves first thru denying 50% based on gender the opportunity to equally contribute to our civilization. Then we further handicap ourselves thru racial prejudice. Its a wonder that we've come this far.
Good articles. thanks for linking

Sirius Glass · Oct 23, 2015

doughowk said:
We humans are a rather stupid species. We handicap ourselves first thru denying 50% based on gender the opportunity to equally contribute to our civilization. Then we further handicap ourselves thru racial prejudice. Its a wonder that we've come this far.
Good articles. thanks for linking

That is when we are not killing each other.

MattKing · Oct 23, 2015

I thought the first article was actually quite positive.

The historical numbers are disappointing, but the trends are positive.

It does not particularly matter whether the posters here are not widely distributed. What matters is that things improve, the improvement accelerates, and that the people who do post here share values that, irrespective of their gender, are as inclusive as possible.

Just because I am an older white guy doesn't mean I'm incapable of generous, inclusive values.

AgX · Oct 23, 2015

Here the share of women at professional photographers is 50%. And it is a profession where women early on had a share. (Statiscal figures for the 19th century can even be regarded as too low due to t´he way they were made up.)

mr.datsun · Oct 24, 2015

Seems to have a lot to do with the photographers represented in the AIPAD, than the current figures for gender divide. The historic figures are to be expected. Nothing unusual that was not reflected in all aspects of society as it moved towards the modern era. We can expect to see things accumulatively balance out in decades, and centuries to come. For example, it's clear the Tate has done a lot to redress the gender and cultural balance in their rehangs. Such actions sends clear signals to women who might want to think about a career in a visual art.

A lot of installation, film and photography work I have seen in the last five years is by women and increasingly shows a very strong set of female voices emerging in visual art. It also shows how our ideas about what is interesting and good art, will change as time progresses and the influence of the female sensibility is increasingly felt. There's no chance of going backwards now.

It's up AIPAD to think about this. It seems to be within that organisation that the bias identified in this article lies. I wonder what the gender divide is amongst its ranks.

Nodda Duma · Oct 24, 2015

Yeah!!! And what the heck is up with the gender bias on scrapbooking forums!!!

Vonder · Oct 24, 2015

doughowk said:
We humans are a rather stupid species. We handicap ourselves first thru denying 50% based on gender the opportunity to equally contribute to our civilization. Then we further handicap ourselves thru racial prejudice. Its a wonder that we've come this far.
Good articles. thanks for linking

What can you expect when human morals are all based on a the decrees of a nonexistent invisible man in the sky?

Art, in whatever form, takes time to create, and when child-rearing is the woman's number one priority, such things fall by the way. Sally Mann excepted, of course. My wife used to dabble in photography but since the kids have come along, her efforts are minimal. Art is a lesiure activity and it's pretty hard to handle a camera with a kid latched onto your boob.

dwross · Oct 24, 2015

CatLABS said:
Indeed it should but sadly, reality (and numbers) suggests otherwise.

+1. Very sadly, indeed. The problem has layers that resist peeling away.

winger · Oct 24, 2015

Wolfeye said:
What can you expect when human morals are all based on a the decrees of a nonexistent invisible man in the sky?

Art, in whatever form, takes time to create, and when child-rearing is the woman's number one priority, such things fall by the way. Sally Mann excepted, of course. My wife used to dabble in photography but since the kids have come along, her efforts are minimal. Art is a lesiure activity and it's pretty hard to handle a camera with a kid latched onto your boob.

This is where the baby carriers are so useful. If we'd had more than one child, I'd likely not have touched a camera in awhile, but with one it's possible. Yes, I've used a 4x5 while the little guy was in the carrier on my chest.
I don't see the little dude (tld) as being the timesuck - it's the laundry, cleaning, and cooking that annoys me. At least tld is entertaining.

But as for the study - I agree that it shows things are changing. I don't think expecting it to happen overnight is useful for any discussions either. As far as the photographers I know in our local area, there are more women than guys doing portrait work. I also think most are not the type to join something like AIPAD.

blansky · Oct 24, 2015

In my field of photography, studio/environmental portraits and weddings, when I started in 1976 the PPA (Professional Photographers of America) membership was mostly men. In the typical studio the men were the photographers, the wives ran the studio, did the retouching, and dealt with clients. Just a basic division of labor.

Gradually when cameras became more and more automatic, more and more women became photographers. This is not a sexist statement that women couldn't operate Hasselblads or studio lighting, its just the way it evolved. Soon women were more and more the majority of photographers who photographed children, usually with available light and usually with a better sensibility of what women, who are photographer's main customers, wanted. Less structured pictures, more playful, and this worked the best with 35mm auto everything, cameras. Then medium format became automatic and they became the camera of choice. And more and more women graduated to this and to studio lighting.

Today since the economy tanked, digital is king, I would guess there are more women in the PPA than men and more photographers work out of home studios and in a lot of cases are part timers.

When I started the studio was the bread winner with both spouses working there to make it succeed. Now with a lot of women photographers, their husbands have their own careers, and her photography is not necessarily the main bread winner or needs to be. And women are more free to do both, photograph and still be the main caregiver to her kids.

Because as someone said the burden on women is and always has been (in most cases) is having and rearing children, and starting businesses and careers is not often very practical or even a choice she has.

MattKing · Oct 24, 2015

Wolfeye said:
What can you expect when human morals are all based on a the decrees of a nonexistent invisible man in the sky?

Santa Claus?

Nodda Duma · Oct 24, 2015

Wolfeye said:
What can you expect when human morals are all based on a the decrees of a nonexistent invisible man in the sky?

For a post in the ethics forum, that's a surprisingly closed-minded thing to say.

doughowk · Oct 24, 2015

I believe Estelle Jussim said (in article in her "The Eternal Moment") that there is an inverse relationship between the percentage of women in a particular artistic field and the monetary level that the profession can return. For example, as expected salaries/income for wedding/portrait photography declines, men leave the profession. So I'm not so sure that the trends cited in the first article are a consequence of societal enlightenment.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 24, 2015

The nice thing about statistics is that you can derive a number of conflicting arguments from them. Perhaps it's not a matter of gender or race but economics or family culture. If a person can't afford even the cheapest camera they will not become a photographer. If the parents never took pictures then the children probably won't. It can be as simple as parents not treating their children equally. In today's society we are often too quick to blame things on gender and race. Arguments like this are just too facile. There are many other causal agents that also must be considered.

I can list several dozen women who are/were prominent and well respected in photography. I am sure that many on APUG can do the same. Unfortunately with the internet any idiot can publish trivia.

Sirius Glass · Oct 24, 2015

I agree. If your parents did not have children then you probably will not have children.

PinRegistered · Oct 24, 2015

It must be happy hour.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Dali · Oct 24, 2015

CatLABS said:
1. http://onwardphoto.org/gender-diver..._medium=fb-group&utm_source=lf_photog_society

This is a pretty interesting article, though its conclusions should be no surprise to users of this forum, where non white male users/posters are an extreme rarity.

2. This interesting essay was published in the last Papersafe magazine, and is now available for free download here:
http://papersafezine.tumblr.com/post/131746502812/over-the-next-few-weeks-we-will-be-making-nearly

In light of the AIPAD research above, it seems there is a live discussion about questions of inclusivity of various aspects of art, and photography in particular. This article hits some nails right on the head and is well worth the read.

I am afraid I understand too well the hidden message of these trendy articles.... One question: when you read a book or look at a picture, do you always know if the writer or the photographer is white or not, a male or not? Does it prevent you to fully appreciate the book or the picture?

Gender bias in photography analyzed (by some interesting empirical data) and an essay

CatLABS

BrianShaw

wy2l

juan

gone

CatLABS

mooseontheloose

BrianShaw

doughowk

Sirius Glass

MattKing

Moderator

AgX

mr.datsun

Nodda Duma

Vonder

dwross

winger

blansky

MattKing

Moderator

Nodda Duma

doughowk

Gerald C Koch

Sirius Glass

PinRegistered

Dali

Gender bias in photography analyzed (by some interesting empirical data) and an essay

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency