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

Mr Bill · Oct 25, 2015

CatLABS said:
Go the first post and click the links (or google the titles, i am sure you will find them).

Well no, I said I can't see them. They won't load; I'm guessing that it's because of my mobile device. So I have no idea what is said there.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 25, 2015

MattKing said:
And statistics are dangerous. The fact that fewer professional art photographers are women doesn't necessarily mean that there is a bias against women. It can just as likely be the case that women have a gender bias against the realities of the art photography world.

Up until the incorporation of cameras in cell phones it was unusual to see a woman taking a photograph. You might see one at some tourist location like Disneyland taking a photo of the kids. But that was about it. Certainly not taking what might be termed an art photograph. Trying to determine the cause for this would be very difficult. Would it be lack of interest, economics, family culture, technical difficulty, biology, ... It is known that women have a poorer spatial recognition than men. Anthropologists attribute this to the fact that men were hunters and needed to know the exact location of prey. So perhaps the intricacies of photos are of less interest to women.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/study-womens-spatial-abilities-increase-with-video-games/

Sirius Glass · Oct 25, 2015

I guess that is why Dorothea Lange never took photographs. Too bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Lange

Gerald C Koch · Oct 25, 2015

Well the situation seems to be even worse when it comes to woman painters. I can name only one Mary Cassatt. I's sure there are others lesser known.

Just saying it may be lack of interest in traditional art photographs. Unless I am mistaken when woman take photographs they seem to concentrate on people rather than things. For example Dorothea Lange and Sally Mann and her kids. It may all come down to what is popular in galleries at this time people or Yosemite. Unfortunately many people buy photographs for purely decorative purposes. In this they may not favor people photographs and hence less sales for woman photographers. Gallery owners show what they think will sell.

This is, by the way, a very interesting thread with interesting comments on both sides.

CatLABS · Oct 25, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
Just saying it may be lack of interest in traditional art photographs. Unless I am mistaken when woman take photographs they seem to concentrate on people rather than things. Sally Mann and her kids. It may all come down to what is popular in galleries at this time people or Yosemite.

You are mistaken.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 25, 2015

CatLABS said:
You are mistaken.

I don't think I am. Gender bias is just too easy an explanation of lack of gallery sales. The popularity of certain schools of photography has always been cyclical.

winger · Oct 25, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
Well the situation seems to be even worse when it comes to woman painters. I can name only one Mary Cassatt. I's sure there are others lesser known.

.

You never heard of Georgia O'Keefe? Frida Kahlo? Those are just off the top of my head, but I'm sure a google search would turn up more.

I think part of the problem is not whether there were women making art, but whether anyone noticed. My great-grandmother did watercolors. Most stayed within the family because she wasn't trying to make a living with art and didn't sell them. She traded with other artists, however, and there were works by several other women hanging in her house. Yes, she faced bias because of being a woman, however. She was one of the bacteriologists who did early work with using sodium hypochlorite to sterilize things (milk storage equipment in her case). But she had to stop working when she got married. That was when she went back to painting (and a little photography, btw).

I don't know if I would make the grade as "successful" but I didn't face any gender bias in getting degrees in biology and forensic science and in becoming a Forensic Chemist. I was also a senior chemist in charge of the trace analysis unit at a crime lab. I didn't leave because I got married or had a child - I left because I needed a break after 15 years, basically. It was entirely my choice.

I am sure things have been changing and continue to change. Just because it was dismal 40+ years ago, don't assume it's as bad now or continue to blame current bosses/professors, etc.. for others' actions in the past. The trend is towards more women in most professions. No one can expect it to happen overnight. As for the article that started this all - any article on the web was put there to get hits for the website and therefore increase advertising revenue. Posting an article intended to be divisive does not help anyone move forward, it only serves to piss off those being blamed and make those who agree yell harder at those they blame. There is no solution forthcoming because of those results. I put absolutely no stock in articles not published in peer-reviewed journals because no one outside the study checked their math and stats. There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians. If you have a hypothesis and go out looking for a dataset to support it, you are not doing your suppositions any favors.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 25, 2015

winger said:
You never heard of Georgia O'Keefe? Frida Kahlo? Those are just off the top of my head, but I'm sure a google search would turn up more.

Thanks I could think of only one at the time. You thought of two. Anyone else? It's not that easy.

Kyle M. · Oct 25, 2015

CatLABS said:
It is a sad state of affairs. The public reps for companies on this forum represent almost entirely the world of "business" or "retail" photo. Its enough to visit a show like PPE or Photokina to see it first hand. Go to something like the "photographica" show, and its even more extreme because almost everyone is OLD.

Ever since i started working in this industry, this has been an issue, and a topic raised as often as possible.

There is nothing to it, other then plain old misogyny and sexism. This is simply the result of years and years in which the only players (for any reason you can think of) were white men. Women were and are excluded as a matter of fact, even if subconsciously, because for many years, it was inappropriate for women to all kinds of things, and this type of exclusion was completely socially acceptable. Hey, some people were not considered human until a few decades ago and womens voting rights was something women had to fight for, as it was not commonly acceptable that it was their "inalienable" right as it pertained to men.

It is very daunting and unpleasant to walk into a conference or room filled with old pharts who spend most of the down time telling each other stupid sexists jokes, making remarks on the "why are they nude" models which used to be so prevalent in camera shows in up until very recently (and in some cases still today), and other such deplorable behavior.
This is something which is endemic in society and has nothing to do with photography, but as we all know it was once socially acceptable to pat a women on the behind, this type of homogeneous all white male composition was nothing of note at any point in time in history, and even in todays "de-segregated" US we often have to point out to reps and PR people that not every one in the world is a white European, let alone that not all customers are men. The result was a very unwelcoming environment for women by default, regardless of the intentions of the people working in it.

That perhaps will never change until this generation of old folks retire or pass on. The sad state of things, is that they nurtured and raised an entire new generation of similar minded people in their stead.

Now, we have all been in these rooms, where all men talk this way, but how many of us stopped to think about how a women might feel in that environment? Thats the one and only reason.

That is not to say a thick skinned persons, who is willing to go through that crap and smile at the end of the day might make it, but i can tell you, its no fun at all.

Sigh. Good luck to all those who think there is no gender wage gap, or that women are not discriminated against. Its all easy to say and do when you are a white guy, perhaps if you repeat it enough times it will be the reality of things.

Honestly I have to agree with you 100%, there is a huge gender bias in our society and women are discriminated against on a daily basis. This in my opinion is the biggest problem in our society today, and until men learn to understand that women are at the very least their equals we will continue to have this problem. Unfortunately 99% of the men I have met in my life will never see things this way and it really is a sad world we live in. I for one am one of the few men who will not sit still and listen to such sexist conversations and I will get up and leave the room/area, except on the ever more prevalent occasion where I get so pissed that I have to say something before walking away. When it comes to gender bias in photography I've had a lot of people both men and women tell me that in their opinion there are more male photographers because for the most part men are more technically and mechanically minded than women. But from what I've seen most women are more artistic and more creative than most men, and when asked most artistically minded women are interested in photography. Though they may not be as interested in photography from a technical stand point as most men, and are more interested in it from an artistic viewpoint. When it comes to working in the photographic industry it seems to me that there are far less women because of the gender bias towards women and the false presumption that men are better than women.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 25, 2015

We're drifting off point here. The OP was about the assertion that gender bias was responsible for fewer woman photographers than men as determined from allotted gallery space. My assertion was that the data presented was not sufficient to prove a connection. Nothing more. There are several plausible explanations in addition to gender bias that were never mentioned in the first article.

Nodda Duma · Oct 25, 2015

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

Gerald C Koch said:
I am afraid that responsible journalism has disappeared. What we have now are sensationalists and wannabe entertainers. We now have is truthiness rather than truth.

The term yellow journalism comes to mind

By the way my wife was a highly successful flight test engineer for the Navy who would set up test flights and brief / debrief test pilots. After doing that for several years she moved up into management and continued to excel, earning respect from everyone who worked with her...both those above and below her. Did she experience gender bias? She would find it difficult to remember, telling you it wasn't her problem but rather the biased person's problem. She didn't care what people thought privately, but it better not interfere with work. Friction like that could cost lives, and she would deal with it swiftly and completely. She was 100% professional in those environments and that's how she got ahead. That was, in fact, how anybody got ahead..man or woman.

She switched career fields when we moved to New Hampshire and has gone into the medical field...mostly because engineering and technical stuff no longer interest her. If gender bias didn't impact her in the male-dominated world of military flight testing, then it sure as heck won't bother her in the private medical sector.

She would say suck it up and deal with it. Life isn't fair, nor was it meant to be.

dwross · Oct 25, 2015

Gender (and racial, I am told by people I trust implicitly) biases persist in our culture to such an extent that sometimes it can strike you like a physical blow. Yet voicing that observation as a member of the non-dominant demographic has almost no impact. It is immediately dismissed as coming from someone who can't be objective about the problem -- and round and round it goes. Press the issue because, well golly, it might be impacting your life and post #34 is a common response. I do believe things are improving. Several of the men who have posted in this thread prove that. Thank you.

Truzi · Oct 25, 2015

I am not saying there are no biases, but there are many valid criticisms of the article. Also, studies have suggested that sometimes an apparent disparity has more contributing factors than bias, sample-size, etc. Some sub-groups may have different values, and this can contribute to their representation in a given field.

Dali · Oct 25, 2015

Truzi said:
I am not saying there are no biases, but there are many valid criticisms of the article. Also, studies have suggested that sometimes an apparent disparity has more contributing factors than bias, sample-size, etc. Some sub-groups may have different values, and this can contribute to their representation in a given field.

Exactly, equality is a virtue, egalitarianism a lie.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 26, 2015

I stumbled across the following that may be of interest.

"Anna Atkins (1799–1871) was the first woman photographer.
Referred to sparingly by traditional photo historians, she
made beautiful cyanotype images of algae, ferns, feathers,
and waterweeds. Her botanist father, John George Children,
and Herschel were friends, and the Atkins and Herschel
families resided only 30 miles apart in Kent, England.
Children was a member of the Royal Society, and when his
friend Herschel announced his discovery of the cyanotype
(1842) Children quickly passed the news on to his daughter
Anna. Although there is no conclusive evidence that Herschel
was Atkins’s mentor it is more than probable that she
learned the cyanotype process in the Herschel household."

blansky · Oct 26, 2015

As I have written here before, a lot of life is about access. Life, although some love to believe in myths and illusions, is mostly about luck and connections.

The world is not a meritocracy.

Fran Lebowitz once had a great article about access, and how it related to actors, nepotism and connections. They asked actors about their parents and connections and they all said, yes I got in the door by my connections but I still had to produce once I got there. Lebowitz theory was, big deal, since most acting is not that hard to begin with, the hard part, in reality is actually getting in the door.

Photography, and being good, or famous at it comes down to most cases as access. Access to cameras, access to training/mentors, access to "the arts" and access to distribution.

You'll notice how almost all fashion photographers are/were Jewish, a lot of famous magazine photographers were as well. Does that mean that only Jewish people are good at photographing fashion or news. Probably not, but they had access to the community who made hiring decisions, much like early Hollywood actors/actresses being Jewish. The decision makers were Jewish. Not that other people couldn't make the cut, because of access, most didn't.

So when we wonder why certain races, or genders are not well represented in certain professions there are a lot of factors besides talent, or even bias involved. There is access and connections that play a part in it.

Probably one reason why my end of the photography spectrum, there is little bias. You have no middlemen controlling hiring or distribution. Someone with a camera can offer their services and people can choose who they wish to take their pictures.

doughowk · Oct 26, 2015

blansky said:
The world is not a meritocracy.

But those who have made it (whether its wealth, position, power or just a comfortable life) like to believe that we do live in a meritocracy.
And we all suffer to some degree from Cognitive dissonance behavior. If we believe in our own self-worth or those we see as role models, then evidence of bias is disputed often adamantly.
So a first step at actually ameliorating the inequalities [gender and racial] is recognition of the bias' we all have.

CatLABS · Oct 26, 2015

blansky said:
So when we wonder why certain races, or genders are not well represented in certain professions there are a lot of factors besides talent, or even bias involved. There is access and connections that play a part in it.

Right, those over represented blacks in the poor and crime columns just suffer from having bad connections and heritage in life and there little or no bias involved. .

MartinCrabtree · Oct 26, 2015

"Play a part" and "sole reason" are worlds apart. Don't mean to confuse you with facts but reality is a confusing and complicated place. Come visit sometime.

blansky · Oct 26, 2015

MartinCrabtree said:
"Play a part" and "sole reason" are worlds apart. Don't mean to confuse you with facts but reality is a confusing and complicated place. Come visit sometime.

Sorry, I don't deal in absolutes.

blansky · Oct 26, 2015

CatLABS said:
Right, those over represented blacks in the poor and crime columns just suffer from having bad connections and heritage in life and there little or no bias involved. .

I don't get your point. Please relate it to what I said.

CatLABS · Oct 26, 2015

If anyone still has any doubt, they should listen to what Max Geller has to say about access, representation of art in contemporary art institutions today, with regards to how women and people of color are curated:
http://wgntv.com/2015/10/26/the-guy-who-hates-renoir-comes-to-chicago/

blansky · Oct 26, 2015

CatLABS said:
If anyone still has any doubt, they should listen to what Max Geller has to say about access, representation of art in contemporary art institutions today, with regards to how women and people of color are curated:
http://wgntv.com/2015/10/26/the-guy-who-hates-renoir-comes-to-chicago/

I'm surprised you're arguing with me, when I just made the point that everything is about access.

But another aspect of this is about what is saleable. In the original posts what was mentioned inferred that success was about what a middleman or employer was willing to pay or exhibit. And a fair bit of that is about what is saleable. Who will buy it. When there is a market, fame and prestige will/can follow.

I realize galleries can set trends and promote what they want, but in the end everything has to have a buyer. So every photographer needs to have something someone wants and more importantly someone will pay money for.

CatLABS · Oct 26, 2015

blansky said:
I'm surprised you're arguing with me, when I just made the point that everything is about access.

But another aspect of this is about what is saleable. In the original posts what was mentioned inferred that success was about what a middleman or employer was willing to pay or exhibit. And a fair bit of that is about what is saleable. Who will buy it. When there is a market, fame and prestige will/can follow.

I realize galleries can set trends and promote what they want, but in the end everything has to have a buyer. So every photographer needs to have something someone wants and more importantly someone will pay money for.

Museum's, especially publicly funded ones to not have buyers.

Often, in our sad state world, women, people of color and other marginalized groups have less access by way of default, in part, due to the long history of white male dominance and control. Its not a level playing field, and not everyone has the same starting position. Persons from marginalized groups (women included) often have to travel further up the ladder to get to the same place a man would, as Max Geller so wonderfully explained in that interview posted above, all because policy makes still use the Baron Munchhausen as their guide and light onto the masses when it comes to how to make others fix the problems the policy makers (read curators and gallerists) caused with their own hands - those suckers should just pull themselves up by their own hair. As simple as that.

In other words, washing your hands clean by saying "its not my fault there is a gender bias" because ...access ...heritage or whatever - does not help and does not change reality or the fact of the matter - non white males are under represented in every aspect of life - including in the art world.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 26, 2015

In Max Geller we once again have proof that one can be educated and still be an idiot. He speaks about representation for women and minorities yet ignores the fact that Renoir was handicapped. He was losing his sight when most of his famous paintings were made. In addition during his last years he struggled with severe arthritis in his hands. So bad that he could no longer grasp the brushes and they had to be tied to his hands. So Geller says Renoir was a bad painter. I think he actually did very well despite his handicaps. I wonder what Geller thinks about John Dugdale as a photographer. Dugdale is known for his mastery of alternative processes and is legally blind with only 17% percent vision in one eye.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency