voyeurism or curiosity?

I wonder where you get the idea that 'most people' hold such a view. 'Most people' probably see photographs as illustrations in their newspapers and magazines that break up the type and give them something more or less interesting to look at. A slightly smaller number take pictures to remember events and places they have been. A far smaller group still take pictures as a means of personal expression. A miniscule proportion obsess about it and make the most ridiculous claims - all too many of the last group are to be found here on photo.net so people who read this site with their cynicicm shields down can get an entirely wrong view of reality.

As guess that could be applied to just looking around then also. A photo is just a fraction of a second of that activity.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between voyeurism and curiosity (other than the obvious part that most people narrow the scope of voyeurism down to sexual activity) is that a voyeur is gleaning a feeling from what he or she is watching where as the curious are gleaning some information from what they are watching.

We could argue the semantics of these words for weeks... in the end... they mean the same; to describe people who like to watch.

So, are you going to let the pergorative use of "voyeur" get you down?

David...

Or even the pejorative use.

For some reason, the 'playboy interview' style of photography made a big impression on me just as I was deciding to try being a PJ. There's something about capturing a range of 'real' expressions while your subject is interacting with somebody else that fascinates me. To this day, I am still 'weak' on posing people, etc, which is one reason I avoided doing weddings whenever I could.

If I'm doing candids, eye contact works for me too. I've had some strong images that way, sort of a 'shared moment'. It's the posing or the 'where do you want me?' type shots that do very little for me personally.

I have no idea where this fits on your 'v - scale'.

The American Heritage College Dictionary, third edition, defines a voyeur as a person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked body or sexual acts of others, esp. secretly. The second definition is an obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects. Voyeurism is the act of a voyeur. I hardly think that definition applies either to the vast majority of photographs taken by people or to the vast majority of people’s view of photography. There can be voyeuristic photos, but photography itself is not inherently voyeuristic. Nor is photography inherently curious, it can be used to satisfy a curiosity, but it can also be used record a scene, to make a record of an event, to tell a story, or any number of other things. Photography at its most basic concept is a tool, at its greatest height, an art.

Human beings have got eyes (and later cameras), so they look at things. And sometimes they even feel pleasure doing this - openly or secretly doesn't matter. I think that psychological explanations are a typical phaenomenon of the 20th century and in a lot of cases not very useful. Basically they say more about the psychologist/theorist than the human behaviour they try to understand. That's all.

I wonder who you hang out with, but can I join your group? As mentioned a voyeuer is a peeping tom, it has a sexual connotation. I like landscape photos but they don't turn me on that way. Scopophilia was described by Freud in one his cases I think it was the Dora case, which was based on the idea that we take possesion of something when we look at it. In a sense when I look at photo of a landscape, I have a desire to be there and take hold of it with my eyes. I think photography can have a scopophilic aspect to it but it's probably secondary to aesthic appeal. I love Mozart's music but I don't want to have an auralphilic relationship with it. Advertising photography I suspect has a strong scopophilic element to it, they encourage it so consumers will buy the product. Film I think is much more fiting with your idea of voyeurism since many commercial films deal with power, dominance and sexuality, while the audience sits there and drinks it in. The best example of this is Hitchcocks "The Rear Window" about the voyeuristic tendencies of the audience.

What are you looking at? Literally.

I enjoy looking at some things, so I receive a reward when I view them, to enjoy is motivation enough. I am curious about what I see in others, so I may stare to determine the meaning it has for me; my reward is reaching a conclusion to the thought prevoked.

In other images I have little or no interest, no reward or motivation, no voyeuristic drive to see.

So it depends on what I am looking at, and to some degree my personality.