From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dictionary entry[edit]

I'm not quite sure that this is a dictionary entry, since it does (tentatively at least) try to explain why some are more photogenic than others.


A photograph of a person widely known for being photogenic, and must be sourced and have a neutral pov. I chose Jolie because she is a popular sex symbol in women, and also because some user (who probably has yet to see her in rl) keeps adding her image in the Physical attractiveness and Sex symbol articles. - User:Carie

Good point. I am messaging the owner of this photo, i cant think of any other photo except this guy. Unfortunately it is copyrighted, so i am looking for chance to relicense to CC or something.
Also, to fit in this page, you need to show the photogenic behavior, to distinguish it from plain aesthetic. The guy was clearly taken a shot while he was running, so it shows his photogenic intent perfectly. --Mylittleanon (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

rm uncited claim[edit]

I removed the following claim from the article, because it is uncited (and dubious): "This phenomenon is caused by the three dimensional and two dimensional polarizing effect and could explain why a person looks "better" in two dimensions than in three or vice versa."--Srleffler 07:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is attractive being confused with photogenic?[edit]

Attractive has the quality of causing the attention to be riveted on the attractive person. That is almost by definition. But photogenic is a term that tries to separate out another quality. Charismatic suggests photogenic, and that is noted in the article. But I think there is too much preoccupation with "attractive" in the article which isn't the heart and soul of photogenic. Attractive people can be lacking in the quality of being photogenic, I think. Therefore the preoccupation with attractiveness in the article seems to be misleading.

I also don't think photogenic is necessarily even related to photography. I think a person can be said to be photogenic based the attention they garner simply by people feeling an irresistible urge to look at them. Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

PhotogenicPhotogenicityWP:NAME says to use nouns rather than adjectives. Nurg (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Photogenicity" is not listed as a word at Are there reliable sources that use it? Station1 (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
How about Photogenic appearance? Luminescent things are also referred to as "photogenic" sometimes. Dekimasuよ! 08:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Sorry I missed this discussion. I think this is a potentially very interesting article. And I like the name just as it is. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheryl Cole claim irrelevant?[edit]

"Cheryl Cole is named the most photogenic woman ever according to a new poll by 4000 British women. A spokesperson for Nikon, who commissioned the study to promote their new D300 camera, said: "Cheryl Cole was a clear winner and is loved by the nation for her looks, dress sense and friendly nature."

This doesn't belong in the article, considering no-one outside of UK even knows who this person is! It is debateable and not encycolpedic material! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculously photogenic guy[edit]

Although the image might be ideal for this page, its copyright status is undetermined. Know Your Meme is not the copyright holder, so the rationale for the image is incorrect. Until that's sorted out, Wikipedia can't have it in the article. ... discospinster talk 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't we use it anyway? Seems to me like no one owns the rights, so surely we can use it anyway? From my understanding of copyright law, if no one defends their work, then it enters the public domain doesn't it? Primary Antagonist (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Not in American copyright law. The right is owned by the photographer, who in this case is actually known (see the Know Your Meme entry). He doesn't have to defend his work since the copyright attaches once the photograph is taken. ... discospinster talk 18:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I checked out the Flickr page for the photo and there's an option to licence the image, so it's definitely not in the public domain! ... discospinster talk 03:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


Is Philosophy really the right classification for this article? Would something like photography not be a better fit? Primary Antagonist (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, it does seem like a stretch. The Aesthetics article is in the Philosophy wikiproject but this is probably more practical than philosophical. ... discospinster talk 18:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)