The Situation
The work that sparked said discussion, and inspired today's post, was of a nude (female) model that was taken with a black light (but cross-processed to give the image an overall ethereal/dream/alien look. I made the comment that unlike the artist's previous works, this series felt like the model was an object. The photos themselves aren't the issue at hand here but the discussion that followed afterwards.
A suggestion to remedy the situation that was made by one student was that the artist should include men in his own alien/implicit situations. Other students agreed. Another student then made the comment that we wouldn't find this a big deal if a woman took these sexually implicit photos. Again, people agreed (and in fact pointed out how a woman in the class did that in her portfolio). Finally, someone stated that we shouldn't necessarily bring up a feminist discourse when analyzing works of art as we lose out from the beauty of the piece.
But, in my opinion, how is this double standard justifiable? Objectification IS objectification regardless of the biological sex of the creator!
Objectification Should Not Be the Norm
Women can objectify other women, just as men can objectify other men. Objectification is not restricted by gender though it can be stopped by responsible creation.
Let's use this BMW ad as an example. Would this be less offensive if the director was female? No. Regardless of the creator's gender, the objectification of the female model in this ad is quite apparent and completely ridiculous.
Masculinity As An Object
Unfortunately for my classmate, adding men to his project won't be the quick-fix solution that he might have been looking for to solve his woes. Men, too, have become victims to sleazy marketing techniques. Just as women are, men are cast as sexual objects, though usually are in the power position over their female counterparts. Let's not forget that theses images almost always showcase a white privilege.
Besides the rising Adonis complex, some men may also grow complacent as they continually see women in positions powerlessness/vulnerability. These portrayals of the (hyper)sexual and violent male are offensive to males as they are to females as well.
Men sometimes aren't only portrayed as sexually aggressive beings. Trojan's Evolve campaign takes another approach, one that showcases men literally as pigs.
Homo Eroticism in Imagery?
What also confuses me is the total absence of the queer gaze that occurred in my class discussion today. Actually, I was shocked by the absence of it while searching Google as well. By suggesting that it is less offensive for a woman to cast another woman in a sexual light (and, by default, a male casting a man) ignores homosexual desire. But of course homosexual desire isn't even a consideration in the heteronormative world of advertisement and classroom discussion.
The Responsible Artist
Sometimes males objectify females. Sometimes females objectify males. Sometimes even men objectify men and women objectify other women. Just because it happens doesn't mean it is right. People as sexual objects remove individual autonomy and typecast groups in a negative light. Low self-esteem, eating disorders, violence, etc. all rise because of these representations.
As my photography teacher brought up, art in itself is a form of research. It is up to the artist to research past and present discourses in relation to their subject. The artist must bear responsibility and be able to approach a public. Afterwards, discussion can ensue and, hopefully, a movement towards understanding will take place.
Finally, to respond to my photography class' suggestion. To me, there is no justifiable objectification. Unless there is a strong element of irony or critique, to objectify is to objectify, whether you and your subjects identify as male, female, neither, or both. Besides being overdone and boring, these representations prove to be quite damaging. Besides, they don't offer anything new to the audience.
3 comments:
The model was an object. Not to say, of course, that the woman who posed is an object, but for that moment, the artist was using her to make a statement. The model, not the woman, became a tool for art. I do not think this is wrong. I find it beautiful, and think we would have much less interesting art if your philosophies were enforced.
Furthermore, if I did find fault, I wouldn't silence it. I don't believe in censorship or political correctness. I love my fellow man, and I accept that there are different perspectives held by the various peoples of the world. Instead of shunning someone who offended you through no ill intent, I think you should have tried to appreciate the art for what it was.
I accuse you of being narrow-minded, and question your intelligence, as well as your sense of humor for criticising a BMW ad that is obviously of an ironic nature.
Finally, on a deeply personal level, from what I gather of you based on your writing, I hate you.
Just out of curiosity, where in my post do I make the claim of censorship? Or even silencing the artist's work?
As for the artist, well, I personally found the work terrible, especially when it was reliant on the extreme disfigurement/alienation of a woman.
The problem with your ideologies in art is that it ignores the potential for discourse behind the piece and focuses too much on the pleasure of aesthetics. I find that quite naive. Art is a form research and the creative process must be aware of the discourse that it creates.
While it is clearly ironic, the BMW ad fails. There is just too much at stake when you're a large corporate entity. That, and again, if you can only fall on stereotypes, you aren't actually being that funny.
Yes, I know, PC thugs like me are stopping you from finding a husband. Strong accusations coming from you, especially based off one post. You can disagree, but you missed the point.
there's double standards though with objectifying men vs. objectifying women
would you go against this ad?
http://www.womenagainstmen.com/advertising/advertising-standards-hypocrisy.html
what I find so annoying is that many of the women who would object to the BMW ad, would find nothing wrong with the above ad that portrays men in a much more negative light
the usual gender feminists aren't interested in being consistent. They will always use double standards.
Post a Comment