How to disentangle the ideas and connotations of the sight of a female body. So long has been the object of the male gaze. How can we be in a way that isn't prescribed and defined objectively before we even see the body. For example, Allen Jones claims he is a feminist yet he is recycling the cliches of female perfection from a male point of view. He says that the artwork is the object and the women are the subject...yet they have to be naked and conform to a certain standard of body form i.e young, big breasted, slim and fit. He isn't interested in older,fatter, wrinklier, smaller, wider....he claims to be satirising the depiction of women: bondage chair, coat stand etc yet this entrenched objectification of women's bodies is embedded too firmly in the male psyche to be able to gain the distance required for satire to have any effect. He is not engaging in my opinion with the issues of objectification in a critical way but rather endorsing it.
So is it possible to look at a woman's body from the viewpoint of a man or woman and not read it in an objective sexual way? How can women reclaim their rights to their bodies; Very big subject. I'm skirting round the edges; I want to show a non gendered approach yet be aware of the historic issues. Links to my question about how gender specific my images should be .
Ambiguity
So in my work I'm not only thinking about humanity's bodily connection with the universe but also about the representation of the female body. If Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology comes from a male perspective that assumes it is the only one, then my exploration of it so far has obviously come from a female one which I was applying generally also. Maybe I need to deliberately think as a woman rather than a neutral, all humanity point of view.
However the body images that I have made are visceral, sensual and possibly disturbing: pink , soft , moist with crevices and depths: yet they aren't obviously female. They could be male ear, nose, tongue. I feel that this uncertainty adds interest to the work. I'm not making a definite statement about gender or gender politics but instead raising questions about
However the body images that I have made are visceral, sensual and possibly disturbing: pink , soft , moist with crevices and depths: yet they aren't obviously female. They could be male ear, nose, tongue. I feel that this uncertainty adds interest to the work. I'm not making a definite statement about gender or gender politics but instead raising questions about
I’m not sure it’s possible to view anything without being influenced by whether one is male or female. From birth, male and female babies are treated differently, and we cannot help but continue with this. What concerns me is whether as females, we reject all history, art as having been created by males and therefore not relevant to women, when some is about the common experience of being human. I’m not sure it’s possible to have a non-gendered approach. Your investigation of eyes, noses shows the bits relevant to most humans.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with you completely about Allen Jones’ work. It seems too close to the truth. Apparently today the Sun newspaper is finally stopping printing page 3 topless models. Instead they will be scantily clad. Ahh that’s entirely different then…not objectifying.