Feminists
tell us that throughout history and now in the contemporary world, women have
been and are exploited and objectified by men. Where men sexualize and
objectify women for there own gratification, creating the perfect woman to gaze
at.
The
point was put that historically almost all nudes were women and that the reason
for this was, not due to an adoration of the female form but to tap at some
underlying beast within all men that hungers for sex. Although this can be said
for a proportion of the historical nude imagery it cannot be accounted for all.
It can be apposed with the argument that historically statues and sculpture,
especially Greek, have always depicted men. (fig. 01) Were these not created for the same purpose as the nude
paintings, to objectify and sexualize or to admire and celebrate the human
form. As well as this, the first real in-depth study of the human, the
Vitruvian Man (Leonardo Da Vinci), again was entirely focus on the male form? (fig. 02) The argument against this would
be that they may have been produced yes, however, they were all produced by men
and therefore are solely for their gratification.
The
world is changing and so are our attitudes towards visual media. Rosalind
Coward’s argument that ‘men assess, judge and make advances on the basis
of…visual impressions’ and that the camera is ‘an extension of the male gaze’
are dated and fundamentally wrong. Although through history man has been the
dominant sex, both professionally and otherwise, in the modern world equality is
present. Even though there is not total equality there is a definite acceptance
of sexually driven images of both men and women. As an example, the Diet Coke
TV advertisement uses the man as a sexual object in a very provocative and
erotic manner. (fig. 03) So where
Coward says ‘men assess, judge and make advances on the basis of…visual
impressions’ it should say ‘we assess, judge and make advances on the basis
of…visual impressions’. Similarly the
camera is ‘an extension of the male gaze’ should be the camera is ‘an extension
of the gaze’, not limiting it to just that of men.
This
acceptance of sexual driven imagery in such a regular form has led and leading
to a complete lack of relative thinking. All companies are concerned about is
selling their product and, because ‘sex sells’, it has become the given way of
selling, regardless of what you are selling.
This sheer influx of sexually provocative advertisement has meant that
we are incapable of a real relationship and the only viable option is
‘sex-at-a-distance’. It has created a modern Prufrockian alternative where we
are to scared to accept a real physical relation incase it does not live up to
the consumer constructed image of perfection.
I
do not agree with the feminist views on the subject as in the contemporary
world the human body and form is sexualized and objectified regardless of you
sex. It could be argued that we still have ‘lads mags’ and page three models –
a point made by Caroline
Lucas MP in June 2013 – however; it is not a forced act or a pressured act. As
with modeling, male and female, it is a career, a choice and a decision made by
that individual. Regardless of who it is getting the gratification it is
something done on there terms. People grow up wanting to be models and aspire
to be Victoria’s Secret Angels (fig. 04)
and is therefore not an argument of sex or feminism but in fact an argument of
morals.
Fig.
01
Fig.
02
Fig.
03
Fig.
04
No comments:
Post a Comment