For many years, and even in modern times as well, we find references to Freud's psychoanalysis. Many of us are familiar with the Ego, the Id and the Superego, but fewer may be familiar with Freud's theory of scopophilia. In his Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Freud describes scopophilia as a love of looking, and goes on to to say that it is based on a curiosity that seeks to complete a sexual object by revealing its hidden parts. The pleasure derived from looking is tied into our sexual desires without being directly related to the erogenous zones, yet it still produces erotic pleasure. Scopophilia is also associated with taking people as objects and subjecting them to a curious gaze.
Then tie this into Lacan's theory of the mirror stage, a stage of development in which the child begins to realize that there are elements around them that are not are not a part of it, the "other". Images and sense of the "self" becomes fragmented in this stage because the child does not have full control over its movements or body. The child develops a sense of identity versus subjectivity. But yet, the image viewed by the child is not the "me", rather it is a misrecognition, it is an image of the real self, and therefore this stage also forms the basis of the process of recognition and misrecognition of ourselves. The child begins to search for identification in an external image, and not in an internal sense of a separate whole identity.
You may wonder why I am bothering to give this history. It is because these psychoanalytic theories form the basis for one of the most compelling essays of the objectification of women that I have ever read. The essay is called Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema and is written by Laura Mulvey, a renowned artist in film. In her essay, Mulvey argues that there are two main contradictory aspects to the act of deriving pleasure from visual images placed on a screen. One is related to scopophilia, and the other is related our narcissistic need to identify with the figures on the screen. Scopophilia implies separation from the erotic object one is viewing, and narcissistic indentification demands identification with the on-screen object based on the spectator's fascination with the recognition of his or her own likeness.
In a patriarchal society where the male gaze is considered active and the female gaze is considered passive, we find an imbalance. Scopophilic tendencies lead the woman into the trap of being viewed solely as an object of sexual desire, and narcissistic tendencies place the woman into a role where she is the "other". She is left to take her place as the bearer and not the maker of meaning. Projections and fantasies of males are free to be imposed on female characters. This may not be simply done in the act of viewing a figure, these fantasies can then become imposed on to the representation of the figures placed on the screen.
If all representation is structured by male desire, then sexuality becomes integral in constructing the spectator's subjectivity. Not only does performance imply a gaze, it also brings in preconceived notions, and more often than not they come in the form of imposed gender lines. Therefore, in gendered relationships, the passivity of the woman's role in representation slips the "woman" into a position of non-subjectivity. She is not granted a voice. The female cannot enter into the realm of existence of who she really is while she lives in the male dominated world.
It is, therefore, THIS aspect of the representation that causes a problem. The fact that representation creates ideologies. For so long, art created in a patriarchal society has played in to the ideology that woman are meant to be passive, and merely the canvas upon which males desires are painted. Being aware of this causes us all to find a way to check how we relate to an object of art.
Consider again "Pieces of Me". This art was created with the intention of creating a subject to be considered first and foremost a person, and a person in the simplest terms. Depending on what context you find yourself in, you relate to the pictures in a unique way. They are in theatrical "conversation" with you. Now, the trick then is to ask yourself how you are relating to the object. Are you trying to take pleasure from the figure, or are you trying to find yourself in it? If you find yourself trying to do either, take a moment to allow for the operation of other variables such as age, class, race. How do these then affect what you see? By resisting the urge to go with you immediate instincts, you are forcing yourself into the position of a critical spectator, and spectator that can begin to see art based on art rather than art based on the objectification of the subject. You essentially give back a voice to the subject because rather than being a means of living out your fantasy, they are free to speak from their own.
Works consulted:
Dolan, Jill. The Feminist Spectator As Critic. London: UMI Research Press, 1988.
Dolan, Jill. Presence and Desire. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1993.
Mulvey, Laura. Visual and Other Pleasures. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989.
http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/fredu.htm
http://www.haberarts.com/mulvey.htm
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENG2012Klages/lacan.html
http://www.rlc.dcccd.edu/annex/comm/english/mah8420/EyesofLauraMulvey.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Very deep post, on a subject that's been on my mind for sometime....
I've photographed nudes.
http://ca.geocities.com/quan_zhang@rogers.com/
One of my teachers is a world famous photographer mostly for his nude work. And I remember that one of his first questions to us was "why do you want to do this?"
My personal answer is that I am fascinated with body shapes, it expanded my skills, and I wanted to learn what my own reaction would be. If you take away the effect of clothing, you end up with a purer portrait in my mind. The light and shadow and curves and shapes are much
easier to express. I've only used female models because that was what was provided to me. I've also been told that male models are hard to find. Most men are very hard to photograph even clothed and end up looking awkward with stiff postures (except if we're making faces or joking around). Nude males, I've been told, are also not as aware of their bodies.
I applaud you for your artistic explorations. I think that there's enough T & A on the internet, that I really don't think anyone should be getting their jollies from your self portraits. I enjoyed reading your post. I don't have as deep a psychological background as you, so it was fascinating. Good luck with your project!
Hey Felicity!
It's been a while :) I hope you're doing well, and don't mind if I comment on your ideas even though it would be better if you could just drop by Lithuania somehow for a cup of coffee. Though they don't have Chelsea's out here :) mmm... buffalo sandwiches...
So I'm with you here, and you qualify it as a diatribe, but I'm not sure I can leave this unchallenged.
You've posted pictures in a public forum with no context beyond a title that can itself be seen as extremely objectifying.
Now you call your audience out for being uncritical (which is completely your prerogative--it is your blog, after all), even though you've basically just thrown up a text and said, "read this."
What's insulting and dangerous is that you say a lot of things about "patriarchal society" and then turn around and blame "the urge to go with you [sic] immediate instincts." Perhaps it is possible to somehow control how your spectator sees your art, but to assume that your (presumably male) audience is somehow predatory/pornographically-inclined _by instinct_ is to essentialize the same "looker/looked at" phenomenon you're so frustrated by. Do females instinctually seek voyeurism?
Sure, blame the "cultural norms" that lead to hurtful jokes--I think your frustration is justified. But don't assume that males are _by their nature_ trying to dominate females or in my opinion you're arguing against yourself.
Freud's misogyny is renowned, and Lacan's is only slightly more debatable. If Mulvey contends, as Freud does, "that's just the way it is," then what we need is forgiveness and understanding, not more blame. Personally, I'm still hoping for something more than grudging acceptance and compromise; it's just hard to see my way through to transformation.
Hi Jared!
It has been too long, I agree! I wish I could hop on a plane and come visit, but alas, it's not always possible.
Just know, in response to your comment, I am pondering a follow up posting. But please note, I was writing from a very strict bias, and I did write that. I don't believe men are evil or porno-driven, so please don't think that.
Right, I will formulate a response for you, so keep looking!
Fel
Hey Felicity,
Since my marketing ethics class last semester I've spent some time thinking and discussing the idea of objectification of women (and men) in media, and while I think there is a lot of merit to what you and others have said, I think the biggest problem in this discussion is that it is a commentary on male sexuality from a female sexual perspective.
I've always struggled with the idea of objectification, and I realized that I can only define it because women have given me a definition, not because the idea really makes sense to me.
Why are men silent on such an important issue? Are we ashamed? Do we not care? Or is that we don't really understand what women are talking about, but we know they're upset about it so we should keep quiet and shake our collective head ... at ourselves.
Now, I have to admit, reading your posts did help me understand the entire argument more than I ever have, but as you said, you have a bias. The discussion of objectification of women will only have any impact on culture when men engage it, as it is a male driven issue.
What I've begun to wonder is if men, in a way, compartmentalize women. Some are complete people, and some are sexual objects. That sounds really horrible, but I don't know how else to put it.
Thing is, I think one of the main reasons we (might) do this is to relate to other guys. Why do guys go to bars? To hang out with the guys, look at attractive girls, joke/brag about hitting on them, then maybe hit on them and sleep with them. Then brag about their conquests to guys after the fact. I realize this is a gross generalization, but it serves its purpose.
The two motives acting here are to impress and connect with other guys, and also to satisfy sexual desire. There is nothing here about interacting with a female person.
You never hear a guy look at a pin-up and say "man, i'd love to have dinner with Angelina Jolie". no, he says he would boink her. Even saying that is more about himself - he wants to express his sexuality to reinforce his self-confidence and, again, connect with other guys - than it is about the 'object' in the picture.
Yet, most men end up in somewhat healthy relationships, and generally have decently healthy views about their loved ones. How? Because of this compartmentalization. We do respect the women we know. We don't post pictures of our friends in bikinis on our walls because they are our friends, we have a relationship with them.
To bring it back to your original issue. When I saw your pictures, I saw them for what they are, an expression of yourself through art. But I know you pretty well, and I respect you and like you. If I didn't, and I came across those exact same pictures I might have 'objectified' you simply because I saw female skin, and that's what I'm used to doing.
All that being said, I don't know if that paints men in a better or worse light. I don't know why we're like this, or if I've even got this right.
However, I think its important to point out that while 'objectification' of women does change the way men view them, I am pretty confident that change is not what we think. The damage women think is being done to their male friends isn't actually that bad, because its almost like we have a built in coping mechanism to protect our relationships with women. (Now, the damage this does to women is another issue)
So what about your friends who made these comments? Maybe sometimes we're tempted to move someone from one compartment to another. You said their comments were in jest. That's probably because they are your friends, so even though a part of them wants to objectify you, the relationship they have with you prevents them from doing so. The expression of that conflict is a few, apparently not so inconsequential, jokes.
And I'm spent,
Jon
There's maybe one further issue which I don't think anyone has touched on.
It seems to me that Felicity was put into a position to defend her art. Both as a photographer ("are you turning into a pornographer?") and as a model ("huba huba !"). Which I don't think is fair, but I also think it "comes with the territory". Which is what my teacher subtly warned us about.
But, to be honest, I don't understand what "objectification" means. A photograph is an object. I think that we'd all be much better off if more people saw it as that. Fewer girls would want to starve themselves to look like something only Photoshop can create. More men would realize that there's a mind and a personality behind the picture (and often those personalities may make the good looking bodies much much less attractive). I diverged a bit there, but bottomline, I'm not sure I like the term "objectification" in describing what's happening in our society.
-QZ
Post a Comment