From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 12/25/02-12:35:43 AM Z
Mark, you absolutely force me to be grinchlike, because these are
questions of utmost moment I cannot resist. Of course nobody is
reading this anyway, because they're all pinning up mistletoe and kissing
Santa Claus, so I can say anything I like, right? In fact I will send
season's greetings so they can stop here.
For the record, however, and SINCE YOU ASK, I will address the current
issue -- though I note that the terms of your question are a bit changed
(For instance, I didn't say "objectify," a vague term in this context,
etc. etc.)
In our culture, the people in power (or of importance beyond spectacle and
weirdness) do not pee for the camera. Nor do they pose naked. That
actually says it all, but taking a break from some very boring work I
elaborate.
Ms Gowen's only public meaning, import, and persona is as model, and as
model doing these things. Or, at best, being photographed by husband
artist, thinker, creator, doing other inane or meaningless or unimportant
or nothing, or possibly demeaning things.
She is higher in status than, say, the naked lady with the arched back on
the cover of Farber's book, because she does this (presumably) for love,
not for hire, as the chosen mate of the artist, thinker, creator, etc., so
at least the inference is that he loves and values her & she is worthy of
same. But that is her only public existence and status.
I do not know of any case where a woman photographer has created the
persona of another woman by showing her spread-legged, skirt hiked and
peeing on the floor, or naked, or other low-status acts. There may be
such, if so, I trust this list to know of it... Nor do I know of any case
where a woman has become famous for photographing a male appendage (I mean
the person as an appendage, not a body part).
The closest I can think of is Sylvia Sleigh who painted a whole "harem" of
important male art figures, including her husband, Lawrence Alloway, in
languid nude poses. She began maybe 30 years ago, and besides being a
"political statement," they are charming paintings. Christina Anderson
shows 2 of them in her book "Tutti Nudi."
But these are men with known personas, Alloway for instance was one of
the most important critics of his day... they are also posed with great
charm and dignity. One is even titled "Imperial Nude, Paul Rosano."
So let me know the woman who has made a career of photographing her
otherwise unknown husband, nude and/or peeing on the floor, and then we
can argue particulars. But even were this to occur, the power and image of
men in society is not the problem.
How women are portrayed in our culture today is part of the problem.
Take the double page ad for pentium 4, ran a couple of weeks in NY Times
mag, shows 13 people seated, enjoying "music." Representing all ages and
types. A violinist, a magician, a welder, football player, a couple of old
guys, even a pretty fat guy, and actually a homely no-chin guy. Then
whoops,only 4 women, all young, slim, pretty, two of them purely
glamorous, another a mother with her baby, and the 4th in bra top with her
eyes closed, a runner.
Open any news magazine, or the daily paper..or TV news -- senior portly
jowly men, & women carefully coiffed & made up fluff persons. Yes, there
are a couple of older women -- rail thin & stunning.
It's so normal we don't SEE it. So I pick up the first section of today's
NY Times (Tuesday) -- dozens of men, one woman so tiny you can't see
gender sitting on window sill of her loft near the World Trade Center, 3
very small women in background audience watching a man sign autographs,
one nun with a group of priests praying and one highschool student
modeling a heavy backpack. Only two of these female creatures have names,
none is there for something she's done. And this is a rather good day for
women in the Times first section.
Of course this is the way it is -- Rome wasn't built in a day, and so
forth. But somehow I just don't think the photographer's wife peeing on
the floor is part of the solution.
cheers from Grinch village..
J.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 Ender100@aol.com wrote:
> Hi Judy,
>
> a couple of questions. First, can you describe some work of men or women
> that does NOT objectify them? I know what the term means, I'm just not sure
> how different people apply it. I'm not trying to start a fight over it, just
> wanting to hear your view.
>
> Second, if the photograph of Ms Gowan had been taken by another woman, would
> it be any different?
>
> Oh, my favorite Barby Doll was done by some guy who would buy Barbies, dress
> them differently and sell them... I imagine the Barby Doll company (I forget
> who sells it) probably tried to sue his pants off (so to speak). They were
> called S&M Barbie.
>
> By the way, Annie Sprinkle probably still has a website somewhere out there.
> I think she went into the Tantric way or something like that. It was
> somewhat interesting. I believe her claim to fame, however, was not
> urination, but female ejaculation. Perhaps she was the first Giclee artist.
> There, I got Alt-Photo into the paragraph so I won't get yelled at hehehehe
>
> Mark Nelson
> In a message dated 12/24/02 3:50:04 PM, jseigel@panix.com writes:
>
> << Which is to say, this "conversation" has gotten ridiculous, but there's a
> real point -- although Ms Gowin has a more amusing, and so-to-speak,
> active role than W. Weston's model in the sand with (also!) her legs
> spread, the fact is that both are presented as objects. This one's the
> Betsy Wetsy*, the other the tele-sandy, but they are both low, so to
> speak, on evolutionary scale. An earlier picture of Ms Gowen shows her
> topless with a garland of flowers around her neck, another intimate body
> display. >>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST