I want to present a question to you: When you see a nude female tied up in a photograph, do you consider it art? Would it help if it were supposed to be representative of a cause? Would it help if the photographer were famous? Would it make a difference if it were hung in a museum/gallery, and gawked at by a crowd? Why would you consider it art?
Here are my thoughts, I have absolutely nothing against artistic nudity, nor do I consider myself a "prude" or "philistine". (I hate this sort of labeling, but lets save that for another topic). What I do have something against, is that artistic nudity is almost always of women. Why is a man's body almost never depicted? Why does his body seem to be off limits? Personally I find the bold, muscular, and sinewy body of a man to be very appealing, and Greek and Roman sculptures had no problem with it either.
Yet how original can it be when a photographer uses a woman's naked body in a photo? Hasn't this been done about a billion or more times? If a woman's body were poetry, we would hear professors emphatically shouting how cliche and unoriginal she is; how we need something different, especially the whole bondage, tied up scenario, how welcome would that line be? Yet, here we are, still tying women up, stripping them of all their clothes, and having them splayed in front of a camera, and calling it art.
I would like to ask how this is art. It certainly is not abstract, clearly it is meant to be surreal, so what is the message that we are supposed to get from bound, suffering women with vacant eyes? Is it a message of oppression? What about the more graphic photos? Are they a message of oppression as well?
To be truthful, I think these images are a sad commentary on our society, maybe another excuse for voyeurism. I see the same depiction of women in short film, television shows, movies; the damsel in distress, the helpless female running from her chasers, who always seems to trip and fall, or who never uses her brain when she can. She is always wearing revealing clothing, scantily clad, has a dumbfounded look in her eyes as she gazes up at her lover, attacker, rescuer, and is always distraught without a man.
Don't get me wrong, In some ways I don't believe that anyone deliberately sets out to establish gender roles, I think it is embedded in our psyches. I have noticed that in movies women have progressed, but often times, it is the man who is the star, either the protagonist or the antagonist, but the female is usually neither of these, but a subplot, a character in the star's life, a supportive role, or simply eye candy. In other words, she is reduced to an object.
For example, in a lot of action movies, which are mainly marketed towards men, the female is often killed for revenge by a gang. This is dangerously reducing her to an object, as subsequently it happens in real life. Why? Why are women nothing more than possessions or pretty things to look at in the world of art? Why can't art be anything else? Is this not a dangerous way to think, does it not have its repercussions? Models and actresses suffer from eating disorders, and other various mood disorders on a large scale. Our culture has earned the name of "rape culture", and for good reasons. Look at the number of rapes that occur on a daily basis.
I would even venture to say that it is not the photographer who is talented, but the female. She is the one sculpting her body, through diet, sometimes starvation, and strenuous daily exercise. She is the one who has to fit the mold of what society expects her to be. She is the sculptor, the artist. Snapping a picture of a tired old image is not artistic, it is not even original, it is just a borrowed idea.
And this is only half of it. Women are artists outside of their bodies as well. Society obviously hasn't looked deep enough to see their mind, and the creations that stem from it.
I wait for the day when women are no longer considered the muse, but actually receive credit for being the artist.
Next Rant will probably be about: "Chick Flicks"
Unless someone gets to it before me.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Who Really is The Artist?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11126
I'm a little confused about what art form you are critiquing here exactly. Or is it a particular artist?
I ask because I am a supporter of erotic and bondage photography, such as the Japanese shibari rope art. Shibari in particular has a specific aesthetic, and I don't think it is unoriginal or tawdry to strive for that aesthetic in this medium. We can get into cultural appropriation issues because the shibari aesthetic is often reinterpreted by Western artists yet still labeled shibari, which is incorrect. Yet there is a long history of Western bondage aesthetics from which to draw as well. Bondage is not reserved for the female form, the nude form, or any other bondage stereotype or trope you can think of.
If you are tired of seeing the same image over and over, perhaps you can target some of your displeasure towards the curators of museums and art shows that may weed out aesthetics and artists they don't like. Just because you don't see a particular image in popular art, doesn't mean that the images you would like to see aren't being produced. Part of the responsibility falls on the institutions that promote, facilitate, fund, review, and serve as gatekeepers for the production of art, not solely on the artists.
Many bondage models do this work because they love it, because they appreciate the aesthetic, because it turns them on. It is a partnership between the rigger, the model, and the photographer: a cocreation of art (and one person may serve more than one of these roles). If you find fault with the mainstream depiction of bondage in art, try seeking out specialists and hobbyists outside of the mainstream; you might feel the same way about them, but it's possible you might find a new appreciation for these art forms.
While I understand and, to a certain extent, agree with some of the sentiments expressed here, I sort of feel like it is like someone traveling through the suburbs lamenting the decline of architecture. If you're not seeing the "art" you're looking for, perhaps you're not looking in the right places?
For example, in an L.A. Gallery recently Nancy Peach, an oil painter, hung a show consisting of paintings of photographs taken by Lochai (www.kirinawa.com) an award-winning fetish photographer of his rope on Madison Young (also an artist who owns her own gallery). You can see documentation of the event here: http://bestsexbloggers.com/2008/12/25/nancy-peach-presents-lochai-madison-with-an-8-foot-portrait-in-oil/
Saying that something has been "overdone" in art is being lazy. How many paintings of flowers and landscapes had been done before Monet's lilies? How many nude sculptures had been done before David? It's not about the subject, it's about the intent and the expression. And yes, there is a lot of derivative, misogynistic crap out there. No argument there. But that does not mean there is nothing out there. The example of shibari (or, more accurately, kinbaku) is a great one, and I recommend the recently published "The Beauty of Kinbaku" (http://www.thebeautyofkinbaku.com) as a resource.
And there are a lot of people who work with the male form, both men and women. Van Darkholme, for example, recently published an art book full of exactly the kinds of Grecian figures you talk about, and there's a very popular website called "Bound Gods" that is nothing but that. Is it art? Porn? Erotica? In my opinion, that's all subjective.
On a more personal note, I am the MC and a performer with Foxy Veronica's Peach Pies, a caburlesque troupe here in Madison. I got into the troupe because one of the women wanted me to tie her up during a number. We both expected, in this very liberal and feminist town, to be booed off the stage - that was our plan, in fact.
Instead, the crowd started cheering from the minute the first rope went on (and fyi, the crowd is 50% or more female when we perform). In fact, as my own work has made me miss some shows, the producer (who also performs as Ms. Behavin') has learned how to do rope bondage herself so that she can tie up the ladies when I'm not able to be at the show.
All of which indicates to me that there is more to the "art" of rope bondage than gender roles and stereotypical photos. By no means am I insisting that you appreciate it - but I feel you are doing a disservice to a lot of people who take it as much more than sexy flesh.
I have viewed the link you posted and looked at the Kinbaku site, and sadly these are exactly the types of photoes I am refering to in my post. I do have to apologize for saying that they are unoriginal, I realize that is an unfair and ignorant statement to make; however art is still subjective, and while the talent in these paintings and photoes is obviously evident, the subject matter is what I still take issue with. I guess it is just not my cup of tea. And as for my take on them, I suppose I am just a different breed of feminist. I simply cannot understand how a strong, independant, and educated woman could subject herself to such a classic form of sexism and humiliation. Why does she have to be naked? I just don't understand. When I see women do this to themselves it angers me on a level that is quite deep.
"And as for my take on them, I suppose I am just a different breed of feminist. I simply cannot understand how a strong, independant, and educated woman could subject herself to such a classic form of sexism and humiliation."
This may be the crux of the matter. It's not just that you don't find personal appeal in the aesthetics of bondage, which is a tomayto-tomahto issue in the end. Really, you don't understand how any strong, independent, educated woman could possibly enjoy a submissive role. I'm just guessing, but do you have a similar problem with other forms of dominance/submission play?
I consider myself a feminist and have a degree in women's studies. I also proudly and enthusiastically practice rope bondage and work in the porn industry in many capacities.
I agree with Graydancer. The article written above is uninformed, judgemental and a gross generalization.
Lynne C., I'd love to have direct references to the artists/galleries/ads/etc. that you are commenting on. I also challenge you to investigate the power of submission and acknowledge the desires of women, whether or not you share those desires.
Making power dynamics explict and setting up a framework to explore them is empowering.
You know, after sitting with this a little longer. I guess my initial reaction came from a questioning of an art form that I practice because of it's perceived inherent sexism.
I'm just asking the author to look deeper into her claims, provide examples and look into ways that bondage photography can be feminist.
Well it was someone elses post: http://community.feministing.com/2008/12/women-in-art.html#comment-208413 about this book: http://www.amazon.com/Kagero-Colors-Japanese-Daido-Moriyama/dp/4434108026/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230299549&sr=8-2 that really prompted me. This photographer is apparently world renowned as well. I left a reply to their post, but I still felt the need to blog. You make very valid points though, and I would really take no issue with this type of art if it were equal, yet most of the photoes I've seen of this type were of women and were pretty disturbing. There was also another post here about America's Next Top Dead Model that decided to do pictures of dead women, and when I said women in bondage it was really meant to be all inclusive, meaning depicting dead women, women who are battered and bruised, women tied up, etc. It is all of this that I have an issue with. Very rarely do you see men depicted in this manner, and if you did, then it would be equal and I would have nothing to say. But it isn't. I understand that it's art and it should be appreciated on a deeper level, it has a message, etc. Yet I tend to look at things on a larger scale, and notice patterns. Maybe I just need to broaden my viewing of this type of art.
Lynne C.
I understand where your interpretation is coming from. We live in an incredibly violent world that effects many of us personally. Regularly, we encounter stories and images of violence and violence against women. There's no doubt that the media has an effect on our psyche but the lens that we interpret that image from also does.
I see your argument against perpetuating images of violence against women but your approach mistakenly groups in representations of BDSM practice with something like the America's Next Top Dead Model.
Truth is, people have violent desires and this can be played out in a consensual risk aware environment. BDSM is a power exchange that allows me to explore and face my desire. It's something that I'm constantly learning from and find empowerment through. It is a practice, a lifestyle, an art form and a community. A community that values love.
When you confuse violence with consensual violence, you risk invalidating the the sexual agency of those you you are trying to "protect".
The title of your post, "Who Really is The Artist?" poses the question, "what is art?". I can't define art, but I would say that good art invokes dialogue.
I encourage you to see the difference between the America's Next Top Dead Model and representations of BDSM, fine art fetish photography.