"Art has a long history of images that cater to the male gaze. One of the best examples of this isTitian’s Venus of Urbino. It is little more than 16th century porn. Everything about her panders to the male gaze from her inviting smile to her soft features. Her anatomy is exaggerated to better please the viewer. Follow her arm as it lays across her belly. There isn’t bone underneath that flesh. An arm can’t bend like that. Follow her arm down to her hand. Is she covering herself up? Or, is she getting things started? She is like the Classical Greek sculptures of Venus who are surprised that you caught them, but aren’t upset in the slightest. They have inviting smiles and cover up to draw attention to the fact that they are nude.
Here is a classic example of woman as subject. Edouard Manet’s Olympia is directly commenting on the Venus of Urbino and subverting it. She is a confident and defiant female. She is not a passive object but an aggressive subject. She is angular and rigid not soft and round. The position of Venus of Urbino’s hand over her crotch signified her nakedness and her willingness, however with Olympia it signifies her control over the situation. Her hand isn’t resting or nestling, it is clamped down. The viewer will not participate in anything unless she permits."
http://www.thedollarbin.net/shows/2012/10/9/woman-as-object-woman-as-subject-the-male-gaze-and-the-dc-comics-relaunch
This passage really got me thinking about women in comics being generally presented as sexual objects for the male gaze, which is what makes the imagery so offensive. If characters were portrayed as sexual, but in the terms of a sexual subject would this be less offensive? Or even appeal to women? Personally I would say yes, a lot of the art that I like to make and look of is of sexy women but it appeals to me because the characters are sexy and owning it. It's about the character and women being in control of their sexiness rather than it just being there for the benefit of a man.
No comments:
Post a Comment