like it or not, predominantly women that do things like having children, raising the family, housework, doing jobs which require unsociable hours
Sadly.. this is undoubtedly why.
With respect, I would have thought that a photography tutor would have a working knowledge of 'gaze theory'?
With all due respect Charlotte... John Berger is on the first year reading list of any creative arts students, so yes, I do. However, I contest it to some extent. While Berger insists that women were conditioned to view themselves through that lens, you also have to consider that Berger wrote that quite some time ago now. There's a generation of women that have grown up in a very different social dynamic that seem to fall into the same pattern despite being able, and commercially encouraged to sexualise the male form in one way or another from quite an early age. Despite this, the same gender differences in attitude to the gaze appear unchanged. Berger's explanation is bang on for explaining the reasons women form such a small roll historically in the canon, it seems to fall apart to some extent when looking at modern social behaviours, and that surprises me actually. The fact that women are looking through Berger's "lens" though is still a problem that obviously makes this problematic, as they do indeed still view themselves compared to the male ideal, however.... I'm discussing how they look at men, not themselves.
Gaze theory does not inherently attach 'the male gaze' to one gender, however it is a product of social privilege and conditioning. Throughout history men were the commissioners, creators, viewers, debaters and consumers of images - with VERY few exceptions. Images of women and men have developed in particular ways as a response to this fact and it is our response to this culture that is called 'the male gaze'. Male here refers to the dominant consumer of imagery over the centuries and also the way that as Berger says, women were conditioned to view themselves through that lens.
You'll get no argument from me, as historically, this is simply a fact. You seem to think I'm arguing with you, I'm not.. I'm just saying something else, and I don't think you realise it. I think the way
women look at
men has changed enormously in the past few decades, and quite obviously,
women's attitudes to how
men look at women has changed.
I just think Berger is out of date, despite addendum and rewrites and new editions.
There are also interesting studies that back up the fact that we don't, as a culture, have an adequate vocabulary or experience to talk about images of the male (erotic or not)
Not historically, no, and not academically. However, on a vernacular level we do, and that has been changing massively over the past 20 years, and I'm noticing the changes. I still think there's a great divide in how these changes are developing across different social demographics, with working class women being far more likely to be conforming to the old order, for want of a better turn of phrase (despite being more vocal and outwardly aggressive) and middle class young women having very different views indeed.
and the study I cited is a particularly nice example of that. Women struggled to talk about images of men that were sexy. They said they were ashamed even of viewing the images. Embarrassed. The men in the study often protested that they simply had 'no interest' in looking at those images because they were straight. However at the same time women are expected to be able to talk about all kinds of images of women, from art to pornography. Indeed the study goes further and identifies how women identify and compare themselves to the women in the pictures as a direct result of being 'the gazed' within society (due to aforementioned men being the commissioners and viewers of images).
Ecks's study is indeed interesting, and something students debate hotly, very regularly. I'm constantly surprised by how many young women contest it recently though. Far more than ever in recent years. It's as if there's been a huge, and significant shift in this last generation that I'm at a loss to explain. Gen-Z ( I hate that name) seems to break the mould. I just think they are more aware of the evidence suggesting they behave differently and are making decisions to NOT behave in such a way as they view it to be passive and derived from a product of a patriarchal society... and reject it wholesale. I'm actually wondering if the decade elapsed since the study was written there genuinely has been change.
What HASN'T changed is the male attitude to viewing images of the male. That's interesting too... although utterly unsurprising.
And the question is, is this a biological difference or a result of cultural conditioning?
The latter... without doubt.
I am being precise here. I mean 'photographers who photograph models'. My initial references to 'critique sites' does suggest primarily amateur sphere. You don't get professional critique sites. Most photographers on model portfolio sites are not fashion photographers or glamour photographers, they are 'model' photographers. Generic.
Which was why I thought it needed clarifying, as Tim Walker "is a model photographer" if you didn't know how to differentiate... and many amateurs don't (or won't).
Well, I just wanted to write an interesting piece for my blog. This wasn't intended to be a serious academic take on all sides of the argument - but even then, journal articles are rarely 'truly objective'. Certainly not the art journals that I've read! That is why you have to read around the subject and look at different authors take's on the subject. That is what I offer, my take on the subject.
And it was interesting... but maybe it was a little naive to think it WOULDN'T promote a debate
You seem defensive in your reply to me. No need... I'm not criticising the article at all. I'm discussing a situation that in my opinion is undergoing some serious, and seemingly rapid change.
I go one step further. I don't believe in separating opinion, in the vast majority of cases, by biological sex.
Sometimes by sexuality, sometimes by personally selected gender, but never by sex. Such a generalisation is, unless for theoretical study, utterly worthless.
Of course not... gender and sex are entirely different things.
Incidentally, I think men are just as much victims of the legacy they've created as women are. In some ways.. more so.
See what I did there?
