Lecture 2 - The Gaze and the Media

The first quote given to us in this lecture stated:

"According to usage and conventions which are at last being questioned but have by no means been overcome - men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at"

This was said by Berger in 1972; it is something that could be taken different ways. To some, it could suggest that women are vain by 'watching themselves being looked at', but a deeper meaning suggests that women are self conscious about themselves because they are being looked at by all. They naturally get more attention because over the years, the media has used naked/provocative women to advertise, giving men more to look at and making women feel that they need to look differently to be accepted into society.

Even as early as 1485, Hans Memling made a portrait of a nude woman looking at herself in a mirror; the stance and positioning of her suggests that she is giving permission for the viewer to look at her, since looking at herself in the mirror suggests vanity.

'Vanity' by Hans Memling, 1485

Another point that was addressed in this lecture was the positioning of a model, and how there's a fine line between what's acceptable to be advertised.
For example, this photo on the left was the original shot for an advert; however the client felt it was too provocative to publish since her hand is on her breast and her facial expression gives off a bad impression, so the photographer turned the photo so it was portrait, which moved the focus of the image to the face, which was apparently fine to show. This proves there is a fine line between what is or isn't acceptable in the media.

Her gaze is away from the camera; which implies that she doesn't notice we're looking at her during this private moment. It almost feels as if we have the freedom to look at her exposed body without any concern or challenge from the woman.






The next two images, painted 3000 years after each other, are very similar in structure but give off slightly different impressions.

Titan's 'Venus of Urbino', 1538

Manet's 'Olympia', 1863

 The woman on the left has a flirtatious look (based on the positioning of her hands and her head tilt), almost inviting the viewer to look at her. Whereas the woman on the right has a stern look; her hand placed on her leg and staring at the viewer, making them feel slightly more uncomfortable looking at her.

Manet had already started challenging the gaze of onlookers through this painting, which was partly what kick-started the feminist campaign.

This was an idea for a campaign originally designed to be displayed on buses and billboards, which got taken down because the woman's body is too sexually appealing. Which is ironic because it's stating that most of the women displayed in the museum are naked - so what makes it ok to display nude women but not state the facts?

Despite not being able to state facts about how much female nudity we are exposed to, we are still allowed to advertise women's underwear in this fashion.

The first example (left) implies that it is normal to be posing in underwear in the middle of a busy street. In a way this is a good way to advertise their underwear, making it the norm to wear it anywhere - but the objectification of women also stands out in this image.

The second picture (bottom) was displayed on billboards; The caption 'Hello Boys' is inviting men to look at her, and encouraging the fact that they are allowed to objectify women and look as they please; and making it seem normal as they do this. The fact that she's looking down at herself and her facial expression also invites others to look at her, since she's not challenging their gaze.

Seeing adverts like this has also shown women that only a certain look is considered 'beautiful' in the media - which stirs up a lot of self-hate among those who look different from the models advertised.
This is evident now more than ever due to social media websites promoting the idea of self-hate.




However, men are starting to be exposed more over the past few years, with this as an example from 2007:

The difference between this and the other images shown here is every man in this photo is looking at the camera; giving us a challenging look that is almost threatening towards the viewer.
So despite being almost naked, the men are still looking dominant and fully aware, whereas most of the women are shown as unchallenging and welcoming to everyone's gaze.

The issue here is that women are implied to be weaker than men; that there seems to be double standards within the media which invites people to objectify women because it's more common for them to be seen with little clothes on - so why don't women deserve the same dignity as men?

If we don't look back and realise what is wrong with the media over art history, then this problem will never be resolved in the future.

CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS