The gendered Gaze, brought to the forefront of the medias attention by Laura Mulvey in her essay published in 1975 ‘’ Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’’. The ‘’male gaze’’ represents the portrayal of women in media, to be objectified and sexualised, as heterosexual men are prominently in control of the camera. Referencing to both voyeurism and Freud’s theory of scopophilia, Mulvey coined the term to produce the ‘’female gaze’’ to then represent the gaze from and for the heterosexual female viewer. Gender is dominantly used in the male gaze, assuming that the males in control of producing the media based content, are heterosexual and are therefore sexually and/or romantically attracted to the female subjects. From this their judgement and ability to produce un-biased content is non existent. In this essay I will further explore the gaze’s and their relation to gender but also question the theory of what gaze the sexually queer female would have,sharing their natural sexual and/or romantic attraction to women and the female body. Wether this makes them exempt to the male gaze as identifying as female. Further questioning if the obvious exploitation of women in media, and the common knowledge of this oppression to all women, overpowers the fact that sexually queer females could also only posses the power to sexualise and objectify the female body?
Freud in ‘’ Three essays on sexuality’’ looks at scopophilia. The theory that ‘’ looking itself is a source of pleasure, just as , in the reverse formation, there is pleasure in being looked at’’. In Freud’s research he linked this widely to’’taking other people as objects,subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze’’ This information seems critical to Mulvey’s work regarding the gaze as a basis of where the nature of objectification comes from. To take this theory and understand that it can be somewhat pleasurable to condemn a subject to objectification is a flaw to Mulvey’s work that of focusing clearly on the heterosexual view of this. Looking at the apparent bigger picture should it not be classed as a contribution to the gaze but with the inclination of not being specifically gendered. As being a form of fetish that can be used by any gender as well as being able to be projected onto anyone of any gender.
A generic male gaze has been papable with the historically obvious patriarchy system in which still dominates the art world. The male gaze can been seen in works as early as 1538. Titian’s ‘’Venus of Urbino’’ is a painting of a woman in nude, lounging on a bed of expensive fabrics. One of her hands placed on her upper thigh covering herself and the other dropping a handful of flowers. The models head is tilted to the side with a controlled expression. The image posses a visual showcase of the male gaze, being a calculation of everything in which would be sexually appealing to a heterosexual male in context to the time produced. The female being nude, in which was considered to be a lot more promiscuous at the time, not having the prominent exposure to nudity that is classed as neutral in the twenty first century, is an obvious compliment to the ‘’peeping toms’’ and ‘’ obsessive voyeurs’’ ‘’ whose only sexual satisfaction can come from watching an objectified other’’. From the passive expression and pose to the models surroundings the woman is in the image simple to be looked at. Comprehending the surroundings of fabric and flowers you could say that the woman is placed and organised into position just as a still life of fruit would be composed. To be looked at, objectifying her for nothing more than her body. Submitting to a quote found in Mulvey’s writings by Budd Boelticher ‘’What counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents. She is the one , or rather the love of fear she inspires in the hero, or else the concern he feels for her. Who makes him act the way he does. In herself the woman has not the slightest importance’’. Referencing that to the role of the heroine is the everyday woman and the ‘’Hero’’ is the everyday man. As an example in Titian’s image the role of the woman is to get a reaction from the male viewer. It is the idea in which the woman inspires with her appearance and pose rather than her intelligence or through a visual role of actual significance. This is easily communicated into modern day photographic advertising with women unnecessarily over-sexualised in order to capture the attention of the forever dominant heterosexual male audience for purposes of sales.
Annie Leibovitz is an American portrait photographer, with her work being projected world wide. Photographing for publications such as the Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair, Leibovitz portrayal of her subjects and models have a monumental affect globally for representation of said person. Overall holding a responsibility as a photographer to capture a positively un-bias viewing platform for the audience. Leibovitz is an openly sexually queer woman who often produced work with her late partner Susan Sontag for example a book called ‘’Women’’ photographs by herself and writings by Sontag. One of Leibovitz’s more famous shots is one of Demi Moore on a cover for Vanity Fair. The model was shot nude, the image itself has the subjects body profile cradling her pregnant stomach and covering her breasts with the other hand. Moore is looking away from the camera with a calm and strong expression. The image exudes with a comfortable confidence. It posses the power for the viewer to see and acknowledge the actress, the soon to be mother, the person present in the photograph. Creating the exact opposite to the male created ‘’Venus of Urbino’’ where all is acknowledged is the female form in a sexualised setting. Both images contain women as well as both images being nude pieces yet the process of expression differs being composed by different genders. Mulvey would point this to be a representation of the male and female gazes. The male gaze prominent in the ‘’ Venus of Urbino’’ as it was composed by a man with ideologies of being seen by men. Whereas Leibovitz’s shot this as a female, with the female gaze for the female audience. The argument now starts wether or not Leibovitz can truly shoot such images without the presence of the male gaze being included with her work considering her non-heterosexual sexuality and attraction to women. The question is as poses how could someone whose is sexually and romantically interested in women, especially in a nude based shoot, not over sexualise or objectify said model?. In the book ‘’Women on women’’ accurately coinciding with the title of being women photographers shooting women models, Sacha comments ‘’ Man always sees a showcase, a shop window, the way a woman shows herself to the outside world. A man can look at it, but not be in it- thats the difference’’. In this comment she is referring to the differences between the two gender gazes. Promoting the theory that as a woman, Leibovitz can find the distinction between women being sexual beings:when posing in erotic or non-erotic ways, with or without clothing as well as including sexual inclinations or not and alternatively women being showed as sexual objects. Mario Sorrenti, a heterosexual male, photographs what in the present day is not a shock or abnormality; the world of media bending to suit the heterosexual male and his desires. Sorrenti’s work is popular in the genre of advertising, in particular his work with model Kate Moss for the Calvin Klein men’s perfume Obsession. The sole purpose for the advertisement is to sell the product being perfume, yet the only content in Sorrenti’s image is a naked Kate Moss. An advertisement main goal is to attract its prime target audience with aesthetically grasping imagery to associate the product or brand to, furthermore increasing sales. The male gaze is at its most pronounced in this situation of literally using the woman and her body as an object of sexualisation for sales. Contrasting to Leibovitz’s image of Demi Moore, of which was used as a cover for the sale of a magazine. It puts into perspective if the same model was shot by a heterosexual male, like Sorrenti, and following the theory that sex is a large contributor for sales; would the new image of Demi Moore contribute to the sales of the specific magazine? This is only questioned with the idea that the male gaze is overbearing and not only affects the women oppressed by the gaze but the women that are influenced by this ‘’norm’’ that is in modern day culture. Because women have been so heavily exposed to such imagery subject to the male’s desires, could this also demonstrate a brainwashing of women to think that this representation of women is normal, positive or even influential? As to be the subject of the male gaze is what a male would describe to be desirable. The short answer would be Yes. Shown with the growing market of diets, beauty products and cosmetic surgery advertised to gain the ‘ perfect’ look/image. With this many examples of the ‘perfect’ image would also be a direct representation of what the heterosexual male conceives as attractive in a woman. The male gaze directs this idea in the twenty first century being a great deal more obvious than the critic of male appearance. Photography is a direct catalogue of this information especially within in the advertisement industry. Cases of this can be found in the clothing company American Apparel in which has had many advertisements banned in the UK due to their explicit nature involving women and their bodies. Particularly I am drawn to this series of photographs and text that purpose is to sell pairs of socks. Everything about the image screams that it has been raped by the male gaze. The main image consists of a woman in a submissive pose gripping her knees up to her chest, being the only thing apart from her hair loosely covering her breasts. The camera angle depicts the viewer to be looking down and aggressively onto the model. The expression of the subject being blank staring back up to the viewer with a somewhat fetishised ‘’ innocent ‘’ appearance. The set of three images to the left of the composition see the model mid chest to forehead laying down on sheets pulling prominent facial expressions widely associated with pleasure from performed sexual acts. The main text on the image states ‘’ Safe to say, she loves her socks’’. The comment is to that of a sarcastic remark referring to the viewer stereotypically looking at everything but the socks in the image due to the extreme sexualisation of the model. Finally with more text at the bottom right of the composition stating ‘’ Meet Lauren Pheonix. 150lbs of magic. Actress. Director. Look her up on Google’’. Firstly the mention of her weight is also completely irrelevant to the purpose of selling socks and only to a means of objectifying the woman to her physical stats. A small amount of ‘’Google’’ research puts forward the information that the model has a career in the pornography industry. Observing the image and the model disregarding this irrelevant information pointing to exploit the career she chooses to earn money only brings to mind one thought. Why is it necessary for a porn star to assist in the sales of socks? Even in perspective that the model, for her appearance alone suited the casting for what is suitable for American Apparels sock model, it has been made a statement with the text included that the brand wants to associate itself with what is a taboo subject, with sex. ‘’ Look her up on Google’’. This image is a prime example of photography that is used for the male gaze. It is the representation of the unnecessary objectification of women in advertising to please the most common viewer, being the heterosexual male. For an audience this promotes sexism and a divide between genders the male gaze in this instance is a promotion for this sexism that women and their bodies are to be used for any means like advertisement or sales. Looking at the works of Zanele Muholi, specifically indulging in her ongoing project ‘’Faces and Phases’’ showing photography of the community in which she is a part of being LGBTQI. Zanele Muholi has known not to be shy with her subjects of which have been photographed. Some of her work for example ‘’Being scene’’ depicting blurry video footage of bodies, lesbian couples including herself and her long term girlfriend being intimate. The representation in the photographs is important here being some of a small world wide collection of a sexually queer woman photographing sexually queer women. With my evaluation of Muholi’s images I have come to the conclusion that the images must posses both gender gazes or neither. Potentially collecting the alternative term as the Queer gaze? Defining as the depiction of women through the gaze of a queer photographer. Because of the photographers sexual preference in conjunction with the subject it could be advanced that the photographer has the potential gaze in which that would have be neutral? In comparison to David Hamilton’s representation of queer women in the book ‘’sisters’’ Muholi’s work can be analysed to be a honest depiction of the subject whereas Hamilton’s to be a exhibition of what he thinks queer women should be portrayed as. It could be argued with the obvious exploitation of queer women in media, especially in pornography, that Hamilton’s gaze is a explicit statement of the male gaze. Hamilton being male and queer women being sexualised more so than the stereotypically average heterosexual woman wether that be because of the fetish of the straight male only being able to use his gaze to look on the queer woman and not being able to posses her. Or due to the fact that there is a stereotype that makes queer women, especially their sex lives, to be that of a performance to please the straight man. This can be evident again ,as a second interpretation, of the quote by Sasha stating ‘’Man always sees a showcase, a shop window, the way a woman shows herself to the outside world. A man can look at it, but not be in it- thats the difference’’. The sexually queer female from my research does hold the ability to sexualise and objectify women. With the sexually queer photographers I have looked into it has been evident in their work that their knowledge and perhaps the personal accounts of sexism and oppression of gender sported from men and their gaze educates the queer woman not to do onto others what is done on to herself. Acknowledging that women can be sexual beings without being sexual objects. Identifying with their female gender first before their sexuality. With the knowledge of there being more than two genders and a spectrum of sexualities, including but not exclusive to heterosexuality, my research on the gaze has been refined to that the term needs to reassessed. An idea for this would be to look at the gaze not referred directly to gender or sexuality. But as a view that being a person whom does not identify with the same as your subject your ‘’ gaze’’ will still be evident on them, wether recored in a media form or not. IT will not be a true representation of that person. Although gender is relevant to the heterosexual male gaze for its history in photography dividing prominently females and males in a battle of equality between the sexes. Feminism, Equality for all, is a constant battle in the twentieth first century specifically in media pushing for representation of camera operators, editors, directors, producers etc of a multitude of genders and sexualities to find a balance of the gaze’s and a fair and equal representation of all current minorities. To achieve this would effectively almost execute the idea of objectification.
