I have a problem with this being referred to as male. In an earlier post the example of Renaissance art got me thinking. I don't believe that there are more women painted/photographed/displayed naked because it is a man constructing those things. While that is part of it, I think it has more to do with visually the idea that the female body naked/clothed is much more beautiful then that of a mans. It is more appealing to look at. I don't believe that these images are constructed purely for the male viewer. As people we are drawn to things that are attractive to us, and I'm not speaking sexually. Similar to a female who is stopped dead in her tracks by a pair of shoes. We crave things that are appealing to us.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Baywatch
Need I say more...? This has numerous examples of the male gaze, and its only the opening credits! And not just the 'male gaze' as applied to men looking at women, but also the 'male gaze' in terms of women looking at men. There are running shots of both, also when the actor/actress is standing they start low and pan up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, very good point. I also have a big problem with it...and not only because the male body is just as beautiful as the female body, if in a different way. I used to think (before I had 7 years of art training) that the female body was intrinsically more beautiful, but that died pretty fast after my first figure drawing course with lots of nude models. Yikes. But I think Mulvey's concept of the "male gaze" is certainly limited and quite sexist; it suggests that the patriarchy is built only by men, because it oppresses women. I don't think that stands up to close scrutiny. Perhaps the "dominant gaze" might be a better term. Not as sexy, though.
ReplyDelete