Art_Feature01
1
10 - ABSTRACTIA ABSTRACTIA - 11 WHAT CAN WE HOPE TO FIND? CAN WE SEE OURSELVES? mirror mirror mirror images RE-LEARNING INTUITIONS What do you see around you? On those billboards that litter our public space? Rolling off the radio, filling up your TV screen? You’re a half-person, an incomplete demon. You’re a manic sex-beast, driven by insecurity. You’re an impulsive buyer. A compulsive self-liar. You’re a pliant receptacle for social conditioning. Such are the ways that reinforced sterotypes are proliferated and sustained through the media curtain of disseminated images, sounds, texts, and generally speaking, representations of ideological continuity. These ideas seek to place you within the discourse of a product fulfilment narrative; the end receiver in a global game, a system of labour, production and profit. We’re made to feel as if we’re making some huge choice every time we enter into this system of exchange, when in reality these choices are severely curtailed by market forces outside of our possible awareness and control. The illusions surrounding such phenomena are legion and aimed primarily at obfuscating the ontology behind global structures of inequality, placing a prearranged narrative at the forefront of any type of exchange. Among the most ingrained of these illusory representations is that of the gender divide. When we think of gender types and classifications, we’re inclined to muster up an old picture ingrained into our collective unconscious over the course of human civilisa- tion. When we think of natural gender types, our mind associates this with the all-too-common idea of woman and man. As a species, we can’t be too surprised or discouraged at this automatic association. Our struggle throughout the ages has been catalysed and cauterised through this under- standing of assumed roles based on physiological differences and the respective strengths and weaknesses these entail. Women are mothers. They’re the ideal choice for raising children. They are rulers of the domos, thus securing their limited place of power within outside society, preparing meals, gather- ing and storing foodstuffs, managing household economies, and more often than not, maintain- ing the psychological well-being of those living within its walls. Men are more capable in terms of aggression. Diametrically, they are also more ca- pable of protection in terms of outside aggression. With this advantage comes the ability to interact between parties, to govern and lead societies, to col- laborate ideas, to trade, to build and construct wonders. These social con- structs, while not applicable to either gender as a whole, conveniently divide the human race into neat sections which provide cohesion on a mass scale, while ignoring the ‘fringe’ individuals in the minority who may have found themselves, for whatever reason, unhappy with their lot in life. When we think of developed societies today, we tend to render this pre- made conception through the lens of modernised dis- course on gender, equality, individu- ality and personal psychology. But this seemingly decep- tive naturalisation of gender roles is still there, even if on the decline, and not stated as explicitly as it once was. One only need to look so far (or should I say so close?) as the world of advertising to see those old ideals reflected: the woman as an aesthetic and ultimately passive being. A mother, a nurturer. An emotional foundation. Inversely, man is the malleable denomi- nator and implicit dominator, pragmatic, secure, ready to undertake all manner of challenges and able to compete under any circumstance. Upon examination of these reinforced images, the divide between the two primary genders is still indicative of the extreme privilege enjoyed by males, and the prejudices experienced by females. Places of power in politics and business are still held by a vast majority of males despite a slow but steady incline of females into the more influential positions of society. In a sense, it might be said that the struggle of fe- males to gain equal rights and to share man’s priv- ilege is a struggle based on subverting this pact of avoiding the implicit aggression which looms over us all, as individuals and societies. Understanding our history and its impact on our current time is one way to build up strategies for resistance to such ideological condensation. When we look at Leonardo Davinci’s Mona Lisa, we’re accustomed to recognise a figure of kindness and passive beauty. Understanding the historical pressures surrounding the production of such images forces us to re-encounter them with a discerning eye - one that looks beyond surfaces and seeks out the implicit complexity hidden behind their obvious beauty. When we read a play like Shakespeare’s As You Like It, we’re forced to consider the impact of such strange gender inversions which almost certainly added complexity and depth to his works, and gave him a reputation for challenging and reimagining social conventions. When we look at Bosch’s Das Paradies, Sundenfall, with similar eyes we’re challenged to recall the inherent ideo- logical tensions within the myth that this artwork seeks to depict. Was it not written in the mythologies of the Judeo-Christian religions – still a dominant ideological foundation for much of our civilisa- tion – that Eve was the first to give in to sin, thus dooming the whole of humankind to wander aim- lessly in a hostile world? Was she not said to be made from the ribs of a man, as a copy of God’s initial design? An analysis of such stories in terms of societal impact reveal what might be consid- ered the breeding grounds for psycho- logical constructs implicating women as being the weak- er of the sexes, and further implying that through this weakness she admits a sense of moral shortcoming which has damned humankind. We can go further afield throughout the course of human culture to find simi- lar portrayals of the ‘weaker’ sex. Fairy- tales compel us to think of women as those to whom dan- ger is natural. She is a princess safe in the comfort of a father’s kingdom. She is a damsel in distress. The Victorians would have us believe that women were a pack of light-minded gossipers, social harpies and social flippancies. In the 1950’s, Madison Avenue took anoth- er jab, implicating women as being materially obsessed glamour queens and saboteurs of rational discourse. Skip forward to today, and the objectification of the feminine form in advertising and surrounding media is hard to ignore. And while the same can be said for cultural representations of mascu- Helena Xavier
-
Upload
jonathan-payne -
Category
Documents
-
view
4 -
download
0
Transcript of Art_Feature01
10 - ABSTRACTIA ABSTRACTIA - 11
WHAT CAN WE HOPE TO FIND? CAN WE SEE OURSELVES?
mirrormirrormirror
images RE-L
EARN
ING
INTU
ITIO
NS
What do you see around you? On those billboards that litter our public space? Rolling off the radio, filling up your TV screen? You’re a half-person, an incomplete demon. You’re a manic sex-beast, driven by insecurity. You’re an impulsive buyer. A compulsive self-liar. You’re a pliant receptacle for social conditioning.
Such are the ways that reinforced sterotypes are proliferated and sustained through the media curtain of disseminated images, sounds, texts, and generally speaking, representations of ideological continuity. These ideas seek to place you within the discourse of a product fulfilment narrative;
the end receiver in a global game, a system of labour, production and profit. We’re made to feel as if we’re making some huge choice every time we enter into this system of exchange, when in reality these choices are severely curtailed by market forces outside of our possible awareness and control.The illusions surrounding such phenomena are legion and aimed primarily at obfuscating the ontology behind global structures of inequality, placing a prearranged narrative at the forefront of any type of exchange. Among the most ingrained of these illusory representations is that of the gender divide.When we think of gender types and classifications, we’re inclined to muster
up an old picture ingrained into our collective unconscious over the course of human civilisa-tion. When we think of natural gender types, our mind associates this with the all-too-common idea of woman and man. As a species, we can’t be too surprised or discouraged at this automatic association. Our struggle throughout the ages has been catalysed and cauterised through this under-standing of assumed roles based on physiological differences and the respective strengths and weaknesses these entail.
Women are mothers. They’re the ideal choice for raising children. They are rulers of the domos, thus securing their limited place of power within outside society, preparing meals, gather-ing and storing foodstuffs, managing household economies, and more often than not, maintain-ing the psychological well-being of those living within its walls. Men are more capable in terms of aggression. Diametrically, they are also more ca-pable of protection in terms of outside aggression. With this advantage comes the ability to interact between parties, to govern and lead societies, to col-laborate ideas, to trade, to build and construct wonders. These social con-structs, while not applicable to either gender as a whole, conveniently divide the human race into neat sections which provide cohesion on a mass scale, while ignoring the ‘fringe’ individuals in the minority who may have found themselves, for whatever reason, unhappy with their lot in life.
When we think of developed societies today, we tend to render this pre-made conception through the lens of modernised dis-course on gender, equality, individu-ality and personal psychology. But this seemingly decep-tive naturalisation of gender roles is still there, even if on the decline, and not stated as explicitly as it once was. One only need to look so far (or should I say so close?) as the world of advertising to see those old ideals reflected: the woman as an aesthetic and ultimately passive being. A mother, a nurturer. An emotional foundation.
Inversely, man is the malleable denomi-nator and implicit dominator, pragmatic, secure, ready to undertake all manner of challenges and able to compete under any circumstance. Upon examination of these reinforced images, the divide between the two primary genders is still indicative of the extreme privilege enjoyed by males, and the prejudices experienced by females. Places of power in politics and business are still held by a vast majority of males despite a slow but steady incline of females into the more influential positions of society.
In a sense, it might be said that the struggle of fe-males to gain equal rights and to share man’s priv-ilege is a struggle based on subverting this pact of avoiding the implicit aggression which looms over us all, as individuals and societies. Understanding our history and its impact on our current time is one way to build up strategies for resistance to such ideological condensation. When we look at Leonardo Davinci’s Mona Lisa, we’re accustomed
to recognise a figure of kindness and passive beauty. Understanding the historical pressures surrounding the production of such images forces us to re-encounter them with a discerning eye -
one that looks beyond surfaces and seeks out the implicit complexity hidden behind their obvious beauty. When we read a play like Shakespeare’s As You Like It, we’re forced to consider the impact of such strange gender inversions which almost certainly added complexity and depth to his works, and gave him a reputation for challenging and reimagining social conventions. When we look at Bosch’s Das Paradies, Sundenfall, with similar eyes we’re challenged to recall the inherent ideo-logical tensions within the myth that this artwork seeks to depict.
Was it not written in the mythologies of the Judeo-Christian religions – still a dominant ideological foundation for much of our civilisa-tion – that Eve was the first to give in to sin, thus dooming the whole of humankind to wander aim-lessly in a hostile world? Was she not said to be made from the ribs of a man, as a copy of God’s initial design? An analysis of such stories in terms of societal impact reveal what might be consid-
ered the breeding grounds for psycho-logical constructs implicating women as being the weak-er of the sexes, and further implying that through this weakness she admits a sense of moral shortcoming which has damned humankind.
We can go further afield throughout the course of human culture to find simi-lar portrayals of the ‘weaker’ sex. Fairy-tales compel us to think of women as those to whom dan-ger is natural. She is a princess safe in the comfort of a father’s kingdom. She is a damsel in distress. The Victorians would have us believe that women were a pack of light-minded gossipers, social harpies and social flippancies. In the 1950’s, Madison Avenue took anoth-er jab, implicating women as being materially obsessed glamour queens and saboteurs of rational discourse.
Skip forward to today, and the objectification of the feminine form in advertising and surrounding media is hard to ignore. And while the same can be said for cultural representations of mascu-
Helen
a Xavi
er
