Feminism is (from Google) the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Truly, the objectifying of a woman's body in art is something unrelated to feminism. Only if the subject was acting out something for or against feminism would it show a view towards feminism. Though one could see for or against the objectifying of a woman's body in art according to feminism, I see this as something that seems related but is actually not. My reasoning is made of 3 parts: the art, the subject, and the viewer. The art is objective, meaning, concrete. Thus, the art is not subjected to any form of view towards feminism unless the subject is posing for or against feminism. This is, in essence, like objectifying the masculine body when viewing Greek and Roman sculptures. It simply does not carry any meaning. The subject is a woman. So what? There is no connection between feminism and the woman subject except for the "woman" part, which is strenuous at best, since as long as the art does not carry any implicit or explicit meaning (if it does, it is purely the fault of the artist, since art is merely a method of expression), the fault is of the viewer to see any sort of bias towards feminism. Again, drawing back to the sculptures analogy, the sculptures do not imply that men are better than women or vice versa. They are simply there to depict a man or a woman. Finally, the viewer. As mentioned above, if there is a perceived bias towards or against feminism, it will be the fault of the artist or the viewer. If one sees a Greek sculpture and believes that it exemplifies feminism or the lack of it, it is not the fault of the sculptor. It is the fault of perception of the viewer. If, say, a meaning is placed upon the art, that is the fault of the artist, not the art itself. The artist may be praised or condemned, but the art, as stated before, is merely a method. Drawing a modern analogy, it is not the gun's fault for killing - it is the user's. Thus, we see that objectifying a woman's body is wholly unrelated to feminism, unless the creator subjects his creation to it. In which case, that pretty much resembles EVERYTHING. Something + feminist bias = something with feminist bias.
I think that if objectification is the goal of the artist and model then it doesn't matter and shouldn't be percieved as an obstruction of art 🎨. On the other hand ✋, the exploitation of a woman's body has been a marketing strategy for centuries. The degradation of women shouldn't be allowed. Some women like it and some don't. There's a glaring dichotomy here as is with most situations regarding human nature.
To be honest, I think that if a woman allows herself to be shown in that light, it is neither a violation or an embrace. But let me explain:
Lately, I've been seeing too many "Objectifying women" comments, and it really irritates me. Obviously if a girl chooses to dress like a slut, it's not a violation if that how she wanted to be seen (for some reason). But I also don't consider it as an embrace, because most of the time, when you see women in the media, they're obviously not dressing that way for girl power. It's pretty obvious they just want attention.
I guess I say this because I don't consider women are being unfairly objectified , or even objectified for that matter. For example, how often do you see guys flaunting their bodies like that? Not very much, huh? And please don't start with the "showing the wonderful sight of the female body", because you know that's not why their doing it. I guess what I'm trying to say is women can't complain about being "objectified" when they don't even have the decency to act a little bit modest and respectable. Act like a slut, get treated like a slut.
I think it would depend on the subject matter. To be sure, it really states the inner feelings of the viewer, doesnt it? for example: marilyn manson in one his album jackets featured a picture of himself in a bathtub as a child, for him it was a reflection of a more innocent time while others saw it as child pornography. Art is made to draw different reactions from people and that is the beauty of it, right? Dont get me wrong, there is some truly disgusting subject matter out there. Im just fortunate enough that I havent seen much of it. I have never in my time as a member here seen a SINGLE piece of art that has outraged me in such a manner. You know what they say, "anything worth doing, is worth over-doing. Moderation is for cowards." Cheers.
I believe it depends on how it is being objectified in question. Some statements are very risque but the point is clear that women are proud, strong, beautiful and can devote themselves in the same mannerisms that men can while other means of expressions for feminism don't give off that same message. Instead they just make it seem as if, although strong of both body and mind, that the overall message is that the women's body is a sex symbol. Whether or not this was intentional can be put into question but the overall vibe is more sensual than respectful. No offense made to any author or artist, just giving my opinion, the opinion of a young woman who still has a lot to learn about the world around her and the views shared by the many residing within said world.
It is, by 100%, up to the viewers mindset whether a model is reduced to that quality or not. We live in the world of the tangible, after all. I´m always aware of how there´s a real human being behind every Image I see and while sexism does exist, I wonder why you guys are trying to turn it into a gender issue. I´m a male model occasionally. I´m facing the same kind of bullshit females have to deal with.
I am, partly, an object. There´s a ghost inside the machine, but my body is something physical so I just have that attribute. I feel no shame over displaying it, having people appreciate or even dislike it. It takes some time for you to get there, but every model who feels sort of comfortable about themself has learnt that lesson at some point. In my opinion, it´s shameful and insecure people with distorted body-images who feel so horrible about themselfes that they can´t stand it when others don´t.
Feminism did stand for gender equality (once upon a time). Nowadays it´s a club of frustrated bitches demanding special treatment because they´re so fragile and precious and men are so evil.
I truly believe, that we should have X that path, with the equality of humans. However I know thats just not right and we still live in a world where nudity, in some places are still in That Cover Your Eyes Pg. 13 facade. The world is already in chaos, why add more with more discriminations. I say cast away the clothing and be free if you wish, stop judging others and live your life to the fullest.
There's nothing wrong with appreciating the female human anatomy; physical attraction is what draws people to each other. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's quite normal to be attracted to a woman with wide hips and a large chest. She's better breeding stock. But to think of women ONLY as breeding stock and to think of their bodies as their only useful attributes is disgusting. When looking for a partner in a woman, one must take into account that she has a mind, as well. She has thoughts, concerns, emotions, ideas. A woman may be beautiful, but her beauty isn't always skin deep.
depends how its done..... feminism is at its core about equality, other people may add more baggage to that and go in more directions than that but if the objectification is making a woman seem like less than a man, its a violation of the principles of feminism, if it doesnt then i dont think it does
but people add a lot more baggage to feminism than just equality so the movement goes different places for different people
Feminism means so many different things to so many different people, and I doubt it's possible to make everyone agree on where objectification begins. Basically, the details and specifics are crucial in a discussion like this.
It really could be both! It just depends on how she is being objectified. I mean if someone is dressing her up to be some tramp/hooker/whatever then yes it is a violation of feminism; if she is being dressed in something pretty... I guess it could be embracing... I don't know where I'm going with this all I can say is that yes it could be both it just depends on how she is being depicted.
There is a big difference between having an artistic appreciation of the human form and objectifying. Look at a lot of art from the renaissance (forgive my spelling) the human form was most usually nude male or female. However something like playboy or playgirl are not what I would call art exactly but it was the models' choice to participate and I feel like we can objectify a woman in one of those magazines by saying they are being objectified When the models may not feel they are and that is not something we want to do. something that actually gets me worse than any pornographic magazines are the fashion magazines marketed for young girls showing stick then computer enhanced females to sell their clothing so I feel they are more objectified than most playboy/girl models. Besides how do those women feel when they see their picture and they have shaved a thigh gap or lengthed their neck it cannot feel good look up how many models die from eating disorders. These photo alterations are not always their choice.
I'd say it depends on the context. I'd say most of us are going to objectify whatever sex we're attracted to while in a certain frame of mind. What's important is distinguishing between fantasy and reality. When you're in the real world, you treat people with respect, no matter who they are.
ImNotHumanNoCommentFeatured By OwnerAug 30, 2014Hobbyist General Artist
It really depends on what is being represented through the artwork. For example, if it's a woman in a bikini having to deal with catcalls and whistles, then yes, it's a violation of feminism. But if you're celebrating the female body and the soul within, then it's acceptable. Objectifying a body, however, is objectifying a body regardless of gender.
Feminism is at its core, about a woman's right to choose what she wants to do in her life, make of herself. If she wants to portray herself sexually let it be Her Choice. If she wants to objectify to make a point or whatever else, let it be Her Choice. Whatever is being done, let it be Her Choice. As long as the agency is hers, and she is not taking the choice from someone else, she can do whatever she wants.
Well, it depends. On the one doing so, the one who´s body is being objectified, and a possible observer of process and/or result. Of course communication gets tricky here. Also, I feel, there is a slight, but important difference between objectifying a woman´s body (when it is clear from the beginning that there is more to a person than body, but in the specific case, it is explicitly only the body) and objectifying a human being as a whole, neglecting anything but the body in the process. In the first case, it depends on circumstances (including a lot more possibilities than depiction in erotic context). The second case is out of the question.
It depends...if its a woman who is doing the drawing, or whatever, and she is purposely objectifying women...then ok (as long as there is no sadism involved) if a man is doing the artwork then...well as long as the woman knows that she is being objectified and all that then i guess its ok. Personally im not comfortable with objectifying anything...and if i do then i dont realize it. (edited addition) My appologies...i didnt really understand what "objectifying" was, my mother explained it to me lol, hmmm...If the point of the painting or whatever was done by someone who wasnt sexist, or what have you, and the idea behind the art was that objectifying is wrong then i see no problem with it. Some of the old works of art do objectify women...but back in those time periods things were vastly different. Now a-days if a man is objectifying a woman then its because he is intimidated by them. but thats just my opinion, take it as you will lol
Aye, agreed as well. I'm not well versed in Feminism though it is about freedom from stereotypes and freedom of expression and choice. The difference between Objectifying and Taking in the Beauty of Someone can be very subtle and even then it's up to the person being viewed how far it goes and where to draw the line.
OMG, objectifying a body is objectifying a body, a man's or a woman's. Just why every issue should be based on the idea of feminism one way or another? I soon will get to believe that women are not just representatives of a biological gender, but Masonic Lodge members! Just sick and tired of that crazy combating nonsense. Men and women are different with different capabilities and features, and that's what makes the world go round. So discussing objectifying a human body in the context of art, the essence of art connected with depicting a body, could be a more meaningful, much more interesting and mature talk.
Feminism is about the right of a woman to express herself in whatever manner she feels is right without fear of criticism or judgement. If a woman chooses to objectify herself for her own gain or her own personal reasons (not to gain approval from or to please others while hurting herself) then she has the right to do that.
Objectifying any body is a natural action created instinctual by our brains. All because someone noticed something about your body, or found your body attractive does not mean they simply see you as an object. It entirely depends on the person in a completely different perspective, not first impressions.