Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login


Is objectifying a woman's body a violation of the principles of feminism or does it embrace them?…

39,553 deviants said A violation
19,922 deviants said An embrace
13,863 deviants said Other (please comment)

Devious Comments

zharth Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2014  Professional Photographer
I think this is a flawed and leading question because "objectification" is frequently used as a "weasel word" with ambiguous meaning.
Exovare Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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.
toddevans777 Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
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. 
kuundere Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2014
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.
Stargazer2112 Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2014
I think it depends largely on how she's represented. It's a fine line between appreciation/embrace and violation.
mixieJanae Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Verve91 Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2014  New member Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I would say under most circumstances it is a violation.
vile72 Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2014  Student Digital Artist
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. 
Keirkan Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
When using the female form in art I've never seen it as objectifying it, I've just seen it as showing the beauty of the female form. It would be no different than if I were to use the male form. 
vevulicious379 Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
It kinda depends. If there's a deeper meaning besides just sex, then no. If a situation opposite of that mentioned previously, then yes.
Add a Comment: