THE "MALE-GAZE"

http://legacy.lclark.edu/~soan370/glossary/gaze1.html

2010-7-29

+++++++++++

When you look at an object, you are seeing more than just the thing itself: you are seeing the relation between the thing and yourself. Some objects are made to be looked upon. Someone puts paint to canvas, and replicates a sight. An image is formed, and now a spectator can stand facing the painting and look at the objects depicted. Furthermore, a painting can be purchased, and a person can own the image of the object.

The practice and ideology of image-ownership comes from the heyday of oil-painting in Western Europe (shall we say the 17th century), when the male spectator-owner commissioned the painter to do some oil-magic and make the likeness of something. The range of objects painted was rather inclusive, but for our purposes, I'll hone in on one genre: the female nude.

The image of the female nude has always been inactive, traditionally reclining, or sometimes even shown admiring her own image in a mirror -- all this to nurture the spectator-owner's sense of ego and possession. The painting of female beauty offered up the pleasure of her appearance for the male spectator-owner's gaze. But the spectator-owner's gaze sees not merely the object of the gaze, but sees the relationship between the object and the self. He sees her as a creature of his domain, under his gaze of possession -- simultaneously admiring and pejorative, but always as an object of his desire in his domain.

+++++++

 http://s16/middle/5f3f1538t8c87f8c86e3f&690

http://s3/middle/5f3f1538t8c87f914c3b2&690

WOMEN ARE MADE TO APPEAR AS OBJECTS OF DESIRE based on their status as OBJECTS OF VISION - THE POSE

+++++

The male gaze is so pervasive in advertising that it is assumed or taken-for-granted. Females are shown offering up their femininity FOR THE PLEASURE OF AN ABSENT MALE SPECTATOR. "Men act and women appear" states Berger, before going on to note that in this scenario .

Using the rubric of the male gaze, let us explore a range of poses and how they constitute the power of the look, the gaze.

http://it.stlawu.edu/~global/glossary/pantyhose-for-men.gif

This ad for Round the Clock pantyhose frames the question of female desire in the starkest possible terms of the male gaze. Even the fetish quality of this image testifies to the real power relations implicit in the male gaze. This appearance is indeed for men, and since the product exists for women to secure a male admirer's eye, this slogan is perhaps no less obnoxious than it initially seems, but considerably more honest than most comparable advertising.

Oddly, the blatant assertion of the male gaze can be read as more honest and up-front. Without an image the line, "Pantyhose for men," might easily have elicited snickers about men who dress in women's clothing or perhaps a recollection of Joe Namath. But with the image, the pantyhose again seems determined to impose a heterosexual hegemony around the voyeuristic pleasures afforded the absent male spectator.

Woman posed as object

Her position seems nearly inhuman, and in the context of her dress, a bit reptilian. This is an extreme example of being canted for the camera and the spectator-owner. Her contorted pose requires that her arhttp://it.stlawu.edu/~global/glossary/gumby.gaze.jpgm, hips, back and shoulders are twisted in what seems to be an uncomfortable manner. The rigidity of this pose (she is not in motion) turns her into a piece of sculpture, a statue. She appears an object of interest and curiosity: off-balance, unstable, needing support. Berger writes, "a woman's presence. . . defines what can and cannot be done to her." (46) Much can be done to this woman. She is malleable. She is gumby - perhaps that is what the green is meant to imply.

This ad positions her as a possession of the absent spectator-owner. The owner of the object sees what he can do to her: anything he wants. She is an "object of vision - a sight" (p.47). In the context of an advertisement, her objectification makes her a piece of merchandise. What makes her special is what makes her valuable to the owner. The absent male spectator sees her as a commodity which might make him enviable to others.

On the other hand, a woman who sees this ad sees it from the position of the spectator-buyer. She is allowed to imaginatively substitute the model for herself, objectify herself in order to make herself valuable to others, males in particular. She is acutely aware of being watched, of being "surveyed." But she is also positioned to assume the vantage point of the spectator owner. From this position as "surveyor" she views herself as an object through the eyes of the spectator owner. She thus sees herself as a commodity, as something which might make her enviable to others.

Turning Gaze into Currency

I just luff women.

http://it.stlawu.edu/~global/glossary/crownroyal.2.jpgThe Crown Royal ad is an interesting example of redirecting the male gaze, turning it briefly into a hermeneutic puzzle. The idea of the male gaze is an old one, one that has taken various forms and assumed numerous purposes over the past few centuries. In fact, the male gaze contained ad-like properties long before advertising became what it is today.

Here I will explore how the male gaze provides the narrative twist that drives this particular whiskey ad. My topic is the male gaze and the absent spectator.

My first glance at this ad revealed an artist (who, by his pose, reminded me immediately of Norman Rockwell) who seems to be painting the Crown Royal bottle after a model of a woman. She is posing as we imagine female models do for artists, subjecting herself to his gaze and his act of objectifying her on canvas. But, because the painting is actually not of her (body) as such, this ad seemed like a double objectification: once of her being painted by the artist, again being substituted for - or actually becoming - the bottle of whiskey.

Ah, but upon further analysis, I found the objectification ran deeper yet. For, although she has assumed the role of "appearing," she is actually not being substituted for a bottle at all - which would have some (jaded) sense of activity in it - but is completely useless, completely inactive because there is actually a bottle to the left of her, which Norman prefers as the model for his painting. The inclusion of the male gaze has been a tease, an invitation to participate in recognizing a twist of signifiers. If we get this, we draw the inference that Crown Royal is of higher beauty and desirability (value) than the winsome lass posed for us as the absent male spectator. And yet it is precisely her appearance which has lent value to the Crown Royal bottle.

Based on this new insight, we can add several more layers of objectification to her being in this ad: In addition to what we have identified before, she now serves not even as a passive utility, but is made also superfluous. Finally, the graphic which makes up this ad is an ad in-and-of-itself and therefore to be observed by yet another external viewer. She is objectified again.

by Arjan Schutte/ edited by Bob Goldman

THE OBJECT OF DESIRE

We see a painter holding up his brush to gauge perspective while eying the subject or object of his portrait. The canvas reveals a portrait of Crown Royal Scotch, the body -- I mean bottle -- is scantily draping its velvet wrapping. I am reminded of the woman who wears a sheet flung around her, formed to her body because of her sitting position; staring out into an unknown space of gleaming, beaming, radiant light which illuminates the studio.

The scene suggests some correspondence between the woman and the bottle. The woman is framed by a frame lying against the wall; she is no less "framed" than the bottle of scotch framed by the artist's canvas. Even the artist's brush conspires to confuse us, pointing to the woman as the inspiration for what he has painted. If he is painting an object...I don't know. Maybe he has made his choice...he can't resist painting exquisite things...she lost out.

I looked at the ad, and immediately began, in my Williamson-induced semiotic mindset, to figure out the relations between the signified and signifier. So the woman and the bottle are one and the same, I thought, still blind to the actual bottle of scotch in the corner. The woman is the crown royal, and/or vice versa. This all flashed thru my mind . . . until Arjan pointed out the bottle of Crown Royal sitting on the table in the corner, glistening with illumination (just like the woman). So I don't get it . . . I was all set to "uncode" this ad by looking at the relationship between what's on the canvas, and what appears to be the model. So what happens now that that relationship is not longer a two-way thing? The bottle on the corner of the table becomes the third element in what is supposed to be a two part game between signifier and signified. But which is signifier and which is signified here?

It is the bottle of scotch, the one on the canvas that lures me into the scenario. Is it that the bottle of scotch is the recipient of "The Gaze"? The nude attracting me, is not quite naked, but its robe is slipping off- the bottle of scotch or the woman?

And how about FRAMING. This is becoming a piece of art, this Crown Royal, and has been painted into a frame of its own on the page. It reminds me of an elaborate mortise more than anything else, except that it is so large. The white background of the canvass frames the bottle, highlighting it against a plain background. The bottle is literally floating in the picture, not attached to any surface but the canvass. It is the signifier, the bottle, of the signified, fine art. But like the Bill Blass ad, this can be reversed so that the art signifies the Crown Royal. Also, our eyes are drawn to the woman, who (looking away from the male gaze) also becomes a second signifier of the sexiness of the bottle. The Crown Royal becomes her as she becomes the Crown Royal. The little bottle on the table is almost insignificant. It's only in there to make it not such an obvious leap to take to believe the Crown Royal is sensuality and the object of woman and sexiness. The mortise-iness of the bottle in the frame is a reflection of the whole picture of fine creation and artwork. The window even shines in the sun as though it were God shining radiance and love for Crown Royal. And all but the bottle is grainy (could be the scanning), emphasizing the bottle as brilliance in the haze.

Perhaps.. Perhaps..... Something I see in this one is a trick played on the viewer. Perhaps there is the angst from the other sex narrative in here, but I don't read it that way. I see her as being almost a worshiped figure, on a pedestal even, the sunlight shining on her. And the viewer's mind might, at least mine did, assume a connection to be made between her-as-beauty-sex-object and the framed image of the bottle on the artist's canvas. The commodity's value is to be expanded by associating it with the admiration of ideal beauty, or at least pleasures of ownership and sex that that ideal is a euphemism for. But then, the viewer, I notice that other bottle, an actual one to the image of one on the artist's canvas, and I say whoa! The artist is actually looking at the bottle? and that's what he's painting? And not the woman? In a split-second of suspension, before I catch up, the ad gets beneath my radar, and does its dirty work. The crown royal is now a thing that we are to know as being more admirable than a beautiful woman, or sex, and thus is to be seen as even more sought after, or even more pleasurable. The ad constructs for us this reading, I think, and leads us on through.

Jennifer Colman; K. Riley; J Fry; kkeith; Plywood Ed né Sexy Ed

"Come On and Zum Zum, Zum-ah Zum!"

--From the t.v. theme of "Zoom"

Ooh baby, oh baby. 'Do do that voodoo that you do so well' (Cole Porter, "You Do Something To Me").

"Men act and women appear," writes John Berger about the history of pictorial representation in Western societies.

Zum Zum has created in their advertisement an appearance for two women that exists solely for an absent man (Mademoiselle, November 1992). They perch voluptuously on a pillow placed on piano. Their sensual passions simmer seductively just under the surface, brimming just on the edge of overflowing their dresses and their control, requiring the piano to steady their balance and reign in their desire. Berger would claim their sexual passion is minimized allowing the spectator to maintain a monopoly on this passion (p. 55). The text indicates the object of their fixation is "the singer." What a lucky (absent) man whose slight presence, unconscious and unconcerned as he performs somewhere off the page, causes such titillation in these two women. "Shana and Julie falling for the singer, 9:14 p.m."

From their pose to their dress, Julie and Shana exist solely to be seen, to be surveyed, to be objects of the male gaze. A woman would not dress this way for herself nor another woman (assuming she is straight). Her desire to be beautiful is only satisfied if it is appreciated by another (here a man). The dresses call out, "Look at me! Don't you want to take these off." The women adorn the piano as they adorn the page. The summation and end to their posture and positioning rests on the hope that the singer will turn his male gaze in their direction and notice them. His recognition even, dare we hope, his acknowledgement supplies meaning to their lives.

The singer acts as the absent spectator-owner. He is included in the ad not as a physical/visible presence but rather as an idea or construct provided by the text. His appearance, physique, and personality are clearly not factors of his worth. They do not need to be made explicit. What he does, his singing/actions are what account for his identity. We understand implicitly from the models' reactions, the act "falling for," that his possible attention is valuable. This potential refers to Berger's concept that the male personifies the "promise of power." This power manifests itself in the affirmation of ownership of one or even both (how kinky) of these buxom beauties.

The position of the advertisement's viewer differs from the spectator-owner. Remember this advertisement placed in a fashion magazine speaks to a female audience. How is a woman to comprehend the meaning expressed on this glossy page? She might have so internalized the male gaze that she might, before she catches herself, scrutinize their appearance and calculate whether they are worthy of arresting "his" gaze. Oddly, the female viewer also looks at he exterior of women as an "object of vision." She surveys their appearance as she does her own, through the eyes of a man. The ad plays on this culturally-invoked desire, positioning our female viewer to imaginatively insert herself (try on the possibility of looking like the model) so that she assumes the role of the models and becomes the surveyed. The female viewer thus takes the role of the spectator-buyer. She sees an image of herself not as she is, but as she could be (Berger, p. 132). She understands her well-being pivots on her visual desirability to men, and by the time she has seen this ad she has learned to survey all her own inadequacies, creating anxiety and dissatisfaction. This may be alleviated and her image enhanced through the purchase of the product. Conveniently the back page of this ad supplies a list of stores providing women with a chance to immediately dash down to the mall, don a dress and nab a dude. No woman is complete without one.

Julia Reid

+++++++

Gazing at Men

http://s5/middle/5f3f1538t8ce1b96f8934&690

In recent years, we have begun to see the extension of the male gaze into advertising for men's products aimed at male audiences. As marketers of fashion goods have attempted to grow new markets, they have extended to young men the pose of a woman aware of herself on display as an object of vision. This Jordache ad is typical of a new genre: men who don't act, but merely appear. Just as women could never fully occupy the position of the absent spectator-owner, so too new generations of young men, denied the historical resources of being a full spectator-owner, instead are positioned to become spectator-buyers. And as such, males are asked to imagine themselves as the surveyed; they are asked to imagine themselves as they might appear to other spectator-buyers.