Observer Gay.ru on the objectification of all and all
Every year our vocabulary enrich new words: as some phenomena appear, new terminology is formed in the world. So, in 2014, we had the normcore and vaping - the Oxford dictionary even included them in its online version along with the mapping. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Russia also learned one important word - objectification: by the end of the year, many even stopped calling it objectification or objectification. The perception of a person of any gender solely from the point of view of “yabvdul” became one of the key problems discussed in the outgoing year - for example, even the Russian newspaper Metro wrote about objectification in video games by December.
There is, however, one nuance: talking about this in 99% of cases implies the objectification of women - it’s elementary because we live in a patriarchal society and, indeed, objectify us much more often than vice versa. But let’s not be shy and make a face for it: the objectification of men by women exists. Even we cannot restrain ourselves from postmodern objectification, setting ourselves such a 21-inch Jamie Dornan on the desktop. Therefore, in order to dot the i and draw a line in the finale of the year, we asked Laura Raeder, art critic and former regular author of Gay.ru, to talk about what men’s objectification is, how it differs from the female one and how gay influences it. culture
The recent press conference of President Vladimir Putin at the very height of the financial crisis ended surprisingly with the whole country (who has the Internet) sitting and watching a stupid viral video. In it, two girls in the bath caress each other to the joy of a guy who is clearly very cool (since there are already two beauties with him), and it is these cool guys who respect “Vyatka kvass”. And this is normal things. Is it true that we stuck with our objectification? She is not.
Or here's another story. One plant hired my friend's company for rebranding. After reviewing all their options, the director (the hero of labor, by the way) said: “This is, of course, all is well, very creative, but, Katenka, we bring our best calendars for example! You understand, our production is power! And this power must be shown. " And Katenka proudly contributed a large format album and opened it in December. Against the background of the plant in the usual winter mud, on the latest model of the most powerful motor, with legs apart, sat a big-breasted blonde in thongs and a Santa Claus cap alone. The remaining months and years looked about the same: breasts on the motor, under the motor, on the sides of the motor. “The girls themselves came to us for filming,” Katenka remarked sympathetically, “they were freezing, but they worked. Of course, at first everyone is a little shy about our calendars, but then even the second one is asked.”
That's how everything from Pirelli to some Lenoblsmover believe that their power should be illustrated by naked women. And here, in general, it is even difficult to argue with one French philosopher, who once wrote that the adware is perfectly smooth and sometimes even brilliantly oily female body is in fact no non-female body, but a phallus (look again carefully, on the famous picture of Kim Kardashian, and you will see him, and even know whose he is - Kanye West). That is this message: with our tires or our motor you will have to-oh-from such a member! It is appropriate to recall that half-naked women are also most often depicted on cheap condom packages, although the object itself is not being pulled on them at all.
Even a SIM card is persuading me to buy Vera Brezhnev herself with all her bodies, and are you trying to wipe me off something without boobs?
Thus, the standards of "beauty" and attractiveness are fetishized: heels, red lips, neckline - this is not the woman herself, but the attributes by which she is defined as "worthy of attention." This is not Nina and not Karina, she does not live at number 5, she’s not even a girl with advertising pads, drugs or bio-yogurt: she has no periods, she doesn’t hurt anything and she doesn’t poop. From objectification comes out and the favorite male argument "yes, it is terrible," with which he reacts to the refusal or unpleasant words of a woman. It has nothing to do with real appearance (although they can even go into details), but is a magic spell, which is considered a strong argument for stopping contact with the last word allegedly left behind them. And it only says that when a person does not see the opposite of his mythical napolirovanny phallus, he immediately takes offense. How: I even have a SIM card to call my mother in the village, Vera Brezhnev herself persuades to buy all the bodies with her, and you try to wipe me off something without boobies and even make up your lips? Such is the pampered.
Objectification associated with images of pop culture, equates women with other phallic male objects shouting to the world about status: such as a car, a weapon, money or physical strength. This is the brainchild of consumption and marketing, it originated in a patriarchal society, and therefore is aimed at the solvent half of the population. And this monster has long since descended from billboards to the ground and crawled out of television screens into houses. American researcher Ariel Levy, for example, believes that women themselves began to try to self-lens themselves, advertising themselves as a motor. And I would add that men, too, when they choose their girlfriend "as from an advertisement." Why you ask? Because at the time of their connection and it turns into an object that it advertises. If with him such a beauty, then it means that he has a big dick or a lot of money, or both.
Objectification is a common question in the era of media consumption. Is there an objectivization of the male body? Yes, and even FURFUR recently wrote a whole “historical” text about it, but I would add to it another point of view as a girl who worked a lot of time on the site Gay.ru. Yes, in 19 years I wanted to earn money with texts, and somehow it happened, on the advice of friends, I wrote to the magazine "Queer". The editor was not at all embarrassed by the fact that I was a young girl, and asked to write an article about "bare back" - unprotected anal sex.
As a recent gymnasium student who has been trained in French journalism techniques, I have gathered many sources, analyzed and synthesized a sterile text with a history of the phenomenon, different points of view (from the smallest to the fighters with the threat of AIDS) and the conclusion. To which the editor of "Kvira" wrote to me: "Eee ... Let's have more fun, maybe something from life?" I honestly tried to come up with a funny story about unprotected anal sex, but somehow it did not work out. The position was saved by the editor of the site Gay.ru, who, obviously, was sent by my popular science epic, he accepted it, but later began to give me predominantly assignments on art criticism, which was fine with me.
So in the schedule of my affairs appeared regular viewing of communities, blogs and sites with photographers who specialized in male nude. I must say that I chose not only gay photographers, but also just those who shoot a lot of naked and half-naked men, for example, for fashion shooting or advertising. Even the girl was once (but surely you can find more), but what - Caroline Klupelle, a kind of German romanticism, I love her very much.
Photographers have a longing for the plots of art of the past - as if you can only choose between Saint Sebastian and the jock in his underwear Calvin Klein
At once I will say, male nude is just one point by which you can sort the images, and not some kind of closed sphere. But in the general view, of course, the pretty, moderately pumped up young beauties prevail, which are taken to advertise underwear, calendars, “erotic” jerk-off albums and similar magazines. These photos are of high quality, but more often - just monstrous. Many advertising and fashion photographers work in copyright techniques: someone loves the naturalness of models, someone, on the contrary, prefers hyperglamur as a mockery and self-irony over gloss.
As for the artistic filming, there is no list of everything: there are daffodils that shoot themselves in different poses and costumes (Brad Wagner, Marwan Palla), there are lovers of reproducing famous pictorial scenes, there are sadomasochists, there are bears (gay bears - that is. large, hairy men, for example, Dusty Cunningham), there are those who are very fond of the texture of the skin (Mustafa Sabbah), there is a beautiful black and white classic (Peter Berlin, Jean-Paolo Barbieri, Peter Hujjar), there is just a gentle and cozy "homemade "shooting (for example, my beloved Paco and Manolo, me them rnal Kink, by the way, showed a friend, not Gay.ru editor). There are also certain types: reporter stories, club photographers - anything.
But art photographers can trace the problem - a deliberate attachment to the plots of visual art of the past (even Pierre and Gilles), longing for antiquity, classicism, renaissance and romanticism, copying famous works, as if in modern times there is no way out for male eroticism, a certain symbolic form . It’s as if one can only choose between Saint Sebastian and Calvin Klein in his underpants.
The very gay culture of recent times can be very roughly divided into three stages: the “golden age” - the 50s – 70s, the baleen big fellows Tom Of Finland (by the way, imposing a perfect image), shiny costumes, beautiful tanned young boys Los Angeles (Mel Roberts); dreary 80s - understanding the threat of HIV, illness, death, such personalities appear as the sad David Voinarovich, at the junction of these two times, of course, Robert Mapplethorpe.
Here, probably, the image of a fragile and suffering male body emerges again, it is being humanized. And since the 1990s, this is already a time of struggle for rights, and by the year 2000, gay culture is no longer marginal and enters consumption, special shops, goods and, accordingly, endless advertising appear, the number of magazines and albums and the visual problem of male objectification appears. It becomes possible to talk about it.
For example, photographer Philip Lorca Di Corsia took a whole series of portraits of American hustlers, writing down their nicknames and the cost of services (he paid them the same amount for a photo - there is even a semantic play of the word "take"), but not at all trying to show some of their merits as a commodity, and photographed from afar: here they are - lonely people, lost in the vast world.
Women's comments in the public male nude "VKontakte" - a worthy answer to lovers poobsuzhdat "sisechki"
However, even opening now any gay website or magazine, we will see the cult of youth, sweetness and sports figure. At a minimum, all advertising banners will be like this. I apologize for the rough comparison, but in ancient times, where same-sex sex was considered to be the norm of things, a more mature man with a beard was already active, and passive men were bezborodie young men. So, when depicting a person who offers a certain product, whether it is a woman or such a guy, he finds himself in a passive beardless position.
That is why it is believed that male nude and homoeroticism are synonymous and that women are not interested in looking at a male body, it does not excite them, which means that for them these images do not turn into their brilliant phallus. But it is not. Images of pop culture are aimed at those who have money to consume. And women now have money, but culture has not yet had time to reform. There is a culture of teenage love for celebrities (actors, musicians), because teenage girls are a faithful resource for siphoning money from their parents. There is a graft for advertising cubes and biceps, but it is no different from the male love for big breasts, moreover, women are beginning to even very funny to copy male behavior. For example, women's comments in the public male nude "VKontakte" - a worthy answer to lovers poobsuzhdat "sisechki."
Will any photograph be an objectification? Of course not. Can women enjoy the look of the male body without objectifying it? Of course, yes (like men - female). Remember, in the TV series Friends, Rachel once laughed at what Playboy had found: “What happened to me that I was riding naked on a horse with a hat?” - then after a few episodes, everyone laughed at the love affair that she reads: "He grabbed and pressed her passionately ..." and so on. Because it is considered that women read, and men watch.
I don’t know why, but I know (and there’s hardly anyone who can argue with me, even men) that a good photo is one that tells a story that can be “read” when the plot has a certain context, even if mysterious and variable. And in such a position, in a good picture, a person will not be a soulless object, a subject, and if, as planned by the photographer, he will be, then he will be in a completely different kind of non-exquisite quality - as an artistic metaphor, as a removal.
In general, any photo (and here again no one will argue) about a little bit about death: this moment will never happen again, no one will be the same, time passes, people die, photos remain. Not for nothing, with the advent of access to the possibility of photographing, the dead were often filmed before burial, and the first self-portrait was taken as a drowned man.
Most of the gay culture is tied to this fragility, mortality, suffering. Because if we recall not the ancient, but already more mature European culture, then the male body there is often depicted as the female suffering. In the end, one image of the crucified Christ already covers all the others (and by the way, there were cases when parishioners of churches complained to the holy fathers that crucifixes seem too natural to them and knock them into sinful thoughts).
Men for the most part are not yet accustomed to discussing their appearance and are justly afraid of it.
So, in the female culture (but not in nature), unlike the gay culture, there is no moment of admiring the male body as (ha-ha) existence, that is, something (regardless of size) fragile and beautiful, because it is now there is, and then it will not, therefore it needs not so much “drooling”, but rather some mental and visual care and attention. Here, at least in Russia, the image of a muzhik is too much imposed, which, in general, doesn’t matter what it looks like, the main thing is husband-and-wife (here you can even remember the president again).
I call this phenomenon beautifully the effect of Cupid and Psyche, when Cupid kidnaps Psyche, having previously examined its beauty from the sky from all sides, and she cannot look at her husband with one eye, that in the dark it fell on the bed in the dark, and then fell on tom thank you But the curious Psyche violated the prohibition and was so surprised at its beauty that she doused her husband with oil from the lamp with fright - after all, the real god of love. For the most part, men are still not accustomed to discussing their appearance and are justly afraid of it, since in the world of objectification the ideal is practically impossible.
But you do not be afraid of anything and be curious, like Psyche, no one will die from this, they have there and then everything ended well. But in general, it will be difficult to hold on, not to follow the example of men and not to objectify. After all, even children in the popular cartoon "Penguins" are taught that in the consumer world (in this case, a show at the zoo) cute and pretty will always win (penguins and pandas, not octopuses and squid). So, white and fluffy, smile and wave!