Traditionally, traditional feminist theorists have argued that traditional paintings of women imply the male viewer, or spectator.Despite being a devout feminist myself for as long as I can remember, every time this theory was shoved in my face by artists and lecturers I could never help but ask myself "Does it? Does it REEALLY?"
Although the concept that males often still find themselves to be, in many cases delusionally, superior is undeniable, I can't quite get on board with pretending that women view themselves as objects of men. Surely circumstances need to be taken into account. Traditionally, there weren't many female painters (immediate point of reference for a spectator). Traditionally, men were buyers or sponsors of paintings and traditionally it was also men who were generally more involved with the arts. We know that this is no longer the case and what that implies is pretty obvious.
However, there is a more poignant point to make - the model and even the transient painter did their job with the audience in mind, which just CIRCUMSTANTIALLY happened to be male. Let me illustrate this further: during any given photo shoot the spectator I have in mind are mainly my mother, an imaginary fashion editor, and the target buyers - all female. Yes, I catch myself thinking about being appealing and being sexy, sophisticated and tasteful but the receiving end is most definitely female. I imagine looking at myself or the images if I were my mother or women I admire and what I would think if I was them.
This also applies to my dressing style. I'm not going to deny that as much as I enjoy dressing up for myself, it's that little smidge more enjoyable to do so in the knowledge that you will be seen. And I admit that I was a lot lazier when I lived and worked with only men than I am now.
I'm sure many women will agree with me that dressing up for (most) men is about as pointless as offering a pig caviar. And expecting anything else but an approving grunt is being optimistic. Clothes are clothes and you are you, no matter how you look, as much as edible food is edible food for pigs. Now, guys, don't get offended. I'm talking about a specific breed of guys, who just so happened to have gathered around me as friends over the years. They are otherwise faultless, sweet geeks. They just don't have very good fashion sense.
Women, on the other hand, are much more aware of the subtleties of fashion and taking it further, of understanding the implicit hierarchies and classifications of identity, even the least fashion conscious of all my female friends does. Although the male gaze as outlined by Laura Mulvey makes sense for many, many films, (it is true - we have to view most films from a male perspective in order to follow the line of thought, and we do it automatically) this concept isn't really applicable to everyday life.
When we DO think of how others view us - isn't that a person you can simply classify as someone whose opinion you value and matters to you, rather than whether they are male, female, both, young, old, green ogres or any other culturally imposed category?
I'd say yes. I'm glad I've finally voiced that now. That'll make it easier for me to argue against any ovedramatised and misinterpreted feminist theoretical foie gras food coming my way.
