Giving the subject "agency" from a handful of preselected poses and backgrounds seems like no agency at all and is forcing a predetermined outcome.
I don't know when this was created but I wonder if a new StableDiffusion (w/dreambooth) powered version would be more interesting since the observer/editor gives their interpretation of "female gaze" for the subject VS what the author tells what agency is. It would be illustrative to see where the public matches or deviates from the author's perspective.
It's also based on straw-manning the entire culture. "Artists are all men, and they all portray women as docile." This is pure BS, based on even a brief reflection on the matter.
There is a strong implication that only men are artists, photographers etc; and thus women are depicted not as they are.
This is wrong on two levels
On the first level: there absolutely are women painters, photographers and artists, throughout history. Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun almost exclusively painted women and was a large influence on the depictions of women throughout the remainder of the 18th, the 19th and even 20th century.
On the second level: outside observation is a valid truth, what one person sees is not the same as that person themselves sees.
There was a hair dye ad in the 90s that covered this notion pretty nicely: a man is riding up an escalator feeling himself quite handsome, believing that his grey hair makes him look distinguished! A woman rides down the escalator, they lock eyes, she thinks he looks tired and unkempt.
The things we see as strengths can be seen as weaknesses and the things we see as weaknesses can be seen as strengths; but a self-portrait is rarely true to what people actually see.
1) Yes it is, content moderation is everyones job here.
2) I could also say that it's misleading, and flag it for that reason.
If there is something intellectually curious in the content submitted: then I'm wrong.
As it stands it reads like bait to attract controversy for the sake of advertising.
*EDIT:* After reading the HN guidelines I've removed that line. Third line from the bottom of the page says not to mention if you flag, likely to avoid conversations like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Worth considering that in the example you cited, the outside observer reduced and derided the subject, took something they viewed as reflective of their rich inner life and a product of their experience and chose to view it as contemptible. And so the subject presumably decided to buy the hair dye to erase this part of themselves.
Outside observation is a truth, but it is overvalued in our society. Our emphasis on it leads us to pressure people into conforming to arbitrary standards and narrows the human experience.
> On the first level: there absolutely are women painters, photographers and artists, throughout history. Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun almost exclusively painted women and was a large influence on the depictions of women throughout the remainder of the 18th, the 19th and even 20th century.
If you had to guess, what do you think the ratio is of men to women, in terms of well known artists in those time periods?
> On the second level: outside observation is a valid truth, what one person sees is not the same as that person themselves sees.
No one is denying that. The premise here is that other perspectives, or valid truths, were not seen because the observers were almost always men. Even passive observing can introduce biases, which is why we have things like double blind trials.
Do you not believe it's interesting to try and imagine what art might look like from different perspectives?
> Do you not believe it's interesting to try and imagine what art might look like from different perspectives?
I do, actually, unfortunately the time has passed for those painters. We certainly have a lot of diverse representation in art these days, so fortunately it is no longer something I need to imagine.
> I do, actually, unfortunately the time has passed for those painters.
The most famous piece of art is the modern world is the Mona Lisa. Historical art carries much more weight than modern art in almost all cases. Just like we continue to examine and analyze historical events/people/etc, I don't see why we wouldn't also do that with art.
> Exploring historical art from new perspectives is interesting and valuable.
It's valuable to you, fine. And some people critique its premise and existence. Why do you get upset when people critique it? Why do you dismiss any criticism of feminist thought?
100% legit. In addition, the female gaze DOES exist. Has the creator never been to a gym full of attractive men with fit bodies, and observed women oogling at the men? Has the creator never observed how straight women will oogle at men with handsome faces? There's a show called "The Sex Lives of College Girls" where objectively average/cute women are objectifying and sexualizing relatively attractive men. There's a lot of modern shows like this, where women of all attractive levels are dating handsome men which is a form of "gazing".
I'm sure the female gaze exists, but it's worth considering that straight men often look attractive and even seek to attract women to impress other straight men (so sometimes the "dudes at the gym" are really subject to a weird inverted male gaze), and reality TV shows are so distorted and deceptively edited and we really can't cite them uncritically.
And women use makeup and look good to attract men, and there's no shame in it. I don't think there's any shame in attempting to look attractive, as if it's shallow.
But that's aside the point, being that there's some implication that women don't objectify men via some "gaze" when clearly, they do. The representation of female attraction to men is done in different formats.
Women also definitely try to impress other women via the status of their mates. The conversation about male vs. female gaze isn't about who's gazing (both are) but rather what they're looking for when they gaze at the other sex.
The "gaze" is essentially about a male "checking out" a woman, and a woman desiring this gaze from the male. My argument is clear, that women DO gaze at men, and men DO appreciate the gaze and many are seeking the gaze from women.
"The phrase “male gaze” refers to the frequent framing of objects of visual art so that the viewer is situated in a “masculine” position of appreciation. By interpreting objects of art as diverse as paintings of the nude and Hollywood films, these theorists have concluded that women depicted in art are standardly placed as objects of attraction"
This clearly aligns with my definition of the gaze as essentially male attraction to women. Fine, you can add some additional constraints that it's positions that the woman that conform to "masculine" definitions of beauty, but I certainly would disagree that it's necessarily negative for a female in that position or as a whole.
Would you argue that women who produce sexualized content like from OnlyFans or Twitch streamers wearing scantily clad outfits, are not part of the male gaze? It's intellectually dishonest to keep saying, "it's different" despite not addressing any of my statements.
You started out saying that women staring at men in the gym is the female gaze. That is wrong, because the male gaze isn't about the actual act of gazing. It's about perspective.
Your whole argument is centred on the act of gazing, not perspective in art.
Let me give an example. I'm sitting on park bench gazing at a woman walking by me. I am a male, and I am gazing, but that it not the male gaze.
The male gaze is a representation of male attraction towards women in art. In my original post, I clearly state there ARE representations of female "gaze"/attraction of men, such as various female shows like The Sex Lives of College Girls.
You're performing a strawman or being overly pedantic and dishonest, when my original post clearly states female gaze/attraction of men in the context of art, a TV show.
Whether you like it or not, the gaze is in the context of film and not just static art.
> You're performing a strawman or being overly pedantic and dishonest, when my original post clearly states female gaze/attraction of men in the context of art, a TV show.
That's not true. The first two sentences in your first post:
> Has the creator never been to a gym full of attractive men with fit bodies, and observed women oogling at the men? Has the creator never observed how straight women will oogle at men with handsome faces?
What you are describing is the literal act of gazing. Your next two sentences are about media, but still mostly about the act of gazing. They had nothing to do with how men are portrayed by women directors, which would be the actual female gaze.
> Whether you like it or not, the gaze is in the context of film and not just static art.
I agree. But it's not about the literal act of gazing, which is what your original post was referring to.
> What you are describing is the literal act of gazing. Your next two sentences are about media, but still mostly about the act of gazing. They had nothing to do with how men are portrayed by women directors, which would be the actual female gaze.
The literal act of gazing is what "the gaze" in the context of art is referring to, whether it's in media form or performed in real life. It makes no sense for "the gaze" to purely exist in the context of art, without some representation in the real world independent of art, given "the gaze" is a representation of an individual "gazing" at someone else due to their attraction. In modern contexts, it's clear criticism of "the gaze" is criticism of the objectification of women. It's argued that it's "harmful" in art, as it represents objectification of women.
> I agree. But it's not about the literal act of gazing, which is what your original post was referring to.
"The gaze" as a term in art, only exists because the act of checking someone out and objectifying them exists independent of the art context, and people have strong opinions about it. You cannot define "the gaze" without the concept of objectifying them in the real world as then, it wouldn't make any sense.
> The literal act of gazing is what "the gaze" in the context of art is referring to, whether it's in media form or performed in real life.
No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective.
> In modern contexts, it's clear criticism of "the gaze" is criticism of the objectification of women. It's argued that it's "harmful" in art, as it represents objectification of women.
Again, no. The male gaze is a specific term that refers to how women are portrayed in visual media.
Let's also keep in mind your example of the Sex Live of College Girls is 2 years old. The art used by this project is much much older. These time periods are not comparable.
> No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective.
You're clearly the one having an issue interpreting the project. The project is to interpret art pieces without the male gaze. You're trying to decouple the criticism of male objectification from the art piece which is completely laughable when the About section clearly criticizes male objectifcaiton.
> Again, no. The male gaze is a specific term that refers to how women are portrayed in visual media.
> Let's also keep in mind your example of the Sex Live of College Girls is 2 years old. The art used by this project is much much older. These time periods are not comparable.
Just because you say the male gaze is a specific term, and choose to ignore any sources that disagree with your definition that I linked, doesn't make it true. And now, suddenly the time period matters to your argument about the male gaze and the art project?
You're arguing because you can't accept the fact the project is 100% critiquing the male gaze . You're clearly biased, and that's fine, but you're running in circles and playing games of semantics because you can't accept when you're clearly wrong.
Now you’ve left another reply to the same comment, just more emotional this time.
The reason you aren’t seeing a reply link is because you’re trying to reply too fast and are getting rate limited. Instead of trying to get around it and post emotional responses, just patiently wait until the reply link shows up and then reply to my post directly. Please calm down, there’s no reason to get this upset.
There's absolutely no logical connection between those two things. This is just another example of you being emotional. Please keep your replies to the other thread. You can comment on this, but do it in the other thread.
Sigh, how can anyone hold a conversation with you when you keep going in circles, completely ignoring the specifics of an argument, stringently hold to your narrow definitions and when counteracted with a different argument, resort to "you are wrong, I am right", and the consistent other logical fallacies used.
I guess somewhat's got to combat the egos and crackpots :-)
> No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective.
I don't think you're understanding my point. I clearly understand you want to use "the male gaze" purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don't agree that you can decouple the real world act of "gazing" with the art definition of "gazing".
Again, you're trying to decouple "the male gaze" from general objectification. I do not think you can, because then any criticism and the definition of "the male gaze" in the artistic sense becomes completely moot. Why would it matter if the gaze is different or there is no gaze for some art piece, so the end painting has the woman in a different position?
If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove "the male gaze", okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from "the male gaze" and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not.
Why do you reply to your own comments instead of mine?
> I clearly understand you want to use “the male gaze” purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don’t agree that you can decouple the real world act of “gazing” with the art definition of “gazing”.
This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition.
> Again, you’re trying to decouple “the male gaze” from general objectification.
Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition.
> If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove “the male gaze”, okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from “the male gaze” and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not.
No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”.
You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term.
So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms.
> Why do you reply to your own comments instead of mine? There's no reply button underneath your posts as its getting more nested. I don't know why, possibly a bug?
> This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition.
I'm not imposing my own definition, you're imposing a narrow definition which is fine, and I'm using a definition that is used in the colloquial sense, that even the Stanford Plato articles and other sources agree on. And I don't think you can decouple your definition, from the very act of gazing in the real world.
> Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition.
The definition from what source? I've linked a few sources, what source are you referring to? I've linked several sources of the definition, here's another:
"A manner of treating women's bodies as objects to be surveyed, which is associated by feminists with hegemonic masculinity, both in everyday social interaction and in relation to their representation in visual media: see also objectification."
> No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”.
> You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term.
I am not being dishonest here, the original project has commentary that is critique of the male gaze. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest.
> So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms.
The whole premise of the project is not only to view the art form from a "neutral perspective" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but to critique "the male gaze." From the very About section on the page:
"For decades, it has been discussed in which ways depictions of women in art... Laura Mulvey coins the term “The Male Gaze” back in 1975 in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema arguing how women in especially movies would be objectified and fetishized, empowering the male heterosexual movie-creator and male heterosexual audience."
This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct. And my initial statements in regards to there being examples of media objectifying men through a "female gaze" stands, hence the premise that the "male gaze" is a bad thing, is wrong.
> Why do you reply to your own comments instead of mine?
There's no reply button underneath your posts as its getting more nested. I don't know why, possibly a bug?
> This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition.
I'm not imposing my own definition, you're imposing a narrow definition which is fine, and I'm using a definition that is used in the colloquial sense, that even the Stanford Plato articles and other sources agree on. And I don't think you can decouple your definition, from the very act of gazing in the real world.
> Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition.
The definition from what source? I've linked a few sources, what source are you referring to? I've linked several sources of the definition, here's another:
"A manner of treating women's bodies as objects to be surveyed, which is associated by feminists with hegemonic masculinity, both in everyday social interaction and in relation to their representation in visual media: see also objectification."
> No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”.
> You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term.
I am not being dishonest here, the original project has commentary that is critique of the male gaze. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest.
> So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms.
The whole premise of the project is not only to view the art form from a "neutral perspective" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but to critique "the male gaze." From the very About section on the page:
"For decades, it has been discussed in which ways depictions of women in art... Laura Mulvey coins the term “The Male Gaze” back in 1975 in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema arguing how women in especially movies would be objectified and fetishized, empowering the male heterosexual movie-creator and male heterosexual audience."
This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct. And my initial statements in regards to there being examples of media objectifying men through a "female gaze" stands, hence the premise that the "male gaze" is a bad thing, is wrong.
> I'm not imposing my own definition, you're imposing a narrow definition which is fine, and I'm using a definition that is used in the colloquial sense, that even the Stanford Plato articles and other sources agree on. And I don't think you can decouple your definition, from the very act of gazing in the real world.
I think I see what the issue is. You are referring to male gaze, whereas I'm referring to Male Gaze. That's fine, but this project is about Male Gaze, or rather Female Gaze.
Male Gaze has a definition, and it does not include general objectification of women, which already has a term: objectification.
"In feminist theory, the male gaze is the act of depicting women and the world in the visual arts[2] and in literature[3] from a masculine, heterosexual perspective that presents and represents women as sexual objects for the pleasure of the heterosexual male viewer.[4] In the visual and aesthetic presentations of narrative cinema, the male gaze has three perspectives: (i) that of the man behind the camera, (ii) that of the male characters within the film's cinematic representations; and (iii) that of the spectator gazing at the image.[5][6]"
"The “gaze” is a term that describes how viewers engage with visual media. Originating in film theory and criticism in the 1970s, the gaze refers to how we look at visual representations. These include advertisements, television programs and cinema."
> I am not being dishonest here, the original project has commentary that is critique of the male gaze. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest.
Exactly. It is a critique of the Male Gaze, a term which has an established definition that does not include general objectification. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest.
> "For decades, it has been discussed in which ways depictions of women in art... Laura Mulvey coins the term “The Male Gaze” back in 1975 in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema arguing how women in especially movies would be objectified and fetishized, empowering the male heterosexual movie-creator and male heterosexual audience."
Did you notice that you just included the definition of male gaze from the person who coined the term, and it is the definition that I've been using?
> This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct.
Where did I claim they have no motive?
> And my initial statements in regards to there being examples of media objectifying men through a "female gaze" stands, hence the premise that the "male gaze" is a bad thing, is wrong.
Again, these paintings were created decades, or centuries before your examples of female gaze existed.
And you are now implying that if a female gaze exists, then a male gaze cannot be wrong? That's obviously a terrible conclusion.
> I think I see what the issue is. You are referring to male gaze, whereas I'm referring to Male Gaze. That's fine, but this project is about Male Gaze, or rather Female Gaze.
I've been acknowledging your point of view, and now you finally acknowledge my perspective, instead of continuously ignoring it. Thank you.
> Did you notice that you just included the definition of male gaze from the person who coined the term, and it is the definition that I've been using?
Yes, you are using that definition, that doesn't mean everyone agrees of your interpretation as defined in the articles I linked. Not only that, you make assertions that the website's intent is only to view art pieces from a male gaze, when the About clearly has criticism towards male objectification. Why is the website not subject to criticism again, because you view that is no context?
> Where did I claim they have no motive?
You've continuously dismissed any criticism of the website. This is extremely obvious. First, you state that the website is merely trying to look at art pieces from a non-male gaze perspective. Then, when shown an About Me where there is criticism of the male perspective, you argue that the "male gaze" does not mean men checking out women. When presented with multiple definitions, you cherry-pick the Wikipedia one, ignore my arguments that assert that the "male gaze" can't be decoupled from the real world concept because then it wouldn't make any sense. And then you claim this whole time, you've actually understood what my and other's arguments against the website has been, despite prior dismissing everything we said.
> And you are now implying that if a female gaze exists, then a male gaze cannot be wrong? That's obviously a terrible conclusion.
Why is that a terrible conclusion? You've completely absolved all criticism of feminist thought. Why? Why do you think male sexuality is a bad thing but female sexuality expression is good? That sounds pretty sexist to me.
> I've been acknowledging your point of view, and now you finally acknowledge my perspective, instead of continuously ignoring it. Thank you.
No problem, but the point is that your perspective doesn't apply to this project.
> Not only that, you make assertions that the website's intent is only to view art pieces from a male gaze, when the About clearly has criticism towards male objectification.
This is why I suggested in the other comment that you're getting emotional. I never asserted that. Didn't even imply it. This is completely made up.
> You've continuously dismissed any criticism of the website. This is extremely obvious.
If it's extremely obvious, then you should have problem quoting where I did that.
> First, you state that the website is merely trying to look at art pieces from a non-male gaze perspective.
Quote please.
> Then, when shown an About Me where there is criticism of the male perspective, you argue that the "male gaze" does not mean men checking out women.
It does not mean checking out women.
> When presented with multiple definitions, you cherry-pick the Wikipedia one
I presented two sources which both said the same thing. That's not what cherry picking means.
> ignore my arguments that assert that the "male gaze" can't be decoupled from the real world concept because then it wouldn't make any sense.
I'm ignoring it because it doesn't make sense. You're trying to tie two different things together that are separate concepts, and then blaming me for not agreeing with you.
> And then you claim this whole time, you've actually understood what my and other's arguments against the website has been, despite prior dismissing everything we said.
Quote please. It's not that I don't understand your argument. It's that your argument only works if you redefine what male gaze means. You can't redefine something that has an existing definition just because it suits your arguoment.
> Why is that a terrible conclusion?
So any bad thing that men do is no longer bad if women do it to? Is that a serious position? Haha.
> You've completely absolved all criticism of feminist thought.
Quote please.
> Why do you think male sexuality is a bad thing but female sexuality expression is good?
Quote please.
> That sounds pretty sexist to me.
If you can quote where I said male sexuality is bad, then that would be sexist. But you can't. Because I didn't.
This constant tactic of inventing things out of thin air is getting tired. Please stop.
The lack of focus and clear leadership is part of the reason I am doubtful about Meta being able to execute it's vision even though I am very optimistic about VR.
This is an art piece so I think it's worth giving a lot of slack, even though imo it's very flawed in it's execution of it's base premise.
However, that meta decides to associate itself with things like this is a bigger problem. The quality required to traverse a controversial and loaded area like this isn't there and somebody at Meta should've known better.
What is it? I clicked on the floor, the viewpoint moved. It seemed to be a static 3-D view. The tutorial said you could change where the lighting came from but that didn't seem interesting, so I quit. The "female gaze" stuff didn't tell me what to expect it to do.
I love when people unite technology and art. Its duality reminds me of the of the the useful and the pretty, the male and the female. I thank those who were involved in its creation as it is a nice concept.
I liked the controls, they are impressively intuitive. It could have more knobs, or more individual movement of the elements of the scene so that we could have even more flexibility.
I can't help but notice the bitterness associated with men in this piece though. It seems to indicate that men taint the image of women with an incomplete representations of their personhood when they manifest their "Male Gaze" into art.
Since I am one of those wretched beings I will defend my perspective: men of these times saw things worth preserving. You might not like it but that's not the point.
And it seems that we overloaded the servers with submissions or something because I got an error submitting my picture. It was a nice experience still.
I love these kinds of demos, and it's cool seeing them on the web (again). There's joy in doing a creative exercise and sharing the results with each other. I see it here and there: sharing Advent of Code solutions is a big one right now, or TikTok trends, making "meme" images isn't far from photoshop contests or caption contests from long ago. The recent AI tools have been great about getting people involved in a process. But on the whole the web still feels very unidirectional right now, most interaction is limited to forums and comments sections (I lump social media in here). I'd like that to change, include visitors in creative processes, invite participation instead of passive consumption.
49 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 116 ms ] threadI don't know when this was created but I wonder if a new StableDiffusion (w/dreambooth) powered version would be more interesting since the observer/editor gives their interpretation of "female gaze" for the subject VS what the author tells what agency is. It would be illustrative to see where the public matches or deviates from the author's perspective.
That was 10 years ago, with an incredible low-budget, and all juniors mostly out of uni.
I’m surprised at how little our past products differ from what meta is doing right now with enough budget to form a country.
https://kunsthalcharlottenborg.dk/en/aktuelt/2022/08/30/crea...
This is wrong on two levels
On the first level: there absolutely are women painters, photographers and artists, throughout history. Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun almost exclusively painted women and was a large influence on the depictions of women throughout the remainder of the 18th, the 19th and even 20th century.
On the second level: outside observation is a valid truth, what one person sees is not the same as that person themselves sees.
There was a hair dye ad in the 90s that covered this notion pretty nicely: a man is riding up an escalator feeling himself quite handsome, believing that his grey hair makes him look distinguished! A woman rides down the escalator, they lock eyes, she thinks he looks tired and unkempt.
The things we see as strengths can be seen as weaknesses and the things we see as weaknesses can be seen as strengths; but a self-portrait is rarely true to what people actually see.
That's not a valid reason to flag a post.
2) I could also say that it's misleading, and flag it for that reason.
If there is something intellectually curious in the content submitted: then I'm wrong.
As it stands it reads like bait to attract controversy for the sake of advertising.
*EDIT:* After reading the HN guidelines I've removed that line. Third line from the bottom of the page says not to mention if you flag, likely to avoid conversations like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Outside observation is a truth, but it is overvalued in our society. Our emphasis on it leads us to pressure people into conforming to arbitrary standards and narrows the human experience.
If you had to guess, what do you think the ratio is of men to women, in terms of well known artists in those time periods?
> On the second level: outside observation is a valid truth, what one person sees is not the same as that person themselves sees.
No one is denying that. The premise here is that other perspectives, or valid truths, were not seen because the observers were almost always men. Even passive observing can introduce biases, which is why we have things like double blind trials.
Do you not believe it's interesting to try and imagine what art might look like from different perspectives?
I do, actually, unfortunately the time has passed for those painters. We certainly have a lot of diverse representation in art these days, so fortunately it is no longer something I need to imagine.
The most famous piece of art is the modern world is the Mona Lisa. Historical art carries much more weight than modern art in almost all cases. Just like we continue to examine and analyze historical events/people/etc, I don't see why we wouldn't also do that with art.
Because, We can't create new works of the past and we can't remix them to make something originally genuine with accurate intent.
So... what is it you're saying exactly? I don't have a time machine.
Both figuratively and literally, given that it allows you to control the lighting :)
> Because, We can't create new works of the past and we can't remix them to make something originally genuine with accurate intent.
I'm not sure what you mean by genuine, but changing the intent is the whole point.
> So... what is it you're saying exactly?
Exploring historical art from new perspectives is interesting and valuable.
It's valuable to you, fine. And some people critique its premise and existence. Why do you get upset when people critique it? Why do you dismiss any criticism of feminist thought?
And some people critique your critique. Why do you get upset when people critique you? Why do you dismiss any feminist thought?
But that's aside the point, being that there's some implication that women don't objectify men via some "gaze" when clearly, they do. The representation of female attraction to men is done in different formats.
No, that is completely incorrect. Watch the intro video again.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-aesthetics/
"The phrase “male gaze” refers to the frequent framing of objects of visual art so that the viewer is situated in a “masculine” position of appreciation. By interpreting objects of art as diverse as paintings of the nude and Hollywood films, these theorists have concluded that women depicted in art are standardly placed as objects of attraction"
This clearly aligns with my definition of the gaze as essentially male attraction to women. Fine, you can add some additional constraints that it's positions that the woman that conform to "masculine" definitions of beauty, but I certainly would disagree that it's necessarily negative for a female in that position or as a whole.
Would you argue that women who produce sexualized content like from OnlyFans or Twitch streamers wearing scantily clad outfits, are not part of the male gaze? It's intellectually dishonest to keep saying, "it's different" despite not addressing any of my statements.
Your whole argument is centred on the act of gazing, not perspective in art.
Let me give an example. I'm sitting on park bench gazing at a woman walking by me. I am a male, and I am gazing, but that it not the male gaze.
You're performing a strawman or being overly pedantic and dishonest, when my original post clearly states female gaze/attraction of men in the context of art, a TV show.
Whether you like it or not, the gaze is in the context of film and not just static art.
That's not true. The first two sentences in your first post:
> Has the creator never been to a gym full of attractive men with fit bodies, and observed women oogling at the men? Has the creator never observed how straight women will oogle at men with handsome faces?
What you are describing is the literal act of gazing. Your next two sentences are about media, but still mostly about the act of gazing. They had nothing to do with how men are portrayed by women directors, which would be the actual female gaze.
> Whether you like it or not, the gaze is in the context of film and not just static art.
I agree. But it's not about the literal act of gazing, which is what your original post was referring to.
The literal act of gazing is what "the gaze" in the context of art is referring to, whether it's in media form or performed in real life. It makes no sense for "the gaze" to purely exist in the context of art, without some representation in the real world independent of art, given "the gaze" is a representation of an individual "gazing" at someone else due to their attraction. In modern contexts, it's clear criticism of "the gaze" is criticism of the objectification of women. It's argued that it's "harmful" in art, as it represents objectification of women.
> I agree. But it's not about the literal act of gazing, which is what your original post was referring to.
"The gaze" as a term in art, only exists because the act of checking someone out and objectifying them exists independent of the art context, and people have strong opinions about it. You cannot define "the gaze" without the concept of objectifying them in the real world as then, it wouldn't make any sense.
No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective.
> In modern contexts, it's clear criticism of "the gaze" is criticism of the objectification of women. It's argued that it's "harmful" in art, as it represents objectification of women.
Again, no. The male gaze is a specific term that refers to how women are portrayed in visual media.
Let's also keep in mind your example of the Sex Live of College Girls is 2 years old. The art used by this project is much much older. These time periods are not comparable.
You're clearly the one having an issue interpreting the project. The project is to interpret art pieces without the male gaze. You're trying to decouple the criticism of male objectification from the art piece which is completely laughable when the About section clearly criticizes male objectifcaiton.
> Again, no. The male gaze is a specific term that refers to how women are portrayed in visual media.
> Let's also keep in mind your example of the Sex Live of College Girls is 2 years old. The art used by this project is much much older. These time periods are not comparable.
Just because you say the male gaze is a specific term, and choose to ignore any sources that disagree with your definition that I linked, doesn't make it true. And now, suddenly the time period matters to your argument about the male gaze and the art project?
You're arguing because you can't accept the fact the project is 100% critiquing the male gaze . You're clearly biased, and that's fine, but you're running in circles and playing games of semantics because you can't accept when you're clearly wrong.
Now you’ve left another reply to the same comment, just more emotional this time.
The reason you aren’t seeing a reply link is because you’re trying to reply too fast and are getting rate limited. Instead of trying to get around it and post emotional responses, just patiently wait until the reply link shows up and then reply to my post directly. Please calm down, there’s no reason to get this upset.
Again, please don’t reply to this comment and start yet another thread. Reply to our existing thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34071819
"You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term."
Yet you claim I'm the one being emotional? Lol. Hypocrite much?
I guess somewhat's got to combat the egos and crackpots :-)
I don't think you're understanding my point. I clearly understand you want to use "the male gaze" purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don't agree that you can decouple the real world act of "gazing" with the art definition of "gazing".
Again, you're trying to decouple "the male gaze" from general objectification. I do not think you can, because then any criticism and the definition of "the male gaze" in the artistic sense becomes completely moot. Why would it matter if the gaze is different or there is no gaze for some art piece, so the end painting has the woman in a different position?
If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove "the male gaze", okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from "the male gaze" and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-male-gaze-5118422
> I clearly understand you want to use “the male gaze” purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don’t agree that you can decouple the real world act of “gazing” with the art definition of “gazing”.
This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition.
> Again, you’re trying to decouple “the male gaze” from general objectification.
Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition.
> If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove “the male gaze”, okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from “the male gaze” and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not.
No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”.
You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term.
So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms.
I'm not imposing my own definition, you're imposing a narrow definition which is fine, and I'm using a definition that is used in the colloquial sense, that even the Stanford Plato articles and other sources agree on. And I don't think you can decouple your definition, from the very act of gazing in the real world.
> Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition.
The definition from what source? I've linked a few sources, what source are you referring to? I've linked several sources of the definition, here's another:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...
"A manner of treating women's bodies as objects to be surveyed, which is associated by feminists with hegemonic masculinity, both in everyday social interaction and in relation to their representation in visual media: see also objectification."
> No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”.
> You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term.
I am not being dishonest here, the original project has commentary that is critique of the male gaze. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest.
> So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms.
The whole premise of the project is not only to view the art form from a "neutral perspective" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but to critique "the male gaze." From the very About section on the page:
"For decades, it has been discussed in which ways depictions of women in art... Laura Mulvey coins the term “The Male Gaze” back in 1975 in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema arguing how women in especially movies would be objectified and fetishized, empowering the male heterosexual movie-creator and male heterosexual audience."
This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct. And my initial statements in regards to there being examples of media objectifying men through a "female gaze" stands, hence the premise that the "male gaze" is a bad thing, is wrong.
> This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition.
I'm not imposing my own definition, you're imposing a narrow definition which is fine, and I'm using a definition that is used in the colloquial sense, that even the Stanford Plato articles and other sources agree on. And I don't think you can decouple your definition, from the very act of gazing in the real world.
> Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition.
The definition from what source? I've linked a few sources, what source are you referring to? I've linked several sources of the definition, here's another:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...
"A manner of treating women's bodies as objects to be surveyed, which is associated by feminists with hegemonic masculinity, both in everyday social interaction and in relation to their representation in visual media: see also objectification."
> No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”.
> You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term.
I am not being dishonest here, the original project has commentary that is critique of the male gaze. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest.
> So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms.
The whole premise of the project is not only to view the art form from a "neutral perspective" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but to critique "the male gaze." From the very About section on the page:
"For decades, it has been discussed in which ways depictions of women in art... Laura Mulvey coins the term “The Male Gaze” back in 1975 in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema arguing how women in especially movies would be objectified and fetishized, empowering the male heterosexual movie-creator and male heterosexual audience."
This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct. And my initial statements in regards to there being examples of media objectifying men through a "female gaze" stands, hence the premise that the "male gaze" is a bad thing, is wrong.
I think I see what the issue is. You are referring to male gaze, whereas I'm referring to Male Gaze. That's fine, but this project is about Male Gaze, or rather Female Gaze.
Male Gaze has a definition, and it does not include general objectification of women, which already has a term: objectification.
> The definition from what source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze
"In feminist theory, the male gaze is the act of depicting women and the world in the visual arts[2] and in literature[3] from a masculine, heterosexual perspective that presents and represents women as sexual objects for the pleasure of the heterosexual male viewer.[4] In the visual and aesthetic presentations of narrative cinema, the male gaze has three perspectives: (i) that of the man behind the camera, (ii) that of the male characters within the film's cinematic representations; and (iii) that of the spectator gazing at the image.[5][6]"
https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-male-gaz...
"The “gaze” is a term that describes how viewers engage with visual media. Originating in film theory and criticism in the 1970s, the gaze refers to how we look at visual representations. These include advertisements, television programs and cinema."
> I am not being dishonest here, the original project has commentary that is critique of the male gaze. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest.
Exactly. It is a critique of the Male Gaze, a term which has an established definition that does not include general objectification. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest.
> "For decades, it has been discussed in which ways depictions of women in art... Laura Mulvey coins the term “The Male Gaze” back in 1975 in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema arguing how women in especially movies would be objectified and fetishized, empowering the male heterosexual movie-creator and male heterosexual audience."
Did you notice that you just included the definition of male gaze from the person who coined the term, and it is the definition that I've been using?
> This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct.
Where did I claim they have no motive?
> And my initial statements in regards to there being examples of media objectifying men through a "female gaze" stands, hence the premise that the "male gaze" is a bad thing, is wrong.
Again, these paintings were created decades, or centuries before your examples of female gaze existed.
And you are now implying that if a female gaze exists, then a male gaze cannot be wrong? That's obviously a terrible conclusion.
I've been acknowledging your point of view, and now you finally acknowledge my perspective, instead of continuously ignoring it. Thank you.
> Did you notice that you just included the definition of male gaze from the person who coined the term, and it is the definition that I've been using?
Yes, you are using that definition, that doesn't mean everyone agrees of your interpretation as defined in the articles I linked. Not only that, you make assertions that the website's intent is only to view art pieces from a male gaze, when the About clearly has criticism towards male objectification. Why is the website not subject to criticism again, because you view that is no context?
> Where did I claim they have no motive?
You've continuously dismissed any criticism of the website. This is extremely obvious. First, you state that the website is merely trying to look at art pieces from a non-male gaze perspective. Then, when shown an About Me where there is criticism of the male perspective, you argue that the "male gaze" does not mean men checking out women. When presented with multiple definitions, you cherry-pick the Wikipedia one, ignore my arguments that assert that the "male gaze" can't be decoupled from the real world concept because then it wouldn't make any sense. And then you claim this whole time, you've actually understood what my and other's arguments against the website has been, despite prior dismissing everything we said.
> And you are now implying that if a female gaze exists, then a male gaze cannot be wrong? That's obviously a terrible conclusion.
Why is that a terrible conclusion? You've completely absolved all criticism of feminist thought. Why? Why do you think male sexuality is a bad thing but female sexuality expression is good? That sounds pretty sexist to me.
No problem, but the point is that your perspective doesn't apply to this project.
> Not only that, you make assertions that the website's intent is only to view art pieces from a male gaze, when the About clearly has criticism towards male objectification.
This is why I suggested in the other comment that you're getting emotional. I never asserted that. Didn't even imply it. This is completely made up.
> You've continuously dismissed any criticism of the website. This is extremely obvious.
If it's extremely obvious, then you should have problem quoting where I did that.
> First, you state that the website is merely trying to look at art pieces from a non-male gaze perspective.
Quote please.
> Then, when shown an About Me where there is criticism of the male perspective, you argue that the "male gaze" does not mean men checking out women.
It does not mean checking out women.
> When presented with multiple definitions, you cherry-pick the Wikipedia one
I presented two sources which both said the same thing. That's not what cherry picking means.
> ignore my arguments that assert that the "male gaze" can't be decoupled from the real world concept because then it wouldn't make any sense.
I'm ignoring it because it doesn't make sense. You're trying to tie two different things together that are separate concepts, and then blaming me for not agreeing with you.
> And then you claim this whole time, you've actually understood what my and other's arguments against the website has been, despite prior dismissing everything we said.
Quote please. It's not that I don't understand your argument. It's that your argument only works if you redefine what male gaze means. You can't redefine something that has an existing definition just because it suits your arguoment.
> Why is that a terrible conclusion?
So any bad thing that men do is no longer bad if women do it to? Is that a serious position? Haha.
> You've completely absolved all criticism of feminist thought.
Quote please.
> Why do you think male sexuality is a bad thing but female sexuality expression is good?
Quote please.
> That sounds pretty sexist to me.
If you can quote where I said male sexuality is bad, then that would be sexist. But you can't. Because I didn't.
This constant tactic of inventing things out of thin air is getting tired. Please stop.
This is an art piece so I think it's worth giving a lot of slack, even though imo it's very flawed in it's execution of it's base premise.
However, that meta decides to associate itself with things like this is a bigger problem. The quality required to traverse a controversial and loaded area like this isn't there and somebody at Meta should've known better.
I liked the controls, they are impressively intuitive. It could have more knobs, or more individual movement of the elements of the scene so that we could have even more flexibility.
I can't help but notice the bitterness associated with men in this piece though. It seems to indicate that men taint the image of women with an incomplete representations of their personhood when they manifest their "Male Gaze" into art.
Since I am one of those wretched beings I will defend my perspective: men of these times saw things worth preserving. You might not like it but that's not the point.
And it seems that we overloaded the servers with submissions or something because I got an error submitting my picture. It was a nice experience still.