Photography is the art of looking. This seems a neutral term but it is, in fact, weighted. Who, how and why all matter, especially in terms of dynamics. Though we often read of ‘the gaze’ in academic works, it is rarely objective or singular. One person’s honest gaze is another’s intimidating voyeurism. And while a muse may be objectified, they too gaze back. Photography may be the capturing of a moment of truth but it is never definitive. Every scene can be viewed from multiple angles and perspectives. What was happening out of shot? What was happening before and after?
Traditionally, the gaze has often been that of the older male artist studying and portraying a younger woman. The muse is simultaneously an elevating and constraining role. The subject may be painted as a goddess but in the manner of a bowl of fruit. Can we look at such scenes with a sense of innocence anymore? Perhaps not, possibly because it never entirely possessed innocence. We often gaze on what we desire or are repulsed by. Certainly, judgement is rarely far away. “You painted a naked woman because you enjoyed looking at her,” John Berger notes in Ways of Seeing, “put a mirror in her hand and you called the painting ‘Vanity,’ thus morally condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for you own pleasure.” While truthful, this point can, of course, be overstated. Desire can also be the desire to be desired and the individual portrayed possesses agency, even if the power dynamics are heavily lop-sided (when artists would employ sex-workers, for example, to sit for them).
No comments:
Post a Comment