Women as culture
Oct. 15th, 2005 11:06 am
Brian Eno—a man both refreshing and right, a rare combination—said in an interview about 15 years ago that it was important for him to have a studio in Kentish Town because it brought him into close contact with a stream of beautiful, fashionable young women, and that women were underestimated as cultural objects; it was just as important, Eno thought, to pay attention to the fashions and hairstyles of attractive women as to note what was playing at, well, the English National Opera (ENO). Perhaps more so.On the face of it, that doesn't seem like a very controversial stance. It seems semiotic, democratic, and slightly erotic; the comment of a man who loves women, and loves culture, and is prepared to see women—or at least the strangers passing by his door—as culture. The logical extension of this is that one would "review" women, or the cultural signifiers they display, in exactly the same way as one reviews, say, a classic record by Caetano Veloso. And of course newspapers and blogs do this; papers have fashion coverage, and back in August I ended my Click Opera Beauty Week with a paen to the beauty of a girl called Nine.
Well, today I'd like to tell you that it's had a significant impact on the quality of my week to discover that Kumi Okamoto of Paris-based band Konki Duet has grown her hair long, as you can see from the photo above, where she's modelling a raw silk blouse from Paris Chinatown company Hoaly (reduced from €25 to just €16, hurry hurry!).
Of course, treating women as culture is problematical. Here are some of the problems, abstracted from complaints that arose when I "reviewed" Nine (not from Nine herself, mind you, but from "feminist" male friends of hers):
1. Women are cultural, of course, but they're not just culture. They're people too!
My response: But of course culture isn't just culture either. It's people too, and when you review it you hurt or help people.
2. How can you, as a man, distinguish your aesthetic appreciation of a woman from your sexual appreciation of her?
My response: I can't. The pleasure parts of our brains are so intimately connected with bodily pleasures—our appetites for sex and food—that it's silly to even try to disentangle the aesthetic from the sensual. But please don't assume I'm trying to seduce every woman I express appreciation of.
3. The woman may not like to be appreciated, and your girlfriend may not like you to speak about your admiration for other women!
My response: This argument comes from men, not from the women I'm "reviewing" and not from my girlfriend, who's quite capable of discussing the beauty of other women with me. The women in question have posted images of themselves in public places, seeking aesthetic admiration... as we all do. It makes the world a better place.
4. You're paying too much attention to how people look, and not enough to how they are inside!
My response: If you look at 2, you'll see that I don't dissociate the aesthetic and the sensual. Similarly, I tend to be endorsing what people do as well as how they look. Kumi, for instance, has made really wonderful pop records with Konki Duet, Shinsei, Crazy Curl, and so on. What's more, beauty (and this is something you can't see in photographs) is also about a way of being. I've known Kumi as a friend since 2001, and her way of being is simple (she works in a bakery), virtuous, sincere, serious, and slightly ingenue. These, along with things like body posture, voice, and so on, all add to the effect. Body and soul can't, in the end, be separated, and nor can a person's outside be detached from her inside, her surface from her depth.
5. Your "appreciation" might sit better in France or Japan than Britain or America, and might sit better in the 60s than now.
My response: You might be right there. One of the things that most marks one epoch from another, and one culture from another, is the way men relate to women. One of the most interesting parts of the discussion between curator Philippe Vergne and Atelier Bow-wow's Yoshiharu Tsukamoto linked from Thursday's comments section is when they talk about Yoshiharu's impressions of walking around Minneapolis, and how it compares with Tokyo. The main difference is sexuality: in Tokyo sexuality is open, on the surface, whereas in Minneapolis it's hidden, sublimated. Perhaps this explains, they speculate, why architecture made in Japan (and Europe) is more social, architecture made in America more psychological.
The kind of objections I'm rebutting here tend to come from Anglo-Saxon men, speaking, with what they think is a "feminist" mindset, on behalf of women they claim to be defending. I wonder, though, if this sort of "feminism" isn't part of the problem, not the solution. It comes from a culture where women are treated as private property, born with the names of their fathers, taking the names of their husbands, disappearing from circulation. This cautionary attitude to their public celebration might even be a kind of "veiling" of women, a desire to exclude them from the cultural process, to rule their sexuality or beauty out-of-order as a cultural signifier.
These problems arise more often in Anglo-Saxon cultures (you'll search English-language blogs in vain for the celebratory, non-sexist vagina seen on Toog's blog this week, for instance) because what poses here as feminism is actually a post-protestant, puritan attitude to women and to beauty. You see it when rockist music fans talk about music made by attractive women, and insist that the music's all that matters, or that attractiveness must somehow equate with superficiality, a link you could find pretty much anywhere, but I most recently found on Marxy's blog in a comment about Relax magazine. "For those worried about the current state of subcultural sophistication in Japanese youth culture," he said sarcastically, "you'll be happy to know the new issue of Relax is dedicated to that eternal source of depth and artistic inspiration: modeling." Somehow I think Brian Eno wouldn't be sneering; he wouldn't see a magazine about modeling as in any way diminishing subcultural sophistication. I'm with Eno; "Sometimes I think that Japanese hairdressers are generating more basic new forms than pop stars," I told Modern Painters magazine in 2003.No apologies at all, then. Click Opera will continue to endorse beautiful women just as it endorses beautiful music, architecture, design and art. Some of which—unsurprisingly, really—also happens to be made by beautiful women.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 09:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 09:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-15 01:10 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-15 12:45 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-15 07:06 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-15 11:08 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-16 07:01 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-17 06:58 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-22 05:01 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-22 05:08 am (UTC) - Expanddeedle deedle tweep
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-23 11:08 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 10:09 am (UTC)During the scene where a drunken, awestruck Shimaru and his friend watch an exotic dancer- the friend says:
"That isn't art, that's something greater. Greater and more direct than art"
finish the quote...
Date: 2005-10-15 04:06 pm (UTC)best,
r.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 10:10 am (UTC)I agree with the premise that the intentional aspects of personal appearance are a legit manifestation of culture, and better yet, one that's about as pervasive and democratic as you can get. And I agree that the erotic is a legitimate source of inspiration.
What may have been "creepy" about your stance is the way these two premises are melded: Since it's specifically women rather than "interestingly dressed people" that are being "reviewed", the primary criteria for these reviews seem to be erotic, which cover both the aspects of their bodies/way of life that they can't change as well as the aspects that they can and have. Effectively, they're reviews of people rather than personal expression.
While I don't think it's strictly necessary or important to separate your aesthetic and your erotic response, it is important to keep separate the aspects of appearance/presentation that are intentional from the ones that aren't. I think most people would say that hairstyles (pubic ones, even), dress, body modifications or even an openly erotic performance are fitting subjects of review, most would balk at the idea of a review of (rather than aesthetic/erotic appreciation of) a woman's vagina.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 10:19 am (UTC)Isn't saying you shouldn't judge things people can't help a bit like saying "Homosexuality is genetic, so they can't help it, so we shouldn't condemn it. If it's an act of free choice, though, it's bad!"
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 10:34 am (UTC)I don't think it's necessary to refrain from comment on anything at all, but there is a distinction to be made between a review and an aesthetic appraisal. Whether or not one can actually untangle the intentionality of some phenomenon, a review (at least as I've seen the word used) assumes a creator or creators and a series of intentional acts, even if they are simply there to frame an unintentional or automatic process.
While one can comment on the aesthetic virtues/faults of a vagina or even a cloud formation, writing a review of a vagina seems to me as absurd as reviewing the constellations in the night sky.
(no subject)
From:Reviewing The Elements
From:Re: Reviewing The Elements
From:Re: Reviewing The Elements
From:Re: Reviewing The Elements
From:Re: Reviewing The Elements
From:Re: Reviewing The Elements
From:Re: Reviewing The Elements
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-16 06:59 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Re: an aesthetic review of your aesthetic review
Date: 2005-10-15 11:09 am (UTC)Re: an aesthetic review of your aesthetic review
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-15 04:07 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: I might delete this comment
Date: 2005-10-15 11:26 am (UTC)Re: I might delete this comment
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 11:16 am (UTC)I especially liked the way you provoked me to think about the dichotomies of aesthetic vs sexual appreciation and psychological vs social ways of being, among other things.
I love beautiful women too, even though I'm pretty much a straight female. In my sincere opinion, I find in general that women are more aesthetically appealing than men in general.
SWF seeks sights
Date: 2005-10-15 11:37 am (UTC)(Thongs - now that's something to be offended by, as champion of ergonomics)
Re: SWF seeks sights
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-15 11:47 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: SWF seeks sights
From:Re: SWF seeks sights
From:Re: SWF seeks sights
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 11:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 11:56 am (UTC)hohoho
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-15 09:47 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: hohoho
From:Re: hohoho
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-16 12:43 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: hohoho
From:Re: hohoho
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-18 12:54 am (UTC) - ExpandBad form
From:Re: Bad form
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-16 12:21 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Bad form
From:Re: Bad form
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-18 12:52 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Bad form
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-18 09:14 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Bad form
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-20 05:10 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 11:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 01:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 12:17 pm (UTC)Lot of people's don't want to be judged on their appearance. As a short, fat, balding, ugly male I'm frequently wishing people woud manage to be less obsessed with appearances.
There's also something around luck versus achievement here. Being judged on music, architecture, design and art you've made is being judged on sometthing you've achieved, whereas appearance is genetic (good or bad) luck.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 07:35 pm (UTC)Perhaps, but having anything you've designed reach anyone substantial enough to judge it publicly (with any substantial result) is at the very least 50% luck.
And art itself always involves a healthy dose of luck, though I wouldn't dare try to estimate such a thing...
a pretty girl is like a minstrel show.
Date: 2005-10-15 12:34 pm (UTC)And I have an eye for a maid
I link a pretty girlie
With each pretty tune that's played
They go together like sunny weather
Goes with the month of May
I've studied girls and music
So I'm qualified to say:
A pretty girl is like a melody
That haunts you night and day
Just like the strain of a haunting refrain
She'll start upon a marathon
And run around your brain
You can't escape, she's in your memory
By morning, night and noon
She will leave you and then come back again
A pretty girl is just like a pretty tune
Re: a pretty girl is like a minstrel show.
Date: 2005-10-15 12:43 pm (UTC)Re: a pretty girl is like a minstrel show.
From:Re: a pretty girl is like a minstrel show.
From:art relieves constipation
Date: 2005-10-15 01:38 pm (UTC)"VIEWING and discussing art not only soothes the soul, it also helps cure ills like high blood pressure and constipation, a Swedish researcher said today."
Paparazzi on the building site
Date: 2005-10-15 02:16 pm (UTC)Maybe like Renee Zelwegger last week at the New York Times offices, she'll show up unexpectedly outside Momus Corp to give you a piece of her mind? Perhaps, if some terrible road accident befell her, we'd all turn against you for hounding her throughout her blameless life, but still keep reading the journal all the same?
I think the most irksome thing about your whole project here - which I'm cheerfully participating in - is that there's something sinister about engaging with beauty in such an intellectual way. It's the cleverclogs intellectual version of Hot Tub Ranking (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds24219.html) on Channel Five.
Re: Paparazzi on the building site
Date: 2005-10-15 02:27 pm (UTC)2. Germaine Greer: "Women spend the first half of their lives being faintly irritated that everyone's looking at them, and the second half of their lives faintly irritated that no-one is."
3. "Granny was a great beauty in her day, people used to blog about her, you know."
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 02:26 pm (UTC)(And, though I really do love Minneapolis, I must say that "sublimated sexuality" is a fair assessment of the culture in general. "Polite" is another. I have never felt that I had to brandish weapons in public to keep from being harrassed (http://www.livejournal.com/users/alisgray/4243.html) in the street, a thing I can't say was true in ABQ. I am sad to say I haven't been to Tokyo.)
If the beauty that you're reviewing is not just sexuality, why not review beautiful men as well?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 02:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 02:28 pm (UTC)There's a tendency toward cultural conditioning against objectivity--particularly as a way to form, balance, and implement morality.
ie "pornography is bad because it objectifies women as sex objects--don't watch it"
(nevermind the men !).
"hate the models because they objectify women and beauty--models have no substance and do drugs".
....therein fear of objectification creates a form of censorship.
so, as a woman, my first knee-jerk reaction to reading "women as cultural objects is anger. afterall, i have literally been fighting objectification since i was shat out of the womb.
but as i've grown i find objectification erotic, and, ultimately, inevitable.
i do not want to be hidden--and through this "censorship" (fear of objectivity), i'm, in turn, more objectified than being admired for any beauty i might possess ("inside" or "out"...)
you said it best here:
"This cautionary attitude to their public celebration might even be a kind of "veiling" of women, a desire to exclude them from the cultural process, to rule their sexuality or beauty out-of-order as a cultural signifier."
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 02:33 pm (UTC)when you think of culture ultimately being created by men;
and then women (or rather...the way we "are"..i apologize for the grand generalization), being a result of that creation...
that does bother me.
i assumed that the reason why there is an extreme inbalance in this conversation about "men as cultural objects" is because...men create the objects--so to speak.
call me indecisive,
but i empathize with both sides of the spectrum.
as a woman....and as an object.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 02:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 02:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-16 04:08 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 03:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 03:11 pm (UTC)im not offended by a degree of objectification.
but i am not a possession.
i see there is a distinct difference.
i do not believe momus views women as objects to be obtained.
actually, he said--"I wonder, though, if this sort of "feminism" isn't part of the problem, not the solution. It comes from a culture where women are treated as private property, born with the names of their fathers, taking the names of their husbands, disappearing from circulation. "
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 03:17 pm (UTC)What about old, fat and women who do not meet your aesthetic critera? Are they just not players anymore?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 03:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-15 08:44 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 03:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 03:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-15 04:00 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 05:30 pm (UTC)Picking up 'or's and placing 'and's in their place,
W
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 05:38 pm (UTC)http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/style/tmagazine/t_b_2122_talk_jolie_laide_.html
W
I vacillate
Date: 2005-10-15 06:57 pm (UTC)be ashamed of who I am; being a
U.S. citizen (swimming pools, witch-hunters,
long shadows, movie stars) I need a good
"reminding" once in a while.
Robotar tries to connect your views as
leading to war crimes ("There's a reason why
women are raped un masse during war and I don't
think it's simple sexual frustration") It's
interesting that, living in Germany, you must
pick up on some of the cultural guilt associated
with WWII.
I vacillate--am I perpetuating steotypes by
simply having a "relaxed" view that opens the
door to horrifying war atrocities? Though the
the better part of me finds that idea
ridiculous, my Catholic upbringing and my
cultural back-story (in general) makes letting go of "false
gulit" a seemingly intractable problem.
"Life and death are just things that you do
when you're bored" --John Cale- "Fear Is a Man's
Best Friend"
Mike Z.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 07:05 pm (UTC)Women of both intellectual and sexual prowess shape culture, and forsooth, have throughout history. It was discovered relatively recently that pregnancy is not the product of woman's spontaneous will, so there's naturally a residual reverence surrounding the fairer sex. Ostensibly, the female is now original sin, but at heart we all know that we're life's locus. Would there be literature if not for the exquisite grace and beauty of women? Fine arts? Grandmother hypothesis aside, would we even have "culture"?
One of the best positions a woman can be in now is that which endows her with the East/West enigma. Namely, being half-Japanese or a Japanese woman living in a Western country. I exploit it regularly.
New Historicist-based feminism is nonsense, garbage. Piffle, twaddle, and rot. Complete drivel.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 09:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-16 04:17 pm (UTC)To give an example of how depressing this is as a fact of life, I would say that, although I am really rather unattractive physically (and probably in many other ways) that still doesn't make me more drawn to having relationships with unattractive people. It's just a tragedy and nothing more, one of nature's hideous practical jokes, and even if art must, to some extent celebrate sexual beauty, I think it should not claim that there is something 'healthy' or 'positive' about the whole thing. It should be open to the tragedy of beauty, and only then can it begin to comprehend the compassion that leads to an appreciation of beauty beyond the sexual.
Yes, I do favour agape over eros.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-16 10:45 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:Inequality, not beauty
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-16 05:34 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Inequality, not beauty
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-10-16 06:01 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Inequality, not beauty
From:attractiveness..."Luck not skill"
From:Re: attractiveness..."Luck not skill"
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-15 10:04 pm (UTC)We should love, sexualize, objectify women, but not when the pores of their faces have been airbrushed out and they become doll nightmares.