Hey,
Soo... yeah. I realize that this is lame. This week I've found lots of old diaries that make me cringe. Except the one from when I was 7 and I thought I liked Leif Sorenson and knew I wanted to be an archaeologist.

So, I guess that's it for right now.
Kind of sad, you know?
-Courtney. 21 March 2008

Some of the issues that were brought to the surface were those of creating identity through photobiographies, postcolonialism and some women wanting to be the subject of this postcolonialist gaze, realizing the female body through photographs, society’s anxiety about differences in sexuality, and representation of the binary “underdogs�.

The first two themes dive into the idea of who is able to make feminist art. Since most of the book deals with self portraits in some way, it makes sense that the first section was about turning the camera back onto the artist. After all, I think feminism is focused frequently these days on simply making stories heard, and these first pieces of art were about doing just that. It also deals with the idea that photos are made, not taken. If it is true that photos are made, it makes sense that the next section is about creating identity through photos, and not just viewing an exact image or representation of an identity. I am from South Dakota so the topic of Native women in photography really stuck out to me. The presenters said that it was described as an art form accessible to these women, but oftentimes they are unable to create an identity outside the stereotype of their race and sex.

One interesting concept for me was the one of defying the post colonialist gaze. The first part of this chapter dealt with not merely the potential objectification of the subject in a photo, but of the desire to be photographed. I thought the idea of photographer and “subject� working together very interesting since theatre is a very much similar art with the director/designers and actors. I feel this would be a project worth exploring someday. Because of this new dynamic, the question is raised, “can they speak for themselves?� (meaning the subject in the photograph) If this can happen in the process for some, I think it certainly could be used in other photographic projects that may currently be objectifying or misrepresenting women (or anyone for that matter). The subject may finally have the chance to say “I control how you see me� and to rebel against the idea that photographs of a person perhaps of a subordinate race, sexuality, etc. are not for the dominant equivalent to use as a means of discovering themselves.

I am a little bit proud that before I read chapter 8 of Reframings that my main thoughts after hearing everyone’s summaries were about context or the “who�. It’s all well and good to be compiling this volume and taking leaps and bounds in the ideas and methods used by feminist artists, but who is allowed to take these photos and make some of these bold statements? I was happy to find that question posed in chapter 8 as well. Abigail Solomon-Godeau in her essay asks the question, “who is allowed to speak for whom?� I read work by the theorist she references, Foucault, and have been really struck by that question. At first I thought that maybe art could do something that essays and academia could not do, to represent one woman without blanketing the experience of all into one little box of oppressions. When I think of art telling a story, I know that it is from a point of view… the artists! And I know that part of their history is influencing the work that they do (and hopefully inspiring it in the case of self representation that this book seems to focus on). I hoped that maybe art could escape that blanket, but Solomon-Godeau doesn’t seem to think it can. She mentions that no matter whether the art is trying to show absolute truth or a metaphor for experience, that people will assume the piece of art speaks for all people of the same sex or race or gender or sexual orientation or any combination of these. The discursive constructions we have in our society simply won’t allow any binary “underdog� to speak. This delves into an idea we discussed in the postcolonialist gaze chapter of the book about “whiteness� being the invisible privilege to speak for and tell the stories of these others and have the privilege to be the “I� subject in art, literature, and countless other places.

The reason we read this volume together is really clear after having read the last chapter. Solomon-Godeau emphasizes the ability of women to represent individualism, but cautions against universalizing the experience of all those in the category of woman. We all experienced pieces of the book as we’ve all had different experiences as woman (plus whatever other baggage you come with). And I think that the first step is to put all the information in the center of the circle so that everyone knows as much as possible.

Ansel Adams isn't controversial like the photos we'll be looking at. He's pretty serene, which is what I love. The things I know about photography are that I like black and whites, and photos that bring the outdoors to me since I don't really like many outdoor activities. I am going to try really hard to understand the meanings in these feminist photographs, even though I think finding absolute meaning in art is really subjective. Like Judy Chicago telling her students that everyone should be able to tell what her piece is saying? Honestly? I don't think that is ever possible because of people like me.

So... hopefully I can find something in these photos close to how I relate to Ansel Adams so I can relate to these feminist artists as well.

(on getting lost in movies and self recognition) “The sense of forgetting the world as the ego has come to perceive it (I forgot who I am and where I was) is nostalgically reminiscent of that presubjective moment of image recognition.� (before you recognize your own image in the mirror)

Page 42: As the man identifies with the male protagonist as the leader and controller of that imaginary space, even if the woman is not displayed obviously as a sex object, if he possesses her, the entire audience (male spectator) possesses her in their relation to the male protagonist.

Cinema can shift the emphasis of “the look.� The place of the look defines cinema, the possibility of varying it and exposing it. This is what makes cinema quite different in its voyeuristic potential from, say, strip-tease, theatre, shows and so on. Going far beyond highlighting a woman’s to-be-looked-at-ness, cinema buildis the way she is to be looked at into the spectacle itself. Playing on the tension between film as controlling the dimension of time (editing, narrative) and film as controlling the dimension of space (changes in distance, editing), cinematic dcodes create a gaze, a world and an object, thereby producing an illusion cut to the measure of desire.

SECOND- E ANN KAPLAN
Women represent two things in cinema, according to Freud-

Voyeurism- linked to male pleasure in his own sexual organ transferred to pleasure in watching other people having sex. It is the desire of little boys to peep through keyholes, adult men look at films, the screen is framed just like the peep hole. Not only during sex scenes, but all views of women in cinema

Fetishism- men have dread that women may be their undoing. (this is found all over in literature) Men have a fear of castration, and without a phallis, this is what women represent, and why they are feared. To combat this fear men create fetish for women so that the feelings of fear and dread turn to feelings of pleasure

But have these two psychoanalyses been used as a tool to make women accept their place and roles in the lives of men?

Page 126: “If she [any woman] is to have sexual pleasure, it can only be constructed around her objectification; it cannot be a pleasure that comes from desire for the other (a subject position)- that is, her desire is to be desired.�

Most sexuality is expressed in dominant-submissive roles.

Even when the gaze is reversed and women are the ones making men the object, the woman then must take on a role that is dominant and removes all her caring, warm, motherly qualities. She must take on the Masculine role. Western society is very focused on having two sex different together. This benefits men because their desire usually carries power while a woman’s does not.

One way to fight this role as subject is to look at motherhood. In motherhood theories say that the mother is finding phallus in the child, or SELF in the child. But one interesting thing comes in single mother households. If there is no father for the woman to be the object of, and she is the subject for the child, new symbolic roles are created for that child.

One video that particularly sticks out in my memory is one we stumbled across in another GWSS class. While we were studying music videos we came across a video someone had made of their 6 year old sister doing the dance with the Pop Lock and Drop It music video. Apart from the fact that it's cringe-worthy that a 6 year old is already emulating behavior of sex "objects" on television... the thing that really bothers me is that her older sister got out the video camera and put it up on the internet for thousands of people to look at. If media is in her hands, it really scares me as to where it could go. Obviously we have the right to self expression and that video didn't directly harm or attack any particular person; but I still think that there is something worth thinking about.

How are we, as people who promote many different things but essentially the rights of women able to reach as many people as the crazy youtube videos and bloggers? If we join them on youtube and other accessible media, how could a 30 second video make that girl realize the objectification and sexism found in such a popular video?

I'm all for "not beating them, joining them" but it will take enormous amounts of creativity to become as appealing as the video with 27 million views in 1 year. Or the songs that play on the radio three times daily. I'm really excited for this class... it's an opportunity to do just that.