Beauty and Sexism

Something I find really annoying is the idea that images of physically attractive women (large breasts, long legs etc) are seen as derogatory. WHY?

We see frumpy looking women and are told "this is what real women look like", I'm not so sure. Of course, not every woman is a supermodel, but of the two ideas I think that it's quite obvious which one women themselves would rather look like. Almost all women wear make up, because they want to look more attractive, it's a psychological thing. Both sexes try to look attractive though, it's just a lot more socially acceptable for women to be seen making an effort about it. A man who spends a long time doing his hair will be mocked for it (by women as well as men), and a man who wears make up will be openly laughed at or worse. But, at the same time, a guy with greesey hair and a bad complexion won't be seen in a favourable light either.

And what's worse is, people think that having attractive women in advertising and media is a bad thing, but the truth is, if ugly women sold things then they'd be on posters instead. As it is women don't aspire to look ugly and men don't aspire to have sex with ugly women, and we arn't brain washed that way, it's in our genes to seek out an attractive mate, we'd have to be brainwashed to think the opposite.

I just can't see WHY you'd want to go against all that and push the idea that attractive women should be excluded from media, personally I can't imagine anyone other than jealous femanists that would think like that.

Analysing my Wardrobe

People are made up of bits of things they like about other people and have pieced together. This idea works on a mental level but also more obviously on a asthetic level. We see people in films and think "I like that character, if I look like them maybe I'll be more like them and thus save the day, get the girl and be the hero".

So, I've decided to analyse my own attire, and see what that says about me.

I'll start at the bottom.

I'm wearing vans trainers, which are a brand that sponsors skateboarding. I used to skateboard, but stopped years ago, so I suppose I'm still trying to give the impression that I do skateboard; Skateboarders live life on the edge and are frequently injured, so they become quite hardy.

I'm also wearing odd socks, a grey one and a navy one, which I suppose shows that I just don't care about my appearance that much. They're only socks, I'm someone who can let the details slide provided the overall result is ok.

My jeans have a gaping hole in the left knee (it's always the left one first), are tattered at the bottom and smeared in paint. This could show people that I'm scruffy, so I don't care too much about my appearance, I'm the opposite of stuck up, I'm easy going, but possibly a bit of a scumbag. The paint could be read as paint or as just dirt, meaning people will either clock that I'm an artist or they'll think more along the scumbag lines.

I'm wearing a quicksilver t-shirt, this is another skateboarding brand, so again just the active hardy sort of skateboarder image. It doesn't carry a slogan or anything, so it doesn't make me look like someone who speaks out on things.

My hoody is a patchwork of purple, red, brown and orange paterned material. I've worn it a lot so it's become ragged at the edges, and the cuffs are in tatters. This hoody makes me look like a hippy, so I'm easy going, unlikely to cause a fight and probably smoke.

Lastly I wear glasses, not by choice, though I did choose which ones. I chose glasses that were less obvious, as I didn't want them to be a defining feature of my face, however people still automatically assume I'm clever because I wear them.

So, as a round up, I'm trying to portray the image that I'm a skateboarding, artist hippy who's easy going and not too fussed about his appearance.

Gillian Wearing and Victor Burgin

Probably Gillian Wearing's most famous works are the series of photographs called "Signs that say what you want them to say and not Signs that say what someone else wants you to say" which is where she's asked people to write something down on a piece of paper and then photographed them holding it, getting some interesting results when what people have written on the paper doesn't match up with how we would percieve them on the street.

This idea of the text jarring with the image can also be seen in Victor Burgin's "Today is the tomorrow you were promissed yesterday" were he takes the often poetic language of advertising and juxtaposes it against mundane urban photography. The problem with this for me is that because the image is so dull it almost lacks any impact, it's also a dreary idea; that life as it is portrayed in film, television and advertising is not the truth, and that your life will basically be boring. I know that good art is stuff that makes you think, but thoughts like that I'd sooner dismiss in favour of either a more positive thought, or if it is a negative thought at least one with a bit more impact.

Appropriation

Appropriation is basically where you take something from somewhere else and use it for your own purposes. It's an essential part of practicing art, because unless you live in a cave for your entire life, how can you not be influenced by the work of others? Just recently I finished an A0 piece for Illustration, where we were told to take the composition of a painting from a gallery and then use it as a basis for our own work. So I've appropriated someone elses composition.

But there are times when people appropriate to a much more obvious level, like Sherrie Levine's Gold Fountain, which is a replica of Duchamp's fountain only in gold. For me I just feel like what's the point in this piece of work, does the urinal really have more to say? The first time it was done fair enough, it had a point. But there's a reason that barely anyone has heard of the gold fountain compared to the original.

It could also be argued that the Chapman brothers have done some appropriation with their work with Goya's prints. Persoanlly, whenever I see these prints I just think they look defaced. If I had produced some work, and then someone else bought it and scribbled all over it, I'd be annoyed, and I wouldn't think they'd done something clever with my work, or that it was now their work, I'd think "they've just gone and scribbled all over my work!". So I think appropriation has a place for deffinite, but I'm not a fan of when it's just ripping off other peoples work.

Saul Bass

Saul Bass was a graphic designer who made film titles. He was one of the first people to make film titles interesting and worth showing, as prior to his opening titles for "The Man with the Golden Arm" most movie theatres didn't even bother showing the titles, but Preminger specifically said that they should show the titles as he felt they were an important part of the film.

I like how Bass's title sequences are quite simple, they don't overload you with information, and although looking at some of them on youtube I thought they look quite outdated, his style is still being appropriated, as can be seen with "Catch Me If You Can", which uses a very similar style. By using this style however it is easy to place when the film is set, as the way the characters look and how they're animated is in a 50s-60s style.

I think Saul Bass did a very valuable thing for films, as apart from trailers the opening credits are our first insight into what a film will be like, and is an important part of setting the tone.