I've been studying art history practices and methodology for a change lately, and once again I find my thoughts contradicting with the one discipline I'd actually really like to agree with. Honestly, I would, but I just can't.
You probably guessed it already, but the branch of theory in question is feminism.

Although feminists are generally on a good mission - I mean, obviously I too would like to see professional people getting the same salary for the same work regardless of what they carry between their legs or inside their heads - they oddly often seem to be the ones to make the most wtf-level theories about certain phenomena. And art is definitely one of them.

One of the pet methods in the feminist practice of art history is adopting the term 'gaze' from psychoanalytical theorists and explain through this libido-driven way of looking how women have generally been objectified throughout the history of art and subjected to the active male gaze. Well, of course, the sheer amount of male painters and titles beginning with 'Naked Woman on...' from the 19th and the 20th century _does_ suggest that women tend to be seen as mere ornaments in the Western History of Art, I give you that... But protip: the 19th and 20th century are also a bloody tiny piece, merely a pebble in the sand mountain known as the World History of Art. Making definitions and generalizations about the way women are portrayed in all art just based on that small era is - at least to me - nothing but another proof of western hybris. Of course, the era in question, especially the 19th century, was/is one helluva important and interesting bit in the course of history - but I'd like to remind that it was this more in a scientific and social sense. Art-wise the era is hardly any more interesting than any of the many eras during tens of thousands of years, so no artistic phenomenona of that age should be considered somehow 'higher' in relation to the previous ones.

In fact, if you look at the whole known history of art, you don't have to look far - say, ancient Greek or Rome, the home of our Western culture - to see that all the ornaments (i.e. art that is meant to be looked at as mere pleasure-giving objects) is mainly composed of - you guessed it - male genitalia. And nearly always in positions and contexts that clearly suggest sexual intercourse. How's that for being passive and subjected to another, more dominating gaze? At the same time, women - the ones that are supposed to be always protrayed passively and subjected - are portrayed in contexts that suggest honour and respect (goddessess and such), and they are always to be looked up to, humbly. Of course, women were portrayed in the erotic context too, but not even nearly as ridiculous characters as men were. Some feminists take this as a sign of women being put aside ("I mean oh god they were enjailed inside their homes and had no role in the public life, too!!1" ... come on, being in control of one's own domus was a pretty sweet status at the time, and a man having no respect for his wife was a dumb man even at the time), but at least to me it is a sign of deep respect people have felt for the ladies.

I know I'm simplifying things myself a bit (/a lot) here, but all I want is this point to come across: people, regardless of what they indeed do carry between their legs or inside their brain, have always been totally able to look at one another and their own sex in this objectifying, sexualizing gaze. The fact that the focus of this gaze has moved to the prettier sex is to me nothing more than a curious phase that will probably pass as the history of art rolls by. At least I HOPE it will. I'd like to see more young men posing passively in works proclaimed as art.

- - -

Oh boy, it's waaaaay too late for entries like this... just had to get that out of my chest and move on with my thoughts before falling asleep. Sorry for the long silence in DA, folks! It seems I really can't get a grip on using this journal, and my artistic drive still can't get its lazy butt onto the drawing table either. My English is still a bit broken, so sorry for any horrible language abuse, and I hope I was making at least some sense... The question I've been talking about is a very touchy one, and I intend not to raise hell or anything. I know all art feminists do not agree with the gaze-theory, but the ones that do are enough to make me laugh in disbelief. It's a fascinating theory and I respect their motives, but I'd just like to point out every now and then that things could be seen from another point of view as well. I could rant about this for ages, it's a subject way too vast to be covered in one half-asleep-written entry like this.

The choice of emoticon is a bit weird (I don't think anyone would feel very dominative this tired...), but I thought it would fit the theme of dominative gazes nicely. Theehee.