Reflection 15/03/21: This upcoming period until beginning of Jan was an experimental period, I felt confused with where to go next with film but this helped me zone into projection into the aspects of Mulvey’s essay of the male gaze I was more passionate about.
I wanted to bring my concept back to basics as Mulvey believed women were “displayed for the gaze and enjoyment of men” (Mulvey, 1973, p 64)/sexual objects for the opposite sex to both observe and use. I have previously discussed Mulvey’s research was gathered from all male theorist – she used their theories and rewrote it in regards to the display of women in cinema and daily life, through a female POV. Mulvey uses psychoanalysis to explore the way the cinema is presented and how there was “socially established interpretations of sexual difference which controls images” (Mulvey, 1973, p 57) during that time, between male and female – the male having the control. Is this still relevant?
Reflection 14/03/21: YES! Especially in regards to Sarah Everard, killed by a man who used his power of a police man to kill her, this is slightly different but carries the same aspect, men use their power/patriarchy and hierarchy to control, and even kill.
Visual Pleasures and Narrative Cinema
Mulvey refers to Sigmund Freud’s theory of castration anxiety where “women stand in a patriarchal culture as signifier for the male other” (Mulvey, 2973, p58). Uses Freud’s theory to discover her own, does she believe in Freud’s Penis Envy theory? It’s unsure but it’s something that was brought into the cinema.
Sexual objectification by Mulvey shows the way women are seen as less than and used for the males benefit, both sexually and domestically as this was a clear visual through the female gaze. Mulvey created this essay to speak out for women who were frustrated being under the patriarchal structure of men as “it is said that analysing pleasure, or beauty, destroys it. This is the intent of this article” (Mulvey, 1973, p 59). The cinema is “the satisfying manipulation of visual pleasure” (Mulvey, 1973, p 59), as it what is shown on the cinema is not a true representation of reality – much like what is seen in the mirror as well as online. Mulvey speaks how the cinema is “offers a number of possible pleasures” (Mulvey, 1973, p 59) for the male. She uses the cinema in her exploration of women being portrayed as objects of desires to watch… For MEN. This has been described in response to my work previously.
Reflection 15/03/21: To Bite explores this imagery of women being isolated and sexualised on the screen and in daily life, a singular icing breast representing women as a treat, being bitten and chewed, destroyed by a male.
“The determining male gaze projects its fantasy onto the female figure” (Mulvey, 1973, p 64), like women are given this role to exhibited and looked at, which Mulvey called “to-be-looked-at-ness” (Mulvey, 1973, p 64). “She is isolated, glamorous, on display, sexualised” (Mulvey, 1973, p 64) the story of the cinema always left the women falling in love with the male, therefore becoming “his property” (Mulvey, 1973, p 64) its as though films were trying to continue this patriarchal role onto it’s viewer by glamorising it. My work has been questioned if I am destroying this visual? Or addressing it?
“The cinema seperates the illusion of voyeuristic separation” (Mulvey, 1973, p 64). The viewers feel as though they’re looking in at something without being noticed. Projection was very successful in my CUBED (see below) exhibition and with the use of the bodies gazing back, the viewers said they felt they were being watched while they watched. I aim to alert the viewer that they are being watched, much like how I did with CUBED.
I aim to develop projection further to highlight the voyeurism that comes along with the female form, to evoke emotions of being uncomfortable, the way women feel when being under the control of the male gaze.
Reflection 15/03/21: This was successful reference to my 1-1 with Catinca, what is now worse, the male gaze or the male gaze through the female gaze? This was what was explored within Just a Nibble or Two & To Bite – how will it appear further when it’s projected?
I wanted to address Mulvey’s approach to the camera. It has been described that the camera lens, initially is another form of an eye and the gaze, except this gaze captures everything it sees. “The camera becomes the mechanism for producing an illusion” (Mulvey, 1973, p 68). The lens holds a permanent outlook of that moment in time. If the camera moves, the audience feel as though their eyes are moving. For a male audience it questions if it has only encouraged more sexual objectification by replicating the visual they see in the cinema of a women, in real life. And self surveillance for women due to this objectification of their gender.
I want to address this sexualisation of women’s in my practice creates a clear visual for the viewers to show what it’s like to be a women, showing the effects of a ‘simple’ act of the male gaze upon the female form. I can’t ignore the recognition of other views, always going to be different interpretation, the way they are displayed changes the visual even further. But it’s important to find a clear visual for my concept for me to address what I am trying to explore.
