Objectification is a term often used to describe how women are seen not as beings but as things. As John Berger describes in “Ways of Being,” women have historically been objectified by men. Much literature and academic essays have been written about the objectification of women; however, we can also see gendered politics in new media and art, as in Laurie Simmons’ new exhibition at the Jewish Museum, “How We See.” The exhibit explores how women are identified internally and externally, and how they are seen through both the male and female gaze. The exhibit and her photographs are unique and thought-provoking.
As we walk into the small but stately room where her exhibit hangs, one cannot feel anything but peculiar when we see the photos that hang on the wall. There are six portrait photos of six different beautiful women, each adorned with the same makeup and each with almost the same blank, large bright eyes; but something seems off. Upon closer inspection, we can see that the eyes are not the women’s real eyes, but instead, they are painted on the model’s eyelid. Because of the simple pose, and the seemingly serene faces of the women in the photographs, the eyes seem even more jarring and alert; the whites of their eyes are prominent against the bright background. The effect is startling. With each step closer, the photograph becomes less life-like and more like a painting, each pixel blends into the next and it becomes almost kaleidoscopic. It at once makes us question our surroundings, and our initial impression of both the photograph and the woman. The photos allow the viewer to reflect upon what identity means and how rapidly our ideas of each woman change as we examine her from different angles. For the women themselves, we could imagine them with their “eyes wide shut,” as they put their best impression forward, as in a high school photograph, while still unable to see who they really are and what impression they make upon the viewer. They also allow the photographer to photograph them for consumption while essentially being blind to their surroundings. Because of these factors, the photographs appear both intimate and distant. The viewer is unable to relate to the woman, as the woman, blinded, is unable to relate to the viewer. It feels almost voyeuristic. The museum’s brochure describes Simmons’ inspiration for her “How We See” series as deriving from Japanese Doll Girls, or as some call them, Living Dolls, Kawaii, or cosplay girls and their relation to social media. The term “Doll Girls,” is self-explanatory—it describes women who dress up using makeup, plastic surgery, small wardrobes, camera tricks and photo editing to represent what a beautiful woman is supposed to be—a walking, living, breathing, toy doll; an object available for use and consumption. It is well-known in this world that the girls paint eyes on their eyelids so their eyes look larger and more “doll-like.” Unlike a yearbook portrait, which these poses resemble, the Doll Girls trade their pictures not with their peers directly, but through social media. There are fan pages, YouTube channels, Tumblrs, Instagrams and other various websites and applications devoted to …show more content…
Doll Girls promote unattainable beauty standards as much as they demand the male gaze. As John Berger points out in “Ways of Being,” women have often been considered an object of the male; men are the surveyor and women are the surveyed. In other words, men look at women and women watch men looking at them. In fact, a woman is forced to be self-conscious in the presence of men, simply because men have always been in a position of hierarchical power. In this way, Doll Girls are only further enforcing this boundary between the surveyor and the surveyed. They do nothing to combat this objectification, which feminism has so long fought against. In fact, they promote the female’s self-conscious experience towards their bodies. Their hyper-sexualized image and appearance echo the typical male desire in a female sexual partner, (desires which are often completely fantasy-based). Doll Girls do not only objectify themselves, but also, the female experience, as they promote the unreal beauty standards set forth by centuries of male
As we walk into the small but stately room where her exhibit hangs, one cannot feel anything but peculiar when we see the photos that hang on the wall. There are six portrait photos of six different beautiful women, each adorned with the same makeup and each with almost the same blank, large bright eyes; but something seems off. Upon closer inspection, we can see that the eyes are not the women’s real eyes, but instead, they are painted on the model’s eyelid. Because of the simple pose, and the seemingly serene faces of the women in the photographs, the eyes seem even more jarring and alert; the whites of their eyes are prominent against the bright background. The effect is startling. With each step closer, the photograph becomes less life-like and more like a painting, each pixel blends into the next and it becomes almost kaleidoscopic. It at once makes us question our surroundings, and our initial impression of both the photograph and the woman. The photos allow the viewer to reflect upon what identity means and how rapidly our ideas of each woman change as we examine her from different angles. For the women themselves, we could imagine them with their “eyes wide shut,” as they put their best impression forward, as in a high school photograph, while still unable to see who they really are and what impression they make upon the viewer. They also allow the photographer to photograph them for consumption while essentially being blind to their surroundings. Because of these factors, the photographs appear both intimate and distant. The viewer is unable to relate to the woman, as the woman, blinded, is unable to relate to the viewer. It feels almost voyeuristic. The museum’s brochure describes Simmons’ inspiration for her “How We See” series as deriving from Japanese Doll Girls, or as some call them, Living Dolls, Kawaii, or cosplay girls and their relation to social media. The term “Doll Girls,” is self-explanatory—it describes women who dress up using makeup, plastic surgery, small wardrobes, camera tricks and photo editing to represent what a beautiful woman is supposed to be—a walking, living, breathing, toy doll; an object available for use and consumption. It is well-known in this world that the girls paint eyes on their eyelids so their eyes look larger and more “doll-like.” Unlike a yearbook portrait, which these poses resemble, the Doll Girls trade their pictures not with their peers directly, but through social media. There are fan pages, YouTube channels, Tumblrs, Instagrams and other various websites and applications devoted to …show more content…
Doll Girls promote unattainable beauty standards as much as they demand the male gaze. As John Berger points out in “Ways of Being,” women have often been considered an object of the male; men are the surveyor and women are the surveyed. In other words, men look at women and women watch men looking at them. In fact, a woman is forced to be self-conscious in the presence of men, simply because men have always been in a position of hierarchical power. In this way, Doll Girls are only further enforcing this boundary between the surveyor and the surveyed. They do nothing to combat this objectification, which feminism has so long fought against. In fact, they promote the female’s self-conscious experience towards their bodies. Their hyper-sexualized image and appearance echo the typical male desire in a female sexual partner, (desires which are often completely fantasy-based). Doll Girls do not only objectify themselves, but also, the female experience, as they promote the unreal beauty standards set forth by centuries of male