CONCLUSION
The objectification of Josephine Baker that plays out in this project is demonstrated by the orchestration that takes place in the use of the pool as an “entertainment” centre, the selection of entry points into the pool and “pedestalisation” of the pool using structure. Later, the texts that attempt to criticise the project further objectify Josephine Baker by using “other”-ing words. The pool is the object of the guest’s gaze due to its structural and spatial hierarchy. The structure upholds the pool with pillars rising from the basement of the building. Spatially, it is also the core of the building, sitting in the central void of the house. A gallery of lounges and parlours sit on the lower floor of the pool. There are windows that allow the guest to see the pool from these rooms. The windows allow the voyeur to look upward as Miss Baker swimming in the pool. Light comes into the house through a skylight …show more content…
She is quarantined to specific parts of the house. The house is edited and cropped to support his cinematography. He forms her view of the house, her perception by holding her in from the servant’s spaces that are probably more gritty that the lounges and parlours that she passes through on her way to the reading rooms. His filmic framing supposes that her delicate sensibilities might not be able to handle the grittier servant’s spaces. This “protective” stance or shielding assumes that the woman is fragile, and weaker. The guest has more freedom to roam the building, from the servant’s spaces to the elegant reading rooms on the upper floors. The low windows on the facade do not keep Miss Baker’s privacy but contribute to keep in the treasure, spectacle within. The facade is ornamented which contradicts Loos’ own ideology of architecture. He marks her with black bands, tattooing her to show his
The objectification of Josephine Baker that plays out in this project is demonstrated by the orchestration that takes place in the use of the pool as an “entertainment” centre, the selection of entry points into the pool and “pedestalisation” of the pool using structure. Later, the texts that attempt to criticise the project further objectify Josephine Baker by using “other”-ing words. The pool is the object of the guest’s gaze due to its structural and spatial hierarchy. The structure upholds the pool with pillars rising from the basement of the building. Spatially, it is also the core of the building, sitting in the central void of the house. A gallery of lounges and parlours sit on the lower floor of the pool. There are windows that allow the guest to see the pool from these rooms. The windows allow the voyeur to look upward as Miss Baker swimming in the pool. Light comes into the house through a skylight …show more content…
She is quarantined to specific parts of the house. The house is edited and cropped to support his cinematography. He forms her view of the house, her perception by holding her in from the servant’s spaces that are probably more gritty that the lounges and parlours that she passes through on her way to the reading rooms. His filmic framing supposes that her delicate sensibilities might not be able to handle the grittier servant’s spaces. This “protective” stance or shielding assumes that the woman is fragile, and weaker. The guest has more freedom to roam the building, from the servant’s spaces to the elegant reading rooms on the upper floors. The low windows on the facade do not keep Miss Baker’s privacy but contribute to keep in the treasure, spectacle within. The facade is ornamented which contradicts Loos’ own ideology of architecture. He marks her with black bands, tattooing her to show his