3 ms·

The male gaze is a representation of male attraction towards women in art. In my original post, I clearly state there ARE representations of female "gaze"/attra

The male gaze is a representation of male attraction towards women in art. In my original post, I clearly state there ARE representations of female "gaze"/attraction of men, such as various female shows like The Sex Lives of College Girls. You're performing a strawman or being overly pedantic and dishonest, when my original post clearly states female gaze/attraction of men in the context of art, a TV show. Whether you like it or not, the gaze is in the context of film and not just static art.

PierceJoy 4y ago
> You're performing a strawman or being overly pedantic and dishonest, when my original post clearly states female gaze/attraction of men in the context of art, a TV show. That's not true. The first two sentences in your first post: > Has the creator never been to a gym full of attractive men with fit bodies, and observed women oogling at the men? Has the creator never observed how straight women will oogle at men with handsome faces? What you are describing is the literal act of gazing. Your next two sentences are about media, but still mostly about the act of gazing. They had nothing to do with how men are portrayed by women directors, which would be the actual female gaze. > Whether you like it or not, the gaze is in the context of film and not just static art. I agree. But it's not about the literal act of gazing, which is what your original post was referring to.
- ablatt89 4y ago
  > What you are describing is the literal act of gazing. Your next two sentences are about media, but still mostly about the act of gazing. They had nothing to do with how men are portrayed by women directors, which would be the actual female gaze. The literal act of gazing is what "the gaze" in the context of art is referring to, whether it's in media form or performed in real life. It makes no sense for "the gaze" to purely exist in the context of art, without some representation in the real world independent of art, given "the gaze" is a representation of an individual "gazing" at someone else due to their attraction. In modern contexts, it's clear criticism of "the gaze" is criticism of the objectification of women. It's argued that it's "harmful" in art, as it represents objectification of women. > I agree. But it's not about the literal act of gazing, which is what your original post was referring to. "The gaze" as a term in art, only exists because the act of checking someone out and objectifying them exists independent of the art context, and people have strong opinions about it. You cannot define "the gaze" without the concept of objectifying them in the real world as then, it wouldn't make any sense.
  - PierceJoy 4y ago
    > The literal act of gazing is what "the gaze" in the context of art is referring to, whether it's in media form or performed in real life. No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective. > In modern contexts, it's clear criticism of "the gaze" is criticism of the objectification of women. It's argued that it's "harmful" in art, as it represents objectification of women. Again, no. The male gaze is a specific term that refers to how women are portrayed in visual media. Let's also keep in mind your example of the Sex Live of College Girls is 2 years old. The art used by this project is much much older. These time periods are not comparable.
    - ablatt89 4y ago
      > No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective. You're clearly the one having an issue interpreting the project. The project is to interpret art pieces without the male gaze. You're trying to decouple the criticism of male objectification from the art piece which is completely laughable when the About section clearly criticizes male objectifcaiton. > Again, no. The male gaze is a specific term that refers to how women are portrayed in visual media. > Let's also keep in mind your example of the Sex Live of College Girls is 2 years old. The art used by this project is much much older. These time periods are not comparable. Just because you say the male gaze is a specific term, and choose to ignore any sources that disagree with your definition that I linked, doesn't make it true. And now, suddenly the time period matters to your argument about the male gaze and the art project? You're arguing because you can't accept the fact the project is 100% critiquing the male gaze . You're clearly biased, and that's fine, but you're running in circles and playing games of semantics because you can't accept when you're clearly wrong.
      - PierceJoy 4y ago
        You already replied to this comment here: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34070812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34070812) Now you’ve left another reply to the same comment, just more emotional this time. The reason you aren’t seeing a reply link is because you’re trying to reply too fast and are getting rate limited. Instead of trying to get around it and post emotional responses, just patiently wait until the reply link shows up and then reply to my post directly. Please calm down, there’s no reason to get this upset. Again, please don’t reply to this comment and start yet another thread. Reply to our existing thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34071819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34071819

PierceJoy 4y ago

> You're performing a strawman or being overly pedantic and dishonest, when my original post clearly states female gaze/attraction of men in the context of art, a TV show. That's not true. The first two sentences in your first post: > Has the creator never been to a gym full of attractive men with fit bodies, and observed women oogling at the men? Has the creator never observed how straight women will oogle at men with handsome faces? What you are describing is the literal act of gazing. Your next two sentences are about media, but still mostly about the act of gazing. They had nothing to do with how men are portrayed by women directors, which would be the actual female gaze. > Whether you like it or not, the gaze is in the context of film and not just static art. I agree. But it's not about the literal act of gazing, which is what your original post was referring to.

ablatt89 4y ago
> What you are describing is the literal act of gazing. Your next two sentences are about media, but still mostly about the act of gazing. They had nothing to do with how men are portrayed by women directors, which would be the actual female gaze. The literal act of gazing is what "the gaze" in the context of art is referring to, whether it's in media form or performed in real life. It makes no sense for "the gaze" to purely exist in the context of art, without some representation in the real world independent of art, given "the gaze" is a representation of an individual "gazing" at someone else due to their attraction. In modern contexts, it's clear criticism of "the gaze" is criticism of the objectification of women. It's argued that it's "harmful" in art, as it represents objectification of women. > I agree. But it's not about the literal act of gazing, which is what your original post was referring to. "The gaze" as a term in art, only exists because the act of checking someone out and objectifying them exists independent of the art context, and people have strong opinions about it. You cannot define "the gaze" without the concept of objectifying them in the real world as then, it wouldn't make any sense.
- PierceJoy 4y ago
  > The literal act of gazing is what "the gaze" in the context of art is referring to, whether it's in media form or performed in real life. No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective. > In modern contexts, it's clear criticism of "the gaze" is criticism of the objectification of women. It's argued that it's "harmful" in art, as it represents objectification of women. Again, no. The male gaze is a specific term that refers to how women are portrayed in visual media. Let's also keep in mind your example of the Sex Live of College Girls is 2 years old. The art used by this project is much much older. These time periods are not comparable.
  - ablatt89 4y ago
    > No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective. You're clearly the one having an issue interpreting the project. The project is to interpret art pieces without the male gaze. You're trying to decouple the criticism of male objectification from the art piece which is completely laughable when the About section clearly criticizes male objectifcaiton. > Again, no. The male gaze is a specific term that refers to how women are portrayed in visual media. > Let's also keep in mind your example of the Sex Live of College Girls is 2 years old. The art used by this project is much much older. These time periods are not comparable. Just because you say the male gaze is a specific term, and choose to ignore any sources that disagree with your definition that I linked, doesn't make it true. And now, suddenly the time period matters to your argument about the male gaze and the art project? You're arguing because you can't accept the fact the project is 100% critiquing the male gaze . You're clearly biased, and that's fine, but you're running in circles and playing games of semantics because you can't accept when you're clearly wrong.
    - PierceJoy 4y ago
      You already replied to this comment here: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34070812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34070812) Now you’ve left another reply to the same comment, just more emotional this time. The reason you aren’t seeing a reply link is because you’re trying to reply too fast and are getting rate limited. Instead of trying to get around it and post emotional responses, just patiently wait until the reply link shows up and then reply to my post directly. Please calm down, there’s no reason to get this upset. Again, please don’t reply to this comment and start yet another thread. Reply to our existing thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34071819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34071819