5 ms·

> 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 d

> 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
    - ablatt89 4y ago
      This is what you stated: "You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term." Yet you claim I'm the one being emotional? Lol. Hypocrite much?
      - PierceJoy 4y ago
        There's absolutely no logical connection between those two things. This is just another example of you being emotional. Please keep your replies to the other thread. You can comment on this, but do it in the other thread.
        ablatt89 4y ago
        Sigh, how can anyone hold a conversation with you when you keep going in circles, completely ignoring the specifics of an argument, stringently hold to your narrow definitions and when counteracted with a different argument, resort to "you are wrong, I am right", and the consistent other logical fallacies used. I guess somewhat's got to combat the egos and crackpots :-)
        PierceJoy 4y ago
        Classic projection. Drop the short guy energy.
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. I don't think you're understanding my point. I clearly understand you want to use "the male gaze" purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don't agree that you can decouple the real world act of "gazing" with the art definition of "gazing". Again, you're trying to decouple "the male gaze" from general objectification. I do not think you can, because then any criticism and the definition of "the male gaze" in the artistic sense becomes completely moot. Why would it matter if the gaze is different or there is no gaze for some art piece, so the end painting has the woman in a different position? If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove "the male gaze", okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from "the male gaze" and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-male-gaze-5118422 https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-male-gaze-5118422
- PierceJoy 4y ago
  Why do you reply to your own comments instead of mine? > I clearly understand you want to use “the male gaze” purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don’t agree that you can decouple the real world act of “gazing” with the art definition of “gazing”. This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition. > Again, you’re trying to decouple “the male gaze” from general objectification. Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition. > If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove “the male gaze”, okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from “the male gaze” and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not. No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”. You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term. So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms.

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
  - ablatt89 4y ago
    This is what you stated: "You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term." Yet you claim I'm the one being emotional? Lol. Hypocrite much?
    - PierceJoy 4y ago
      There's absolutely no logical connection between those two things. This is just another example of you being emotional. Please keep your replies to the other thread. You can comment on this, but do it in the other thread.
      - ablatt89 4y ago
        Sigh, how can anyone hold a conversation with you when you keep going in circles, completely ignoring the specifics of an argument, stringently hold to your narrow definitions and when counteracted with a different argument, resort to "you are wrong, I am right", and the consistent other logical fallacies used. I guess somewhat's got to combat the egos and crackpots :-)
        PierceJoy 4y ago
        Classic projection. Drop the short guy energy.

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. I don't think you're understanding my point. I clearly understand you want to use "the male gaze" purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don't agree that you can decouple the real world act of "gazing" with the art definition of "gazing". Again, you're trying to decouple "the male gaze" from general objectification. I do not think you can, because then any criticism and the definition of "the male gaze" in the artistic sense becomes completely moot. Why would it matter if the gaze is different or there is no gaze for some art piece, so the end painting has the woman in a different position? If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove "the male gaze", okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from "the male gaze" and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-male-gaze-5118422 https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-male-gaze-5118422

PierceJoy 4y ago
Why do you reply to your own comments instead of mine? > I clearly understand you want to use “the male gaze” purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don’t agree that you can decouple the real world act of “gazing” with the art definition of “gazing”. This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition. > Again, you’re trying to decouple “the male gaze” from general objectification. Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition. > If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove “the male gaze”, okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from “the male gaze” and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not. No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”. You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term. So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms.