Women in playing dead for photography and fashion purposes might be considered high art or cutting edge marketing, but it is usually just a tacky excuse for sexist art and the reason it is considered avant garde is because it is offensive. That type of art annoys me.
**This images are not safe for work and are potentially triggering.**
Exotified images of women of color being tortured and images put together to play to the fantasy of "savage" with sexual overtones is actually just deeply disturbing. I am well aware that you can't curtail someone's fantasies, but I argue you sure as hell can analyze them. Women's bodies placed in native and indigenous seeming contexts where they are being dragged and eluding to torture or essentially comparing their bodies to animals to be hunted is a shocking display of colonial misogyny and woman hate. This calendar should be protested.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: How far is too far in exotified, graphic, disturbing portrayals of women?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10691
I saw some of the Pirelli calendar images elsewhere.
I'm fucking horrified. It's like someone said, "this year, let's glamorize everything we liked about the brutal colonization of Africa. Depersonalize black women and turn them into animals? Great. Show them being chased, captures, and terrified? Yeah, great."
It's really sickening.
So, to whom do we send out angry letters?
Um, wow. The photos of the black woman carried away naked like a slave is so beyond shocking, I really am beside myself.
If the link doesn't work, try this one: http://www.womanist-musings.com/2008/12/making-a-list-means-abusing-women.html
Yeah, agreed -- my jaw just dropped when I saw those. She looks like the pig at a luau or something. Terrifying.
I fixed the link and thanks for that. Womanist Musings is looking into who to write a letter to so I will let you all know.
That was so so upsetting, and I don't even know what to say. Is this for Pirelli the TIRE company? Can I ask.. what the FUCK those images have to do with tires?
This is a calendar that they give to their "A-list" clients. I, personally, would wonder about any company that assumed their client's would find this acceptable.
counting down until people start defending this as art and accusing us of wanting to ban the calendar.....3...2..
I didn't think I could be offended that much. Just because it sucks, that doesn't make it art.
I can't even figure out what's supposed to be pleasing to the eye about it. I'm actually kind of at a loss for words.
Thomas, I sent mine to fabia.snider@pirelli.com, who, from what I gather from the website, is responsible for promoting the calendar.
Or you can visit their contacts page: http://www.pirelli.com/web/contactus/CUEntryPoint.do
Those pictures are beyond horrifying. Once you've got a link, I'm sure as hell sending a letter to these people.
We can debate up and down about how acceptable is violence in art, but the context of that "art" pretty much decides the debate. In an art gallery, it would be obnoxious and faux-edgy, but as a calender and a gift it is downright offensive.
I wonder if they have any female clients, and how they feel about receiving that as a gift. Or if they've got any black clients, even if they're men. Or if any of their clients are not assholish bigots, because giving a gift like that seems like a good way to start alienating your best customers.
I went to their website and flipped back a few years. Last year's was clearly exotification too, but without the violence.
In an art gallery it would also be offensive.
i always tend to get defensive about potentially-offensive-art-related posts, because i do honestly believe that there is a lot of art that depicts violence/sexism/racism that is really illuminating, important, and necessary. i don't always personally enjoy it, but i do typically tend to fall on the side of "yes, it's offensive, but i think it's commenting on [fill in the issue here]." i also get really pissed off when someone will comment that whatever inflammatory image isn't art. my response is, "yeah, it's art. doesn't make it GOOD art, or interesting art, or whatever. but it ain't brain surgery...."
and, as another commenter above noted, context has to do with a lot. if one is in a museum, or gallery, or art cinema, a viewer is typically ready to intellectually engage with a work in a way that usually isn't how one approaches a calendar.
i'm so glad that, so far, at least, there's no "that isn't ART!!!!!!" talk. can there be a permanent moratorium on that?
having said all of that, i think these images are complete bullshit. and pirelli is completely deserving of the negative PR they've just earned themselves.
too bad, because i used to buy their times. note the "used to".
i always tend to get defensive about potentially-offensive-art-related posts, because i do honestly believe that there is a lot of art that depicts violence/sexism/racism that is really illuminating, important, and necessary. i don't always personally enjoy it, but i do typically tend to fall on the side of "yes, it's offensive, but i think it's commenting on [fill in the issue here]." i also get really pissed off when someone will comment that whatever inflammatory image isn't art. my response is, "yeah, it's art. doesn't make it GOOD art, or interesting art, or whatever. but it ain't brain surgery...."
and, as another commenter above noted, context has to do with a lot. if one is in a museum, or gallery, or art cinema, a viewer is typically ready to intellectually engage with a work in a way that usually isn't how one approaches a calendar.
i'm so glad that, so far, at least, there's no "that isn't ART!!!!!!" talk. can there be a permanent moratorium on that?
having said all of that, i think these images are complete bullshit. and pirelli is completely deserving of the negative PR they've just earned themselves.
too bad, because i used to buy their tires. note the "used to".
These pictures reminded me too much of a clip I watched in social studies class the other day of the film "Amistad," about a slave revolt on a ship to America. The images I saw were positively brutal. Women chained together in the bottom deck of a ship, naked and hungry and sick. Being thrown overboard when the food supply runs thin. Being molested by sailors.
Apparently this is Pirelli's idea of glamourous.
Sick sick sick sick SICK.
I'm sorry, who the fuck wants this hanging on their wall?
These images are really upsetting and disturbing - and it upsets and disturbs me that someone thought it was a good idea to make a calender of pictures like these, and it might upset me even more to think about the people who really WOULD go "Cool!" and pin it up.
Let me be clear that my comments are not intended to tell anybody that they should or should not bring feminist critical analysis to these images or (for that matter) that these images are not highly problematic in their depiction of both Africa and the (especially) black female body as an exotic Other.
I did, however, want to respond to certain comments regarding how would hang this on their wall, who the audience for this photography might be.
The Pirelli calendar is unquestionably the most prestigious pinup photography in the world. Again, prestigious doesn't mean 'ideologically sound' it means that a certain group of the cultural elite have recognized a certain prestige attached to the object. Previous years have included the photography of Annie Leibovitz, Richard Avedon and Herb Ritts.
It is a highly sought-after body of work among collectors of photography and prints included in these calendars have been part of major exhibitions at museums including the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.
Again, this doesn't mean that because it's art, it shouldn't be subject to critique. Arguably it should sustain more vigorous criticism and its shortcomings might be all the more problematic as a result of its pedigree.
Hey folks,I run a scooter shop and you should know that Pirelli makes the tires used on Vespa scooters. As dealers we are supposed to stock them and recommend them to customers...I'll be in touch with Vespa and Pirelli and I'll be finding alternatives to Pirelli products...goddess help the company that sends me a calendar like this.
since i don't know anything about the photographer, or the aims of the work (i would hope that, in the interest of journalistic integrity, feministing would post any salient info supplied with the images in the post as well), it's really hard to engage in any critical analysis of these photos. i feel it's really impossible to engage in responsible critical analysis without knowing anything about what an artist was responding to, trying to communicate, so forth and so on.
the photos are inflammatory and upsetting to many, including me. right now, they're only producing disgust in my mind, which is a base reaction, and one that i find, ultimately, really boring.
if the artist or curator had written something to attempt to place this work in cultural context, such as "i am trying to shed light on 'man's inhumanity to (wo)man by confronting the viewer with painfully realistic depictions of slave capture," or something, then we could all (1) acknowledge that these are upsetting to look at and then (2) debate how effectively the artist achieved her/his purported aims, then finally, (3) discuss whether or not our society is bettered because of this work. we could also debate (4) the possibility of multiple/unintended readings of this work and how they could possibly be harmful. i hope that the feministing bloggers, who are all intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable people, would include any extenuating information missing from this post intended to accompany these images, if it exists, because it is impossible to engage in quality intellectual critique of any art without context.
i didn't know that pirelli regularly produced a calendar, but leibovitz, avedon and ritts are all prominent, excellent photographers.
sans this information, we can only look at the images, which strike me as mel-gibson-esque sadism with little redeeming cultural value.
There is, in fact, a curatorial statement about the photographer (Peter Beard) on the Pirelli calendar website.
quoting from that: "Through Beard's lens, nature unleashes an angry cry and rebels against humanity's incapacity to combine growth and development with wisdom and respect for diversity. It is in this context that the elephants, the real protagonists of this edition of the Calendar, struggle to survive, relegated as they are to ever shrinking ares. Elephants as a metaphor of the human race, and Africa as metaphor of a devestated world that must recover its lost harmony."
For what it's worth...
hmmm, i saw that statement with a whole lot of photos of vampiric-looking women next to elephants, not the photos linked to on womanist musings....am i missing something?
Figures, this guy pairs incredibly tasteless pictures with a message I actually can agree with...
Personally, I believe that art is about communication, whether of a simple sensation, or a complex idea. Of course the viewer engages with the piece, and everyone will take away something different, to some degree. It's important to be aware of the context of a piece of art, but if a separate explaination is required for the artists' intended message to so much as occur to most of the audience, then in my opinion, the artist has failed.
I think that the capture-themed images, if taken alone, could be taken as a comment on the brutalization of women. But the pictures preceding and following are not consistent with such a message.
I find it particularly disturbing that the pictures of the black woman being carried away like an animal is dwelled upon for three months, ending with a close-up on her panicked face - the only close up in the collection. The dead bird over the woman's vagina picture is extremely insulting.
i 100% concur. my point is just that if there is some information to provide context, we could have *some* sort of engagement with these photos, even though the work isn't of much (or really any) artistic merit, in my opinion. i agree with you for the most part; most work should be at least somewhat self-evident, ambiguity is OK, but if everyone's missing the point, then the artist probably made something not very good. i do think some work requires more *explanation* or a more educated viewer, though. i.e. most abstract art. that's why we have criticism, after all....
for a contrast, my default counterexample is usually schindler's list....a movie that depicts horrible murder, violence and debasement, but i consider to have unquestionable artistic merit. depiction certainly isn't always glorification. from what i've seen, this is (understatement alert!) sorely lacking.
side note, though....i went onto the pirelli site and couldn't find these images anywhere. but i didn't register, so i couldn't verify that these photos are legit. i hope someone from feministing did, though....
I find it particularly disturbing that the pictures of the black woman being carried away like an animal is dwelled upon for three months, ending with a close-up on her panicked face - the only close up in the collection
In fact, all three of those pictures are "extras" (whatever that means) for the month of September. You can see the entire calendar here (as well as a biography of the photographer, describing his passion for elephants). I wish I had more information - I'd like to know how what the calendar's layout is like, and what text is included with the images. Not knowing that, I don't find all of the pictures acceptable... but I think the Womanist Musings article makes it look worse than it is.
The images near the end, the ones that look like porn trying to look like Vogue, are run-of-the-mill misogyny and racism, the kind that make me pull a face and go "ugh!" --but I can see why they are widely appealing to white men who buy into the masculinity and privilege they're sold and could be passed off (barely) as acceptably "arty" to be put in a calendar.
The other images? The images of a woman being held down, half-naked and screaming? Or having body parts cut off by a chainsaw? I don't see how they could be construed as anything other than images of rape, racism, and violence. I don't see any possible way that this is passed off as something else, especially in the way it's presented- not just as one image, but as a mosaic of images, with close-ups and different angles. It really does remind me of the cover page of a low-end porn site, or the back of a porno dvd.
If you look closely, you'll see that the woman in image #28 is not being cut by the chainsaw.
If I *ever* walk into a tire shop and this calendar is hanging on the wall, I'll turn right around and walk back out.
"Art" like this really bugs me, because I am a graphic designer and the fact is that although sex does indeed sell, it's the biggest cop out ever from a design standpoint. It's cheap, it's unsophisticated, and in my opinion it's also offensive to the people it's intended for- like saying, "Here, this is what we think of you. We don't mind taking your money, but we still think you're sort of base and piggish so pictures of sexxxy wimmens will make you want to buy more of our crap."
As usual, I'm entering way too late into a good discussion...
But, I think you should send this comment directly to pirelli (no caps on purpose), the promoter of the calendar's e-mail along with a hundred hard copies to various stores with fictitious potential customer heading as a boycott campaign. It just might do the trick.
And why are you gals clicking on this link to look at this calendar? It seems that we need not view it to state our case. Viewing this "so-called" art by any means, seems to give glory to the bastards that put it out there in the first place.
Again this raises the trouble of primitivism in fashion and art. I can't help but see parallels between this and the American Apparel "Afrika" print business. It's reducing whole cultures and worlds of people into metaphors in service of something else.
right, but the same could be said for all visual symbolism, without which we would have almost no visual culture. every day, we are all bombarded with literally thousands of symbols, and our participation in the culture in which we live makes us literate at reading these messages.
i don't have a problem with this, unless people start to honestly believe that there's nothing more to the story. i.e. "africa" (the idea of africa, not the real continent....take THAT, sarah palin!) as wild and primitive. well, if everyone honestly thinks that there is no development of any sort in africa and that people from there are all living in tents, and that there couldn't possibly be a single modern thing etc. etc. etc.....then there is a problem. (the problem is usually that people are uneducated.)
and it will always be the job of the intelligent, intellectual and literate to question these symbols, make new ones, redefine the old ones, etc.
but to take away symbols is the visual equivalent of taking words out of the dictionary. and we all read 1984 and saw how well that works. doubleunplusgood.
Can somebody venture a hypothesis to explain why the exact same message was not portrayed by using exotified naked men in the exact same positions (e.g., lying over the elephant, being tossed around)? Would the message be different if we swapped the men and women altogether?
I'm not making a judgment, just asking a simple question or two.
Spike, the reason that images of naked men are not used is that men are not the sex class. Women are the sex class.
Black men are certainly sexualized in a very specific way, and images of black men next to women, especially next to white women, could be used to send the same message. Pirelli had a picture of Tyra Banks next to some black male model whose name I don't recall in one of its calendars. Those shots were not exotified the way this year's shot were, but the point remains that they picked a black male model when a white male model would have been just as beautiful. And make no mistake, that shot was beautiful. But beautiful is just as subject to analysis as exotic.
ah, we should do that. what's stopping us?
Yes. Pretty tasteless. Leaving aside the racial stereotypes and looking at the portrayal of women, it seems to be an expensively shot form of porn. But thats more because of the fact that its an iconic corporate 'gift'.
Not all portrayals of women like this are the same. A lot depends on the intent rather than the image. For example nana-rapeblossom (See link) turns herself into a muse for some pretty extreme stuff featuring nazis, rape, violence etc. but she's an artist commenting on taboos. If her images were constructed and shot by a male photographer for playboy there would be (more) outrage.
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=132329931&albumId=1592130
Ah, the old intent question. The problem with intent is that the viewer is not psychic, nor does the viewer necessarily care about intent.
I haven't looked at the link b/c I'm at work and the pr0n filter is pretty sensitive. So I don't know what exactly they look like. Anyway, would the artist's message get through if this were a photo shoot in, say, Vogue, with no explanation? If social commentary is indistinguishable from pr0n, is it good social commentary?
nana-rapeblossom might be intending to create commentary, but a viewer could well read an entire different message. A viewer might well read the message that violent, sexualized images are a normal and acceptable way to portray women, thus turning nana-rapeblossom's work into approval of rape pr0n.
Intent matters, but image matters, too.
"Ah, the old intent question. The problem with intent is that the viewer is not psychic, nor does the viewer necessarily care about intent."
Exactly! This goes for any other communication too, not just art.
As an artist, I'm usually one that jumps to the defense of art as expression.
But this is just disgusting. I can't think of any respectable artist, art buyer or art critique that would deem this "high art" or any kind of positive expression. Offensiveness aside, it's not even PRETTY. The colors are washed out, the lighting is bad, the composition is amateurish, the narrative is over-the-top and I have NO idea what point its trying to make and since it is commercial art- no idea what's being sold.
So that's my take as an artist.
My take as a feminist is: WHAT THE FUCK??
@FrumiousB - I agree with you that without context the images can be misconstrued, but thats true of all images. I don't see how you can't be drawing an arbitrary subjective line. I think challenging taboo is an essential part of art and society- evidenced by the huge number of art works that scandalised their original viewers but are so tame when viewed with modern eyes.
Leaving aside whether you like nana-rapeblossom's work or judge it to have value, the fact is that similar images can be judged entirely differently. Which makes the issue of the Pirelli calendar one of context, intent and consumption and that's where the critique should focus- not the images themselves.
How far is too far in exotified, graphic, disturbing portrayals of women?
I think the answer to that is its never ok.
I didn't think I could be offended that much. Just because it sucks, that doesn't make it art.games