Sean Lennon and girlfriend, model Kemp Muhl, were photographed for a recent issue of French magazine Purple imitating the famous Rolling Stone cover of Sean's parents, John Lennon and Yoko Ono. (The original and the imitation are after the jump -- probably NSFW.)
I've always loved the John and Yoko photo. The original was transgressive, powerful, emotional in its reversal of gender roles -- her clothed, him naked. It says so much about the vulnerability that comes with truly loving someone, and about forging an egalitarian relationship in a fucked-up world.
Here's how photographer Annie Leibovitz describes the shoot:
"John took his clothes off in a few seconds, but Yoko was very reluctant. She said, 'I'll take my shirt off but not my pants.' I was kinda disappointed, and I said, 'Just leave everything on.' We took one Polaroid, and the three of us knew it was profound right away."The re-interpreted version isn't profound. It's just porny. Something we've seen a thousand times before.
Sungold took the words right outta my mouth:
Funny how John's boy-nipples weren't even exposed. His pose is more fetal than erotic. Remarkably Yoko Ono is shown as a sexual creature without being reduced to a sexualized male fantasy. The reversal of convention is so much more powerful than the capitulation to cliche in the newer photo. John and Yoko's photo is both more intimate and more innocent.
That's not to say Yoko was against the female body being photographed nude, or ashamed of her body. Here's what Beatles-loving feminist Cara has to say about Yoko, nudity, and John and Yoko's infamous full-frontal album cover:
Just look at it (obviously NSFW); there she is in all of her bare glory. Just like John standing beside her, she isn't attempting to arouse the viewer. She's not using her nakedness to express sexuality at all. And she looks equally as confident as he does. John once said that they purposely picked the least flattering photograph, and especially by today's standards, Yoko would be considered downright unphotogenic by the mainstream. She has full pubic hair, some hints of cellulite on her thighs, a waist that is not particularly defined, and most shocking of all, large breasts that do not defy gravity, and an unremarkable yet undeniable bit of hang with nipples pointing downwards.In other words, she looks like an average woman. Her body resembles the one that most of look at in the mirror more than the ones we see in magazines. It exists not for the pleasures of others, but for her.
(Emphasis mine.) I know Cara is writing about a different photo, but I think the sentiment probably applies to the Rolling Stone cover as well. In the imitation, the photo of Sean and Kemp, Kemp's body is presented the way we always see the female body represented: for the pleasure of others. Which is why it is not actually an homage to the photo of his parents. It's actually the exact opposite.
UPDATE: Read Cara's take here.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: When nudity is transgressive -- and when it's not.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15858
These two photographs show the difference between love and lust.
my thoughts exactly :-/
wow, this makes me sad. i've loved the john and yoko picture my whole life.
im pissed.
what the hell is sean lennon thinking?
Probably that he can make a quick buck.
The original version is pretty interesting. The remake...I don't have the words. Sean managed to totally ruin the photo in more ways than one.
I love the original more too. My one of my bosses has it hanging up in his office and it was the first time I saw it.
The original does show the love and connection between the two people, it also shows who had the upper hand in the relationship. Remember Yoko was the one who told John to leave his wife, and began to manage his career (she may even have influenced him to leave The Beatles) John is almost in a fetal position, as if he is kissing his mother. It is as if she she has cast a spell on him and he knows nothing but her.
It is almost a reversal of the man woman power dynamic.
The remake was just a chance for Sean to show off his naked girlfriend. It's not to say that he is not in love with his girlfriend or not comfortable with his body, but I'm sure like most people he is under the misguided assumption that people would rather see a naked woman than a naked man, because naked women are more sexually appealing.
This pic does not have the same power the original did because we are not seeing anything we haven't see a hundred times. And it also not to say that a naked woman clothed man pic can't be sexual yet powerful as well. But Sean and his girlfriend are not conveying that in the pic. It may also be a result of not having any insight into their relationship as we did with John and Yoko.
The original does show the love and connection between the two people, it also shows who had the upper hand in the relationship. Remember Yoko was the one who told John to leave his wife, and began to manage his career (she may even have influenced him to leave The Beatles) John is almost in a fetal position, as if he is kissing his mother. It is as if she she has cast a spell on him and he knows nothing but her.
Yikes... that doesn't sound like a healthy relationship dynamic to me!
I don't think that's necessarily what the original photo was trying to depict, but if it is... then I don't really think that's something to be celebrated.
I actually think that Ono has been unfairly scapegoated for both the end of Lennon's marriage and the end of the Beatles. Lennon's relationship with Cynthia Powell was critically strained by the pressures of the business, John's heavy drug use and extramarital affairs, and the arguably abusive early relationship between John and Julian. Accounts differ regarding who suggested the breakup, but it was likely to happen sooner or later.
Meanwhile, the band was already crumbling due to bad business decisions, and a desire all around for creative independence. McCartney was throwing tons of money away. George got pissed over contract limitations on his songwriting and started collaborating with other artists. John was recording his own material. And it became difficult to get the four of them in the same room after their business manager Epstein died. John trying to bring Ono in as a creative and business consultant didn't help, but Paul was hooking his inlaws in the business as well.
To me, it seems that Yoko Ono's influence over John Lennon was built on his profound respect for her as an artist and collaborator. He courted her as a lover and collaborator at a time when his marriage and creative relationships were crumbling. The image of Yoko manipulating a pliant John is at odds with the episodes that reveal John could be a flaming asshole when he didn't get what he wanted. (In spite of his wonderful music and ideals.)
Annie Leibovitz took that new photo? Go figure. She's a lousy, terrible photographer... and she was also behind that racist Gisele Bundchen/Shaquille O'Neill photo controversy.
Leibovitz actually took the original. Terry Richardson took the new one.
Terry Richardson took it? Well that explains everything!
I know, right??
Exactly. I'm uncertain that a comparison of these photos illustrates anything more than differences between Terry Richardson and Annie Leibovitz.
She used to be absolutely incredible in her younger days, but now she's become the Celine Dion of photography. Still super-talented but her images mostly just soulless celebrity portraits.
The dynamics are who is clothed and who is nude certainly stand out. There is a whole subgenre of porn with clothed women and nude men (probably a google search for the acronym CFNM -- clother female nude male -- will turn up a large list of NSFW results) It suffers from the same problems as most presentation that falls into the femdom genre, but its existence goes to show that the power dynamics of asymmetrical nudity are pretty obvious. Probably even to Sean Lennon, which is why the photo irks me.
How is this new photo even closely imitative of the original? Shouldn't Sean be in the John position and Kemp in Yoko's? Or is it supposed to imply he's the one being worshipped? It's like a crude parody...
"Kemp's body is presented the way we always see the female body represented: for the pleasure of others. Which is why it is not actually an homage to the photo of his parents. It's actually the exact opposite."
That's an opinion presented as fact. What specific detail of this photo makes Kemp's body "for the pleasure of others" I just don't see it.
For me, it's the way that she is laying - she's not pressed up against Lennon like John is with Yoko - her body is exposed for viewers to see. She looks like she's posing for a regular ad, not recreating the John/Yoko photo. Take him out of the photo and you have any ad for any sort of thing - woman to be looked at for buyer's (man's) pleasure.
I think it's largely that the new version doesn't convey the same sense of intimacy that the older one does. John's not just laying next to Yoko or holding her--he's clinging to her, like he needs her. That closeness isn't in the new version--literally. Look at the space between Sean and Kemp, and how she's holding him more loosely than John held Yoko. The undertone is more of sexual pleasure than intimacy.
Add in the reversal of power dynamics and you have a total bastardization of the original.
The visual history of our society, and the differences between their poses.
Our visual history, in short summary, is that images of women are presented for male comsumption and are often sexualized. In-depth analyses of this concept can be found in Erving Goffman's book Gender Advertisements, in the work of feminist authors such as Susan Bordo, and in online forums such as these:
http://www.genderads.com/Gender_Ads.com.html
http://www.jeankilbourne.com/video.html
Because of this history, it makes a difference simply that Kemp is female and John is male. But in addition, I do see subtle differences between the two. John's body is curled around Yoko and he is pressed fully against her, in what someone already called a "fetal" sort of position. Kemp, by contrast, is pulled away from Sean with her back arched. This is a sexual rather than fetal position. Women are often posed with their backs arched, uncomfortably and unnaturally, in order to make them appear to be writhing in sexual pleasure. In addition, putting Kemp in this pose makes her breast more visible, which seems entirely unnecessary and differs from the original picture. It contributes to the impression that, while John appears almost dependent on Yoko, Kemp is just teasing Sean or is engaged in foreplay. Kemp's leg is positioned differently from John's as well. This again detracts from the fetal impression and seems more sexual- notice how her foot draws your eye directly to his bulge, while John's foot was curled around Yoko's hip. The position of their faces is also different. In the original, John's lips make contact with Yoko's cheek, while Yoko's eyes are averted. It seems companionable, loving. In the new version, Kemp is not quite touching Sean, while Sean's face is tilted back and his lips are slightly parted. They look as if they are just about to kiss or have just finished kissing. It doesn't look like a motherly kiss, either, and open lips in a photo are generally used to get the viewer thinking about sex.
Does that help?
Yes that helps! Ahhhh, a reasoned answer backed up by facts, presented without undue snark. Like cool water on my forehead in the sweltering heat of the feministing comments section!
I don't agree with you 100%, I think a lot of what you have pointed out could be plausibly attributed to them trying to duplicate the photo exactly but just not being very attentive to detail.
You make a very strong case though. I'm sold on the arch of the back, the missing closeness, the visible breasts, and the different face poses/expressions. I think the foot/bulge thing might be reaching a little bit but overall you've convinced me!
I see now why this photo might offend. Thank you!
You're welcome! Most of the arguments I'm making are from the Goffman book I mentioned, so I definitely recommend that if you're interested. And the Jean Kilbourne video if you're interested, but in a less academic way. Glad I could help.
SociologicalMe, you did a nice analysis of the two pictures, and I agree. I think that the John and Yoko image shows their love, and they both look beautiful to me, not "hot," but really human, in love, and beautiful.
Lennon said that he had been a chauvinist, and he underwent a change of consciousness. I wish that more men would study his path.
It's too bad his son is just leeching off of his dad's name, a dad Sean is never shy about bad-mouthing.
I like all of your points here. I would also add difference in skin tone/texture. In the original, Lennon has realistic skin texture, wrinkles at his hip, little folds, and just the less-than-marble-smooth of real skin. Muhl's skin, on the other hand, has that impossibly smooth, completely even, totally poreless marble texture that can only be accomplished with a lot of makeup and airbrushing.
The Beatles had sexist music, I shouldn't expect anyless from his son
the Beatles did have sexist music. But in the end, I believe Lennon more than redeemed himself. I just recently saw this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5lMxWWK218 and it made me smile.
If that's an "undefined" waist, I'd hate to think what Cara would say about mine.
Kate -- I thought that it was clear in context, but it wasn't even remotely an insult. I'm sad to see that you took it as such and felt that I was making judgments about women's bodies. In fact, the shape of Yoko's waist in that photo looks very much like mine. The comments were actually a celebration of a woman being proud to show her body complete with what most people sadly consider to be "flaws." (And, in the original post, used to make a larger point.)
Further, I didn't say that it was "undefined," I said that it was "not particularly defined" (I do think there's a difference), and in the context I was specifically making a comparison to mainstream beauty standards, including those from today. By the standards of the average photograph of a naked woman you would see today, her waist is undefined, as is mine, because she is not rail and she has not been airbrushed.
I think it's absolutely wonderful that people look at that photo and think Yoko is beautiful! Indeed, it makes me very happy to see it. In the same post from which the quote was taken, I say the same exact thing.
On the subject of other comments further up above, I really do hate to self-promote, but it utterly depresses me to see comments like the ones about John & Yoko's relationship (and her supposedly controlling nature) on a feminist blog. You may disagree with me when you're done, but I do very strongly suggest clicking through up above. Part 2 of the series about Yoko Ono is particularly relevant to that specific topic.
("rail" of course should have said "rail thin")
@katemoore: Ditto. I just looked at the pic and thought Yoko was hot.
I guess what strikes me more than anything is simply how much more candid the original is, and I like that. Candids are so honest. This second version is such a boring obvious pose that it's like ... what the hell.
Also, Sean just looks f'n creepy. Resting his head on his hands like he's waiting for someone to feed him a cluster of grapes? Uber creepy. I don't even know what kind of look or feel he was going for.
Some Beatles songs were sexist. Lennon later apologized for "Run for Your Life", which was probably his worst offender. But even so, the occasionally sexist language that crept into Beatles lyrics was nothing compared to the outright and unapologetic misogyny of The Rolling Stones.
As for Yoko being controlling, I think taking into account John's upbringing sheds some needed light onto the subject. He was raised by his Aunt Mimi whose personality, according to several biographies I've read over the years, was very similar to Yoko's. Mimi liked to portray herself as a strict disciplinarian and the voice of tough love in John's life, but in many ways she was a demanding, petty, selfish woman for whom love was often conditional.
I have often been critical of Yoko's flair for self-promotion at the expense of talent and have found much fault with some of her conceptual art, which to me is the epitome of the Emperor's New Clothes. But aside from that, I am not surprised that John fell for her, based on the circumstances of his upbringing. Yoko has experienced a tremendous amount of childish, sexist, racist criticism over the years from the instance she and John went public with their relationships. The kind of puerile crap that streams from the brains of small minded individuals is never justified, particularly when there is very legitimate criticism to be noted. Previous biographies written by people who were in the Beatles' inner circle as the time have accused Yoko of being a leech who attempted to use John's fame as a way to catapult herself to stardom.
On an unrelated note, I hope I didn't come across as self-promoting on previous threads. My desire to share that which I believe and that which is important to me is motivated purely by the joy that these things bring me. I'll make a point to keep that in check in future.
*shrug* I like both pictures.
I'm going to give some honest feedback from the male team here.
The original photo makes me feel uncomfortable. Here we see a man, probably very in love, in a very vulnerable, supplicating position relative to a woman. This is not how we like to see ourselves, and we most certainly do not like to be reminded that this is part of (some of) us.
The new photo is of course far more titillating and pleasing to look at (hey, it's the male opinion, right?). So there is that, but also, this woman doesn't seem to love Sean as much as John loved Yoko. Also, nobody else seems to have mentioned this, in both photos, the woman is physically above the man, which has a certain feel to it. Damn it, that is a sexy woman. (Sorry, male opinion again. It's definitely a distraction! And perhaps that is an additional criticism.)
I don't think anyone who would criticize your opinion would do so on the basis that you are male. Further, just because you are a male doesn't mean your opinion is the "male opinion", it's your opinion.
Given that the original image makes you uncomfortable, then hopefully you can understand why the new image is uncomfortable for the posters here. The problem is, in my opinion, I think maybe it's good the original image can be uncomfortable because it may lead you to think why it is so awkward to see a naked vulnerable man but how if we place a woman in the image instead is somehow becomes "sensual" and it can open up discussion about gender roles. The new image, on the other hand, doesn't challenge typical gender roles.
It could be that the new image was intentionally made to look typically sensual so that we could put the two images together and have this interesting discussion we're having now. But, more likely than not, they just want to sell some magazines.
Oh boo-fucking-hoo. Try seeing pictures of your self half-naked or naked on the cover of every magazine and on every TV show and in every movie and in every music video all the fucking time, then talk to me about feeling uncomfortable. It's only uncomfortable to you because you have the privilege of seeing your sex represented in multiple ways, as thinking, feeling, intelligent beings, every day, in every medium, wherever you look. If seeing your sex as naked and vulnerable makes you uncomfortable, join the fucking club. And think harder the next time you automatically jump to categorize a picture of a naked female as hot or sensual or something everyone else would want to see. Think about how those images may make women feel uncomfortable and how you shouldn't be so quick to celebrate them.
Oops, that was supposed to be "Try seeing pictures of your *SEX* half-naked or naked..." not "self"
Oh, thank god there's someone here to give us what Teh Menz think! I was just thinking that what this women-centered space needs is more men to come in and tell us what's what!
I'm so glad you're happier with the new pic, we'd hate for you to feel threatened and have to try to think of women as actual people and not the sex class! And to see members of your gender nude! Like women do all the time, to sell everything from coffee to cars! Poor baby. I'll get you a Maxim and some smelling salts.
I especially love how you feel the need to weigh in on how women can be more fuckable.
It seems to me that the entire reason the original photo was groundbreaking was that it shows male vulnerability in a way that makes the viewer uncomfortable. It challenged you. The second one is comfortable and unchallenging.
You also mentioned that in both photos, the woman's head is higher. Most theories about visual representations would tell you that a higher head in a picture means power (See Goffman, Gender Ads). So it seems like the women have the power in both versions of the photo, because in each their heads are higher. But the first one makes you uncomfortable, and the second one doesn't. My theory: Yoko has too much power for ya. She doesn't just have her head higher, she's clothed while John is naked, her body is face-front to the camera while John's is averted, he's in a supplicating posture, etc. In the other pic, Sean has all of that extra power: his body is face-front, he's clothed. Kemp's head is higher, but in all other ways she is in the position of less power in the picture. It's almost a parody of power, like someone tossed her the leftovers of power and then fetishized it. "Aww, isn't that cute, she thinks she's in charge" kind of power. It's ok for her to have a little power, because you can tell that he has more. Of course this is comfortable for you, it's been done. To death.
Great analysis. The second photo definitely reeks of the fake-ass "empowerment" that women are SUPPOSED to feel after they satisfactorily please men's sexual appetites instead of indulging their own. The pat on the head, okay honey, now let the men enjoy REAL power. It's cool, see, because your magical mysterious female sexual energy that renders all men helpless is all the power you need! The picture looks like some sketchy porno, some Hugh Hefner-wannabe bullcrap. And, on an entirely unrelated note, the picture manages to completely erase all of Muhl's beauty and talent as a model.
You're speaking for "the male team"?
Can we bench you?
Yes, bench him for the entire season!
I really hope you intended this comment as a critical demonstration of how the male gaze is dominant in our culture, of how mens' and womens' bodies are constructed in that gaze, and how male privilege colors mens' perceptions. Because whether you did or not, I have never seen a more perfect deconstruction.
There are just a thousand little things wrong here.
John is wrapped around Yoko. His leg is clutching her.
Kemp is barely touching Sean. Her leg is slung in place, foot drawing attention to the crotch. This is the pose of two awkward teenagers trying not to touch one another even in during sex. John and Yoko are having an intimate moment in which he clings to her.
John's eyes are shut tight, he is holding his body to Yoko. She is not touching him, but she is watching him, her eyes on his face.
Sean's eyes are shut tight, but he is not touching Kemp. She is both watching him and touching him. It is left to her to do all the work of the picture, both to see Sean and to touch Sean.
John's chin is tipped up but towards Yoko, while Yoko is about even to him. Sean is not only not looking at Kemp, his face is turned up and away so that Kemp must look down at him.
Not too mention the make up, the sweat of Sean and Kemp compared with the less sexual nature of John and Yoko.
Congrats, guys. You've broken art.
It is left to her to do all the work
This is exactly it. Exactly why women writhing and posing and presenting and preening for the male gaze is not the sexual empowerment some people think it is. The woman as supplicant and servicer to the man is not transgressive; it's old hat.
The remake is also an inferior photo technically. I don't really understand why the photographer and studio (bedroom?) could not have shot it the same way. The only thing interesting about it is that it is remaking the original with the son of the original models; it reads very snapshotty rather than art photography to me.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the addition of a bed in the "remake". In the original, they're on a bare floor, which takes away any outside context and puts all the focus on the two lovers. The bed, obviously, adds a sexual context.
Also, the lighting in the original is sunlight reflected off the walls, which bathes the entire scene in a warm, natural glow. The lighting in the "update" looks wholly artificial.
I can't believe I didn't notice that. Good call.
I always hated that Rolling Stone picture. Yoko always scared me, like Freddy Kruger did with teenage girls.
John Lennon looks like a leech sucking the life out of her. Actually, it should be the other way around!