Male Gaze- Zoha Khan

The male is gaze as described by John Berger is how a women sees herself being seen by other men. She becomes an object for the pleasure of someone else’s viewing. “Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at” (Berger 47). Women are also assessing themselves and imagining what they might be looking like through a gaze of a man. Women being naked in art are not naked for themselves, they are naked for the spectator, which in most cases is the man. She is not naked for her own pleasure because if she were she would not have to lie in a certain way, or look towards the viewer in a certain way that attracts them. If she were naked for herself she might not be lying in a “sexy” or “provocative” way (however men view that as). “She is not naked as she is. She is naked as the spectator sees her” (Berger 50). The spectator is usually the artist, and the artist is usually male. Her pose, her face is to please the artist. She is drawn as he wishes her to be. So she is not drawn as she wishes to be instead she is submitting herself to be looked at by the spectator and to be painted the way he wants her to be painted. Her pose being submissive shows the male dominance behind the painting. In the case of there being a lover in the painting, Berger talks about the attention being given to the lover which in this case being none. “But the woman’s attention very rarely directed towards him. Often she looks away from him or she looks out of the picture towards the one who considers himself her true lover- the spectator-owner” (Berger 56). Shows the importance of the male spectators gaze. To make the viewer feel important, to attract him, to fulfill his fantasy, she is painted to be seen as his. No other man holds her attention except the viewer.

Bell Hooks describes patriarchy as Men thinking themselves to be dominant and superior to everyone else who look “weak” or “fragile”. It makes them think they are stronger and as such it is there right to assert power on everyone and take control. Taking control can be done through many ways, one of the ways is through violence. Bell Hooks talks about her childhood, “I was taught as a girl in a patriarchal household that rage was not an appropriate feminine feeling, that it should be not only be expressed but eradicated” (Hooks 19). A woman is supposed to be fragile, understanding, and caring so she can raise children. On the other hand rage coming from boys is not always bad because in the future it helps them act as “men”. Men are given a free pass with anger because ‘boys will be boys’ while on the hand a women’s reputation is much more delicate and can be ruined very easily so she cannot slip up. She needs to continually watch herself and cannot act in any other way that is not feminine. If Boys are seen crying they are seen weak, and if a man is seen weak then he is not fit to raise and protect his family.  

I’ve come to realize how all our identities must have been influenced because of our patriarchy. How being taught in school at home “how to act like a lady”, “how to sit”, how to eat”, “what to express, what not to express”. Even Art around us, whether through paintings or media outlets, have influenced girls and boys to act a certain way. How movies and advertisements always correlate the color ‘blue’ for boys and ‘pink’ for girls. In magazines the women have to look pretty and have to be wearing less clothing to attract the spectator’s attention, not much different from what John Berger was talking about in the male gaze. Women, all through history have been viewed as objects in almost all forms of Art.

The painting of Venus of Urbino shows the Roman goddess venus lying in sexually provocative manner. She is laid out leaving her body bare to the spectator. This to me is a prime example of what Berger was speaking of when he was describing how the male artist sees and what he paints. It begs the question if a woman artist was painting this subject matter would it have been different. Maybe less sexual? Or the same?

Painting of Olympia by Manet, this painting was met by a lot of negativity because the model is a prostitute. What I admire about this painting is Manet did not paint any flirty enticement in the prostitutes eyes as usually depicted in the paintings but instead she is looking right at the spectator almost daring him.

Links:

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/06/men-taught-to-objectify-women/

https://www.thebalance.com/advertising-women-and-objectification-38754