It can be argued (and has been) that all primitive painting - Ancient Egyptian,Romanesque, Byzantine as well Pre-Raphaelyte, as well as Renaissence (I am missing many more ancient movements here) are the opposite of what you imply. Those beautiful works of art are wnd were contributions to the objectification of the female body, face and hair. They were and are the equivalent of today's magazine models. Men liked their women long-haired and chubby and painted them this way. Other men and women admired the pictures much in the ame way the admire a victoria's secret catalogue now. I have a bit of background in art history...The only difference between yesterday and today is, in that day and age, it was OK to find something like this absolutely beautiful Today, women condemn men for being so visually oriented.
Back then long hair was it - if you cut it, you were shamed. This is why we women exerted our power over ourselves in the 20's by cutting it all off. As if to say - I will not let you define me - to all men.
This is not my belief in anyway. But I do know that women were nothing but a visual object to men in Medieval earth. Also, the clothing many of them wear in the painting is VERY risque for a period where women wore high collars and very long skirts.
I choose to be a mystery, a contradiction - I choose to have long hair - and a vexing mind. Men are base - but oh, so very fun to play with!!!
uzma
Members Profile
Send Private Message
Find Members Posts
Add to Buddy List
Senior Member
Joined: August 27 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1057
I guess my appreciation of beauty is simplistic. I love what I love without reference to the socio-political background of the image.
In my Motherlands of the east, society also has specific ways of defining what the ideal feminine look is and of course, every attempt is made to promote that ideal by both men and women. So I do understand where you are coming from. Is the eye of the beholder also the eye of the oppressor & the pornographer?
However, I am a woman and therefore the potential "object" of male desire. I am also the object of my own idealistic beauty and make every effort to realize such an ideal - to whatever extent it may or may not correlate with the beauty desired by "other eyes".
Ultimately, every faction, every time period has had it's dictats as to what people - male and femal - should look like in order to be most desireable. Our current society is not different.
It is perhaps unique in that - and this is purely a personal experience and observation - natural feminine beauty is subject to such a great deal of modification. Where previously we had temporary cosmetics, we now have plastic surgery and a wholesale effort by the global media to promote the "look" of affluent, caucasion, barely-fed androgyne. Other looks are marginal and tribal and OK if they also help you to "fit in" with the organised "rebels" e.g. Goths, Bohos, etc.
I'm almost about to get off my soap-box but one more point before I do: The images painted by Rossetti, Waterhouse, Millais et al are beautiful to me because they are painted with brush-stokes of desire and love. If I were to paint a man, I would paint my ideal, right out of my dreams. The eye of the heart sees freely and won't be enslaved. Nor will I enslave any man who does not fit in with my views of handsome and masculine.
Lets stop treading on eggshells and eat the omlette.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)
