re: Warning - this is disturbing

Eesh. Somebody's been hitting the post-modernist theory texts a bit too hard.


Mind you, a lot of the reaction, both here and on Deadspin, kind of inadvertently makes her point. Nothing she wrote was incoherent or crazy. It all made perfect sense, if you buy the underlying theories. I don't buy lots of it, but she's not actually wrong about the objectification of women and institutional misogyny. She's just working the buzzwords way too hard.

quote:

---

Still better than Daniel Moore.

---

That shite right there is funny.

Karmic equalizer.

What a pseudo-academic idiot. Also, you're a shitty artist.

The "artist" can't draw or paint so she has to do something controversial to get noticed.

quote:

---

Nothing like a feminist to unite men behind an alleged rapist

---

that's honestly the best part of this.

she definitely was using some buzz words in there to make her point.

quote:

---

The karma nonsense is crap, ESPECIALLY from a learned perspective.

---

Yeah, you and bossagator are right that the karmic stuff is nonsense from a strictly theological perspective, but I doubt she intended it to be a statement of actual philosophy rather than just a shorthand way of saying "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." I was mostly talking about the theories revolving around social constructs and the fact that once you distill her densely florid prose down to something manageable, she's actually saying something lucid. Whether or not you agree with her is a completely different issu.

quote:

---

Some may say she used more buzzwords than one "could shake a stick at."

However, I think the artist would feel that the colloquialism was misogynistic as the stick has been commonly used as a phallic symbol, and the act of shaking said stick would be seen as a threatening action towards those with internal genitalia.

---

Eh, she can just shake her bagel right back at you....

"Shake a bagel at" is a popular colloquialism, right? Have I been misled?

quote:

---

I was mostly talking about the theories revolving around social constructs and the fact that once you distill her densely florid prose down to something manageable, she's actually saying something lucid.

---

I really don't think so. The problem is the subject.

When a woman is objectified, they become mere objects- bait, decoration, etc. They no longer represent a real person with real accomplishments. It is therefore impossible to objectify someone like Winston, as their accomplishments will always exceed their form.

This is also common with women- when they accomplish something in "the man's world" they then no longer become an objectifiable object. Like who has a Hilary or Opera swimsuit calendar? No one.

Also I would argue that showing a sex act is not the same as objectifying women. When you objectify a women, she is not supposed to be the focus (at least not ALL of her and who she is). But by making this sex act front and center it transforms the piece almost into the opposite of what she wants- some sort of athlete worship.

Of course leave it to a feminist to not understand that receiving head is considering a "dominant" act in our society and therefore can never be used to objectify the subject.

I think the truth is she wanted shock value to hide the fact she lacks a real message. So instead of objectifying a random guy and making him penis a lamp or something in the picture she has the most popular athlete in college football getting head. He does get it in the end at the bottom of the pic, but it is from a hot girl with a Heisman dildo. Depending on your orientation that again could be athlete worship, he is clearly aroused.

I am sure it was enough for her professor to give her an A- though, with the + being lost because she picked a subject (Winston) that the professor didn't know anything about.

quote:

---

That's all I meant..."lucid" as in "clear and comprehensible once you distill down the language," not as in "correct."

---

Ah, I see.

quote:

---

so I don't have the free time get into a discussion

---

I think such a discussion would break tRANT anyway.

I appreciate the follow up post though!

quote:

---

cardboardboxer

---

Didn't mean to downvote - hit the wrong thing on this damned phone screen and can't correct it. Sorry about that.