Community hubs

This is the global Feminist Blogs aggregator. It collects articles from many smaller community hubs within the Feminist Blogs network. For stories from particular places, groups, or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.

Posts tagged Art

Guest Post: Why do the Japanese Draw Themselves as White?

Please welcome Guest Blogger, Julian Abagond.  Abagond is a middle-class, West Indian, New Yorker; he is also a computer programmer who enjoys ancient Greek.  He writes whatever he wants at his blog.  In the borrowed post below, he explains that the question is really “Why do Americans think that the Japanese draw themselves as white?”  Enjoy.

—————————-

Why do the Japanese draw themselves as white? You see that especially in manga and anime.

As it turns out, that is an American opinion, not a Japanese one. The Japanese see anime characters as being Japanese. It is Americans who think they are white. Why?  Because to them white is the Default Human Being.

If I draw a stick figure, most Americans will assume that it is a white man. Because to them that is the Default Human Being. For them to think it is a woman I have to add a dress or long hair; for Asian, I have to add slanted eyes; for black, I add kinky hair or brown skin. Etc.

The Other has to be marked. If there are no stereotyped markings of otherness, then white is assumed.

Americans apply this thinking to Japanese drawings. But to the Japanese the Default Human Being is Japanese! So they feel no need to make their characters “look Asian”. They just have to make them look like people and everyone in Japan will assume they are Japanese – no matter how improbable their physical appearance.

You see the same thing in America: After all, why do people think Marge Simpson is white? Look at her skin: it is yellow. Look at her hair: it is a blue Afro. But the Default Human Being thing is so strong that lacking other clear, stereotyped signs of being either black or Asian she defaults to white.

When you think about it there is nothing particularly white about how anime characters look:

  • huge round eyes – no one looks like that, not even white people (even though that style of drawing eyes does go back to Betty Boop).
  • yellow hair – but they also have blue hair and green hair and all the rest. Therefore hair colour is not about being true to life.
  • small noses – compared to the rest of the world whites have long noses that stick out.
  • white skin – but many Japanese have skin just as pale and white as most White Americans.

Besides, that is not how the Japanese draw white or even Chinese people. The otherness of foreigners is clearly marked by physical stereotypes – just as Americans do with people of colour. In anime White Americans are stereotyped as having yellow hair, blue eyes and a long or big nose:

Gone are the big round eyes and the strange hair colours. Because those things have nothing to do with whiteness.

Note that the Japanese drop the markings of otherness if the action is set in a foreign land, like China or America. In that case the characters are drawn in the regular anime style. Because for that story the Default Human Being is understood.

Some Americans, even some scholars, will argue against this view of anime. They want to think the Japanese worship America or worship whiteness and use anime to prove it.  But they seem to be driven more by their own racism and nationalism than anything else.

————————-

All images are from Google images; Abagond retains no rights.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

Pocahontas Meets Adriel Luis’ Slip of the Tongue

Last semester my colleague, Mary Christianakis, assigned her students a mash up.  The idea was to take two forms of art (loosely defined) and combine them to inspire, instead of state, a critical perspective.  Below is one of the exemplars, by her student, Samantha Figueroa.  It combines scenes from Pocahontas with a spoken word poem, Slip of the Tongue, by Adriel Luis.



Nice work, Samantha!

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

Mark Your Calendars! October 3rd is the day!

It might even be the the greatest day for American women since August 18, 1920. “That will be a national day of celebration for feminists (and, really, for all human beings) everywhere, with dancing in the streets, parades, and fireworks. That is the day that the final Cathy comic strip will be published.”*

For those who are unfamiliar with it, the comic strip, which has been running for 34 years chronicled the life of a woman who spent most of her adulthood freaking out about her weight, embracing a variety of tropes about the planetary origins of men and women, desperately trying to find Prince Charming, and dealing with her mother. Pretty much every strip involved a gag about how Cathy didn’t fit into a bathing suit, a state of complete and total agitation, followed by making a total mess and winding up covered in chocolate. About 30 years into the strip, Cathy married her hapless boyfriend Irving after many, many years of terrible jokes drawn from The Rules and other similarly awful dating advice books. And for the most part, Cathy had the personality of a poorly drawn wet mop. I honestly have no idea how it lasted so long telling the exact same five jokes over and over.

I’ve always gotten the impression that Cathy was meant as something for women to bond over, but for the most part it just reinforced a lot of wretched stereotypes about women: chocoholics who are always desperate to lose weight but can’t part with the carbs, women who ruin their finances by splurging on overpriced handbags and shoes, being mean to Nice Guys™ knowing in the end that they’re the reliable and steady kind you want to marry, mortal panic about being single, etc.

I can remember reading the comics in my local paper at about the age of nine and thinking that Cathy was particularly ridiculous. Wasn’t she ever going to DO something? Didn’t she like herself? What was going on with all the chocolate, shredded wrapping paper, and bemused looking dog? I really wanted her to have a decent relationship with her mother rather than one premised on her mom’s desire for her to find a nice young man and have a respectable life, and wondered why she had the same conversations over and over and over.

Looking back on it, I have (probably vain) hopes that whatever replaces Cathy in most newspapers will feature a strong female lead character who grows up, has adventures, and evolves in her relationships with other people. It’d also be really nice if there weren’t jokes about being single, PMS references, or an attempted genetic explanation for chocolate consumption. (If anyone knows of a good comic strip or webcomic that meets such criteria, please share in comments!)

*The blogger hopes that Cathy will go out as a suicide bomber and take out a handful of other noxious comic strips. I’m not a fan of that idea, but I have to hope that the end doesn’t involve metaphorical muzak with slow motion montages or whatever the comic strip equivalent is.

Hat tip to Melinda for the link.

Totally Cringe-worthy Dance

After many of our performances, the dancers of our company come back on stage for a Q and A or talkback or something. It’s my least favourite part of the job. I like the protection of the stage and the lights. I will do anything on stage because the firm line of the proscenium protects me. Even when what we are doing is risky, physically and or emotionally, even when I am feel most stripped and vulnerable, I take refuge in the knowledge that I am safe behind the light, the curtains, and the edge of the stage. In that limited, bordered place, I will give you my all. When the lights and curtain are taken away and we reappear (usually soaked in sweat, dressed in half in street clothes and half in costume, water bottles, scarves and jackets tightly in hand), we are no longer the wild, fierce beautiful things on stage; we are human.

Revealing our humanity is, of course, part of the point. Too often, despite the sweat and the breath, dancers seem untouchable, ethereal, and surreal. As I sit before the audience, though, I usually just feel vulnerable and clunky. I’m not so worried that someone will say something negative about the performance — but now I think of it, that would be awful — I find that I am afraid of what people will say about disability and art and that I am unwilling to keep explaining my physicality for consumption by a medically fascinated/intrigued/uncertain audience. It’s one thing to be in control of your self-presentation as a dancer; it’s another to have to explain why you are the way you are; and still another to have to welcome commentary that, in other spaces, you would write off without a second thought.

Here’s what I mean. A choreographer recently changed the ending to one of his pieces. The first version slowed carefully. A voice calls to the dancers on stage; we move; it calls again; we move, this time for a shorter duration; and again; we freeze, recognizing our concluding shapes as the end of a thirty minute journey. We’re here; our time has come to an end. The lights come down slowly; we look at each other intensely and acknowledge the power of the experience we have shared. In the new version, the voice calls to us in the same way; we mark out the seconds to the end of our journey together. But on the final call, instead of finding a quiet stillness, the movement takes us out of ourselves. Time cannot stop; this cannot be the end. We move. And we move. And we just keep moving as the lights come down into black forcing us to stop. I love both endings. They resonate deeply within me; I find myself wanting to cry sometimes, so deeply do I feel the end of time.

After that moment, I want people to talk about the journey they’ve shared with us. And they do. It’s just that all too often, we aren’t on the same pathway at all. Two recent comments have got me thinking. In the first, an audience member is pleased and excited that we’ve “earned” our applause: that people aren’t just clapping because some of us are disabled and we’ve managed to lift a finger. The speaker is exaggerating, of course, but we have encountered situations where reviewers have given positive reviews simply because being disabled and being on stage is so “inspirational.” In these situations, people aren’t engaging with the work; they are reaffirming (for their own safety) a set of useless societal stereotypes about disability, artistry, and virtuosity. I don’t know how to react to such comments. I DESPISE any form of the word inspiration that isn’t being used to describe an intake of breath (link is to my site and a post about it). If seeing almost two hours of fierce dance and intense art cannot break people out of this mode, nothing will.

At the same time, however, I think of this comment as having a nasty, nasty edge. We “earned” our applause, (damn right we did), but we earned it by executing a series of movements that are recognizably extraordinary. When we dive, roll, cartwheel, wheelie, lift, run, jump, balance, …., we are doing things that almost anyone can recognize as needing skill. It’s physically, technically hard. But what if, as a disabled dancer, lifting my finger and bowing my head were as technically complicated for me, in my body, as any of the daredevil things a colleague and I currently do. The work and the skill would be the same, but who in the audience would recognize that I had earned my applause as deservedly? If we continue to push for extreme movement as somewhat definitional, the dance world will remain exclusive. And that isn’t right. Dance belongs to the moving body, not the institution.

A second audience member expresses delight at our work; it’s a particularly sweet delight since this person was concerned about cringing. The comment stings me deeply. It comes from a well-meaning place — that, I gather — it bites nonetheless. I’ve seen “cringe-worthy dance.” If you go to a lot of performances, you will sooner or later hit a couple of “bad” ones. But this audience member made an association between the cringe-worthiness of the performance and the presence of disabled performers. Such is the state of disability-awareness that it is still possible to say this, aloud, in front of other people without an apparent sense of shame. There’s a kind of assumption that a fear of cringing is a shared feeling, and I suppose it probably is.

To my mind, cringe-worthy performances by disabled people come from denying disability, from attempting to overcome it (in a saccharine, inspirational way), or from playing it for sympathy or good will. When disabled performers render themselves abject before your very eyes because that’s what our society expects, it is indeed cringe-worthy. But only because we should cringe at a society that so devalues the humanity of some of its people. We should cringe before a culture that insists on building an understanding of its physicality by casting out the physicality of others. It’s not about cringing because there are disabled performers on stage doing what looks like, well, dance.

It’s kind of like going to a freak-show. If we can be sure that the disabled performers control and manipulate the gaze of a non-disabled eye, that’s one thing. But if the performers are unable to maintain a sense of, I dunno, irony, distance, control; if they seem only to play to societal expectations and to lose themselves, that is cringe-worthy. It is cringeworthy because you, the audience member, participate in the unthinking consumption of another human being as they reiterate for your entertainment a set of demeaning social stereotypes. Neither the performers themselves nor the performance are worthy of your cringe.

On the way home, the bitterness burning inside my stomach, I wonder at the history of “cringe” as a word. A quick check of the Online Etymology Dictionary confirms for me a thought that has been gnawing at my gut. Cringe and crinkle share an etymological history: they are both connected to the Old English word, crincan. “Cringing,” as the commenter used it, contains a sense of shrinking away in fear. It’s a very physical word; you can see a cringe in the mind’s eye and experience it in your body. The twisted, bentness of cringe has a softer dimension, though, in the branch of words that is connected to our current crinkle. Crinkle has a sense of “yielding.”

I hit the accelerator as I swing into the curve that takes me up the hill to where I currently live. I feel my body bend and twist with the steering wheel as the car, the steering wheel and my torso join in a driving dance. What if, unbeknownst to the commenter, “cringe” actually was the right word? What if our performance actually was cringe-worthy — in the sense that our power evoked a kind of yielding and softness in the audience’s bodies? What if, as they softened and let go of prejudice, the passion in our movement transported them to a different place? The car parks itself (thank god); I open the door and bend forward experimenting with a cringing, crinkly softness.

Tagged with: ,

On The Cover

Do you remember the picture in National Geographic of the so-called Afghan girl?

The photograph, taken by Steve McCurry, was of Sharbat Gula; her image adorned the cover of a 1985 issue of National Geographic (The link is to National Geographic’s discussion and review of the story almost 20 years later). I was barely aware of the wider world, then, but as I look back through web discussions (weird, that the web doesn’t go back to 1985, eh?), it seems that the Western world was fascinated with her face, her possible life, her unknown story, her “exotic green eyes,”…. You get the picture. She became a symbol; McCurry won Best 100 National Geographic Pictures.

There’s so much to be said about this story, about the confluence of race, gender, and feminism, about the practices of marketing and Western media — it’s an uncomfortable and disturbing mess. Her value as a symbol was and, indeed, is still so compelling that National Geographic went back in 2002 to find her, to see what had happened to her. Among the outcomes of that visit was a second image of her face — discussion this time is about how hard her life has been. The two images are at the root of a kind of Shepard-Fairey-like tradition of making and remakings of the image — some with honourable intent and some not — all over the internet. (The link is to google image search for “Afghan girl.”)

And now, there’s a third. This latest photograph is the focus of my post today. It’s on the cover of TIME magazine. Once more, the face of a beautiful, young Afghan woman stands in for a discussion of war. This time, however, the woman is visibly disabled. As the cover makes clear, the torture that rendered Aisha disabled, is one of the consequences/risks of an American withdrawal from Afghanistan and the consequent return of the Taliban. I have nothing to say about this thesis; my focus is the value of disability in this picture.

Some More Provisos

  • I will not be embedding the image here for copyright reasons, primarily, and because I am not happy with it — even given the argument that it is part of a tradition.
  • In no way, do I think what happened to Aisha is at all acceptable, excusable, or forgivable. Nothing I am about to write is intended to convey that. This post is a reflection on how the disability that resulted from an unjust punishment is being used to further the discussion of war and women’s rights.
  • In no way, do I wish to convey the idea that I do not think women’s rights in Afghanistan are of critical importance; I think women’s rights are a signal human rights issue. I am trying to understand the role of disability in the discussion of women’s rights.
  • You can read an abridged version of article and see the photograph I’m talking about here. Beware the comments.

    The Photographic Tradition

    I don’t know who reads TIME; I don’t. I don’t know how many of TIME’s readers are old enough to remember the National Geographic photograph in the original or how many became acquainted with Sharbat Gula’s story when National Geographic visited a second time. I do think, however, that there is a mainstream audience out there that is able to recognize that the TIME photo refers back to the National Geographic picture. My bet is that when they make the comparison between the two covers, Aisha will be cast negatively. And that disturbs me. How many of TIME’s readers will look at the image and recognize Aisha as beautiful, exactly as she is? How many of those readers will use her disability as the reason that no one could ever find her beautiful. “As is” is important to me here, because I find sentiments such as “despite her disability,…” as deeply patronizing. Disability can be integrated into one’s understanding of a whole and hale human being.

    I’m not saying that I think Aisha’s particular body is a natural part of human variation; it’s not. (Just in case you thought I was making a pollyanna disability rights and culture argument — I am making a disability rights and culture argument, just not a simple one.) Some children are born with bodies that might be comparable; others acquire them through surgery or medical conditions. I believe in the beauty of these bodies; Lucy Grealy’s achingly beautiful Autobiography Of A Face in which she discusses beauty, disability, and faces was one of the texts that helps me arrive at such a statement.

    Aisha withstood several acts of unbelievable violence; she has a before and after that I think might complicate how we understand her photograph. This video discusses the photographer’s approach.

    Transcription

    Aisha for me was one woman that really stood out. She’s staying in a shelter in Kabul. There was a court case against her within the tribe. She said that as punishment men took her and cut off her ears and her nose. For me, it was more about capturing something about her. And that was the really difficult part. You know her headscarf fell slightly back and her hair was exposed. And she had the most beautiful hair. And I said to her, you know, “You really are such a beautiful woman, and I could never understand or know how you feel it, you know, by having your nose and ears cut off, but what I CAN [emphasis hers] do is show you as beautiful in this photograph.” I could have made a photograph with her looking or, or being portrayed more as the victim. And I thought, “No. This woman is beautiful.”

    In the voiceover, Ms. Bieber finds Aisha beautiful, but that recognition comes not from a consideration of her face or her body as it is now; it’s prompted by an admiration for her hair. (How many times has a white woman found beauty in the hair of a woman of colour?) I suppose I should be glad that Ms. Bieber can see Aisha’s beauty, no matter what its source. But I remain frustrated with the cover image. S.E. Smith (who wrote here earlier this summer) reminds me that Ms. Bieber probably didn’t make the decision herself: covers are editorial decisions. But let’s say, for a moment, that a decision was made and that Ms. Bieber consented. The decision (which is not discussed — does Ms. Bieber deny her own agency? She’s not disowning the photograph) is to go for the pose that most resembles the world-famous image of Sharbat Gula.

    The discourse surrounding the photograph of Sharbat Gula is comprised in large part of discussion of her beauty and, in particular, her eyes. In the photograph, Aisha is posed to recall Sharbat Gula’s image — both women are placed in similar light, with similar head and body positions with regard to the camera, both women wear a headscarf that reveals their hair, both women stare intensely into the camera. The signal difference between the two women is that one is visibly disabled.

    This image would not have to be cover of the magazine. In fact, I would argue that it is the cover primarily because of the power of Sharbat Gula’s image and the, by contrast, negative shock value of Aisha’s disability for readers in the mainstream US (but possibly also Western) world. Ms. Bieber, would not have had to use Aisha’s picture at all — there are other women in the article. Ms. Bieber would not have had to pose her in this manner — there’s another picture of her in the article, seated cross-legged and smiling, full face to the front, at the camera. She’s not even in that position in the video in which Ms. Bieber talks about how she took Aisha’s picture. No. Ms. Bieber’s decision (which, incidentally, she doesn’t discuss) is to go for the pose that most resembles the world-famous image of Sharbat Gula. It’s deliberate. It’s the money-shot.

    Regardless of how disability plays out in Aisha’s world, the vast majority of readers of TIME live in a culture that understands disability as tragedy. As shocking. As among the worst things that can happen to you (bar death). Mainstream American culture thinks it knows disability and knows how to read it. Ms. Bieber has a history of photographing disabled bodies (there’s an image of a wheelchair user in this video of her “Real Beauty” pictures). But the work she does in the Real Beauty series does not come through in this photograph — perhaps because of the context and placement of the image. Here she (and or the editor) uses Aisha’s disability to trade upon the readership’s sympathies and their horror: this and other unknown kinds of disability are a direct result of the US departure from Afghanistan. This is not about Aisha; it’s about the message of the article.

    That women’s rights will be at risk, should the US leave Afghanistan is really not a debatable issue. In fact, looking at Aisha’s story, it seems pretty clear that women’s rights are at risk even while the US is in Afghanistan. So why does the story need Aisha’s disability?

    The relationship between feminism and disability rights is, as the blogosphere repeatedly shows, vexed. Mainstream feminisms simply don’t know what to do with disability. And here, it seems to me that the argument is simple: disability is a screen upon which the narrative claims of women’s rights are projected. (As a disability rights activist, I would have to sigh and say, “again.”) There is no understanding that women’s rights and disability rights do not have to be mutual antagonists. Instead, the Bieber image, as contextualized in TIME, attempts to make women’s rights off the back (so-to-speak) of disability rights. Aisha’s body is the quickest route to publicizing a serious message. It’s the easiest, most visceral, most unthinking, sloppiest way to get a point across.

    To those who would protest that Ms. Bieber was just trying, as she said, to make her look beautiful, I would say that the problem of Western mores, beauty, and disability for people who live non-Western worlds is equally vexed. Anyone remember the beauty contest organized by a white Norwegian, presumably able-bodied man for female amputees in Angola? The mainstream blogosphere discussion was about how important it was for these women to regain their self-esteem. How problematic is it that the non-disabled white folk seek to restore and communicate the beauty (in their own terms) of disabled women of colour? (Links are to my site and to feministe’s own slightly horrifying discussion.) Oh, and in case you were wondering how invisible the disability aspect of Aisha’s story might be, check out this NYT piece, classily entitled “Portrait of Pain.”

    We will never be able to approach these and other complex questions about the relationship of disability, feminism, and beauty unless we have a wider understanding of disability itself. I am going to moderate comments. I ask that you consider this conversation as being part of the process of exploring and understanding some of the ways disability, race, and feminism might travel together.

  • Who’s oggling who now?

    This collection of photos is captioned thusly:

    Magnum presents a gallery about girl-watching all over the world—a truly universal activity. Be sure to read Troy Patterson’s “A Dandy’s Guide to Girl-Watching” in Slate.

    Leaving aside everything skeezy about that description (and the far more uncomfortable “Guide” to watching “girls”), the photo collection itself offers an (unintentionally) interesting look at how we gender the act of watching itself — and who we assume does the watching and who is watched. Take, for example, this image:

    A man in a bathing suit stands on an outdoor staircase. A woman dressed in a short and skirt sits at the bottom of the stairs and looks up at him.

    He’s the one who is nearly naked, standing against the wall. She’s the one fully clothed, with her head tilted up towards him. But he’s the one “watching all the girls”?

    This image too:

    Three West Point cadets stand with their backs to the camera; two girls look at them smiling.

    We can’t see where those West Point cadets are looking; we assume it’s at the girls, since the girls are smiling and looking back at them. But it’s the girls who look giddy and smitten.

    This image, too, seems to be a mutual check-out and not Him Watching Her:

    A young woman and a young man look at each other. Her face is turned towards the camera, and his is turned away.

    Without going into the gender politics of public watching and of the male gaze and “Men look at women; women watch themselves being looked at,” I think it’s at least fair to say that public aesthetic admiration is not a male-only sport. We’re not all watching people of the opposite sex, either. And if “girl-watching” is a universal activity — and, as a girl-watcher myself, I don’t doubt that it is — then I would suggest that boy-watching is nearly as popular. It’s just not as recognized or emphasized, and it’s not tied to the same kind of social power and commandeering of public space.

    Tagged with: , ,

    “The Pleasures of Modern Living”

    Rob Walker, who blogs at MKTG, sent me a link to Nadine Boughton’s The Pleasures of Modern Living series. As Boughton describes the images,

    Using vintage magazines and materials, I scan and compose digital collages, piecing together fragments of memory into new narratives.  My intention is to blend the nostalgia for the past with the darkness beneath “the pleasures of modern living.”

    I am interested in the portrayal of women and domestic culture; the illusion of security; food as an object of desire and comfort; and the grip of materiality.

    Here are a few:

    Also check out Boughton’s True Adventures in Better Homes series, a commentary on the images of femininity and masculinity represented in ’50s men’s adventure magazines and Better Homes and Gardens.

    (View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

    Art Historian John Berger on Female Objectification

    Last week I linked to the first episode of the 1972 BBC documentary, Ways of Seeing (thanks again to Christina W.).  The second episode, partially embedded below offers an art historian’s perspective on the objectification of women in European art and advertising, starting with paintings of nude women.  “To be naked,” he argues, “is to be oneself.  To be nude is to be seen naked by others and yet not recognized for oneself. A nude has to be seen as an object in order to be a nude… they are there to feed an appetite, not to have any of their own.”

    And there’s a very provocative statement about hair and hairlessness (down there) in the midst.

    Parts One and Two of Four:

    (View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

    Ways of Seeing by John Berger

    Christina W. alerted us to the availability of the first episode of John Berger’s 1972 BBC documentary, Ways of Seeing.  Berger was is a artist, author, and art critic.  In the first episode of the documentary (in four parts below) he asks how the ease of reproduction made possible by the camera (both still and moving) has changed the meaning of art.  The episode is a bit slow (for my taste), but has some interesting ideas.

    First he argues that the ability to reproduce works of art in books, on posters, postcards, and television screens means that art is experienced in a decontextualized way (or in the context of, say, your living room). No longer something we pilgrimage to, to consume in a very specific context, they come to us.  This, he argues, has multiplied a work of art’s possible meanings.

    As an aside, he makes an interesting argument that the obsession with authenticity — “usually linked with cash value,” he says, “but also invoked in the name of culture and civilization” — is actually “a substitute for what paintings lost when the camera made them reproducible.”

    He then talks about how our experience of art is mediated by media (whether it be an art book or a discussion of art in a television program), so that our reaction to it is inevitably shaped by its re-interpretation.  The art critic, for example, tells us what to think about a piece of art. (No doubt, his call for skepticism certainly can be applied to Sociological Images.)

    But reproduction and the multiplication of meaning also makes it easier to make connections and have personalized reactions.

    (Btw, there is a pretty awesome moment at 4:38 of the third installment.)

    Start watching Episode Two here.

    (View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

    “Female Subjects Are Often Best Pictured with Soft Lighting”

    Katie sent in an image from Digital SLR Cameras and Photography For Dummies by David D. Busch. The image followed this text (p. 181):

    To minimize wrinkles or facial defects, such as scars or bad complexions, use softer, more diffuse lighting, as shown in Figure 10-3.

    And here is Figure 10-3 with the accompanying caption (p. 182):

    So after learning that diffuse lighting is good for minimizing defects, we are then told that women in general need such lighting. Katie says she tried to imagine the reason for this instruction, but “can’t think of a possibility that isn’t about reinforcing traditionally-gendered imagery.” The assumption in the book seems to be that women always want, and need, to be photographed in ways that emphasize a blemish-free beauty ideal. Not all subjects are “often best pictured” in this way; this instruction is specifically about how to present women. Presumably we might want to picture men in ways that emphasize strength, or show them as wizened or wrinkled or otherwise presented without the softening effect of diffuse lighting.

    It’s a small example of how gendered norms are taken for granted and reproduced in various fields. If you’ve seen similar examples (or, for that matter, contrary ones) about  photography, painting, etc., we’d love to have them.

    (View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)