In the contemporary Western world, naked and near-naked bodies are revealed everywhere. But most of the bodies we see are those of models and actors, carefully cultivated, chosen, and digitally altered to look a particular way. Except, artist Clarity Haynes notes, the “before” pictures in advertisements for diet plans and cosmetic surgeries. She writes:
“Before” pictures pop up constantly on our computers and in magazines, as part of the daily landscape of imagery. These “before” pictures, meant to shock and scare, show bodies that are presented as needing urgent correction and control, through weight loss or plastic surgery.
In an effort to reclaim these “before” bodies, Haynes has lovingly painted a range of female bodies. The Breast Portrait Project, she continues:
…is about finding dignity and beauty in the physical characteristics of the body that our popular culture often ridicules and heaps with shame, and in the process allowing the models who participate to feel pride in their particular selves — and by extension, the viewers of the work as well, regardless of their gender.
Visit Hayne’s gallery. And, for more normalizing of normal bodies, see these selections of breasts, bellies, and vulvas.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 93
J — June 11, 2011
Am I the only one who immediately looks for the one that looks the most like myself?
Josh — June 11, 2011
Am I the only who gets annoyed by the fact that this blog paints fat, out of shape people as being the norm? How should that make me, a fit trim athletic type, feel? Abnormal?
I don't work out because of sociological pressure. I work out because it gives me energy, makes me happy, and I believe it will allow me to live a long and happy life.
Whenever you folks put up these posts where you trumpet that it's okay to be fat, you turn a blind eye to the real, tangible benefits of being in good physical condition. It is about more than just looks.
I am very aware that some people cannot help their weight. I also agree that you don't have to look like a model to be healthy and fit and a few extra pounds doesn't really matter. That beig said... Many obese people really would see an improvement in their quality of life if they lost some weight. Why don't you talk about that?
Flea — June 11, 2011
Why the NSFW tag?
Gilbert Pinfold — June 11, 2011
There are many studies showing people's aesthetic preference for symmetry. If this hard wired you may have a hard time changing preference with agit-prop. But fortunately, as Meg said above, there are still many poignant quirkinesses to everyone seeking happiness.
larrycwilson — June 11, 2011
This concern over the ideal body goes at least as far back as the Ancient Greeks. Of course they tended to be more concerned with male beauty than the average American seems to be today.
Jill — June 11, 2011
It's nice to see bodies that aren't slimmed, stretched and tweaked by photoshop. It's so rare and it makes me feel good about my own body. I think that's the point. It's so rare to see VARIETY. My body is not perfect - not even close. I try to stay healthy and do exercise regularly, but exercising regularly does NOT mean I have a flat stomach or a perfect body. Interestingly, the media seems to now be promoting a very unhealthy lifestyle - women who are so thin, they look anorexic. Of course, we also see the, "too thin" pics in magazines sometimes as well. I've actually seen one woman described in one magazine as "too thin" and in another as having a hot body - both out on the newsstands at the same time. So, which is it? For me, it's just nice to see different shapes and sizes, which is SO RARE, particularly for women.
tree — June 11, 2011
this post made me smile in a way that most posts here don't. thanks for brightening my day, soc images.
Franklin — June 11, 2011
Let's reclaim the 'before' minds too. After all our minds are a function of our brain, which is part of the human body. And bodies are fine the way they are. There's just too much societal pressure on becoming educated when the human mind is fine the way it is. We don't need knowledge. We don't need endless movies, documentaries and social images of humans with so much more knowledge and wisdom than we could ever possess. It must really marginalize those who are, by genetics or societal factors, unintelligent. Posters with Albert Einstein--no different than fat shaming Photoshops.
Now I don't expect professors, physical trainers of the mind, to endorse such a view. Our minds aren't fine the way they are, they say. Their goal of course is to reshape our minds in vast gymnasia of intellectual development. But as we've said before the human body is fine the way it is, including our brains. So go on, drop out of university. You'll save a lot more money than dropping out of a gym.
ms.bec — June 11, 2011
What's more interesting to me is the artist's statement where she talks about the participatory nature of portraiture as an act of self revelation. "The agency of the model is integral to my work"....
Indeed the comments here have just reiterated the artist's point that we subject ourselves to this constant comparison to ideals (or non-ideals as an act defiance) and the meditative act of just pure representation has something to teach us about true acceptance.
Kelly — June 12, 2011
Am I the only ones who notices that they are headless? Helloooo. Still objectifying women's body, and also bring the dreaded torso shot common in news media to mind. You know the one: the wobbling belly and thunder thighs, head and usually feet obscured for anonymity, illustrating the horror of the obesity epidemic. Sure, seeing different kinds of bodies are great. But we are still looking at BODIES, not WOMEN. And that's not good enough.
Estella — June 12, 2011
I think this is a generally helpful idea, but I can't help noticing: All the posts in this line-up are supposed to be about reclaming the bodies of ordinary people, but all of them focus exclusively on women's bodies. I realize that there is greater pressure on women to conform to beauty ideals, but that pressure exists increasingly for men as well. Which makes me wonder whether anyone has ever thought to do this kind of project with men's bodies...
Kittens — June 13, 2011
I'm pro-normalizing different shapes and sizes, because we are shown a very narrow range of people in the media as models and sex symbols. I do believe that there are innate human preferences for certain things like facial symmetry or indicators of fertility or masculinity BUT the cultural images we are exposed to play a huge role in this. If you like blondes with long hair or fancy bald men, having had a Farrah Fawcett poster on your wall or watching Captain Picard every day during your formative years likely has something to do with that. My husband likes it when I don't wear makeup and his mom never wears makeup. What we see most often does become more "normal" to us.
The images we see of naked people are even more narrow; we don't see heavy people or people with disabilities in mainstream porn or swimsuit editions of magazines. As others have pointed out, before global media or magazines with photography, the average person living in a village or city saw those around them, not a thousand images of ideal people beamed into their houses in a given week. That has to affect what we view as the norm.
Aoirthoir — June 15, 2011
"Its pretty clear that this was meant to be "hey hurry up and buy this ad space before the fat guy takes all his clothes off" and no amount of "I find him attractive" is going to change that."
There is a difference between "hurry up before he takes off his clothes" and "hurry up before he takes off his clothes cause you must think he is repulsive."
"In fact the "I find him attractive" opinion just means that the people of that mindset would not buy that ad space."
I find him attractive and I would buy the adspace? But you must not have read my commentary about how adspace like this is sold. We people you know, IN THE ACTUAL BUSINESS of advertising, understand advertisers motivations and plans far more than the rest of yall.
"But I wonder if that's because they find him attractive and just want to look at the ad or its because they find the ad agency's message offensive and don't want to do business with them. Personally I'm of the latter."
I wasn't offended by the agency's message. I didn't find the message to be "eewww gross! Buy this ad quick!" But then I wasn't grossed out by the guy, that's the body type I am trying to build for myself.
"Oh and apparently not only did the space get sold in time but it also won some sort of advertising award."
It won an award which it deserved. The model deserved the recognition. The ad space was likely sold well in advance of this ad going up. If not then someone's not been doing their job preselling the adspace. MAYBE it was a brand new space, but even then the great expense required to create these spaces means that they have to be presold.
"I wonder what would happen if that were a poster of a man that's considered attractive*?"
The same exact thing. People would think it is an interesting funny ad.
"My money says that straight guys would be complaining and everyone would suddenly be up in arms about homophobia"
Can we stop comflating "gay hate" with persons who are non-neuro-typical? A person with a phobia should not be thrown under the bus this way.
"and straight male privilege. Or a woman that's considered attractive*? Or a fat woman (if anything my money says that this post would not be anywhere near as gender neutral as it is now)?"
All of these would be considered positive ads, except perhaps the fat woman. Of course if it were a fat woman *I* would consider a positive ad. But not most others. Whereas with a fat man those that think it positive or negative are about equally split.
Whats the lesson here? Just because you THINK an ad is negative, doesn't mean it ACTUALLY IS negative.
* - By "considered attractive" I'm talking about society's norms.""
Men are generally more attractive* than women. Using your asterix, I mean by society's "norms". So the same thing would have happened.
"*sigh*
You realize that people in the real world don’t completely control what media they’re exposed to, right?"
I very rarely see portrayals of my family constellation or the disability that a family member has in the media in doctor’s offices, presentations/handouts at work, social service agencies, government agencies, or really any of the other places I visit where I don’t choose who’s portrayed in the media that gives me my information."
None of which refutes what I said. In fact it makes it even MORE important to CONTROL AS MUCH of the media we are exposed to as possible. It makes it MORE IMPORTANT to be creators of that media as much as possible.
/sigh.
Beauty is in the eye… « Duty To Inquire — December 14, 2011
[...] post I read a while ago in the society pages. These projects also seemed related to this idea of exposing the bodies of normal women. Warning, the links contain images of naked people. End [...]