Naked women. What’s not to love, right?
Well…Let’s talk about Frank Cordelle.
Cordelle is a photographer with a long-running exhibit he calls The Century Project. It’s a collection of pics — nude girls and women ages birth through 100. (Get it? One hundred years of naked women = The Century Project.) The line-up for 2009 includes shows at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, Rhodes College in Memphis, and the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA.
The pics are supposedly a celebration of the naked female body in a variety of shapes, sizes, races, and ages. Each photo comes with a little story about the featured female. Many of these “moving personal statements,†as Cordelle calls them, are first-person blurbs about overcoming abuse, eating disorders, etc.
Cordelle’s Mission Statement describes his exhibit as a project that “aims more generally to stimulate thought and discussion about subjects that are often taboo in our culture, or otherwise too personal, too painful.†An 8-year-old girl certainly has lots to tell us. But why does she have to do it in the nude?
Visual artist Karen Henninger comments, “if men REALLY got the issues, they would refrain — as in take a break — from female nudity. There is NO need for men to do female nudity — unless it SERVES them. It’s pretty much a mainstream art thing. Female nudity is acceptable and will get you attention. So much for art being a place of ‘creativity,’†Henninger says. Check out the Met. Or any other museum. As the Guerrilla Girls have noted for years, themes of female nudity melded with rape or sexual assault — regardless of how the art is intended — have been a constant theme in art history. Think Rubens’ Rape of Europa or Hayez’s Susannah at her Bath. Depicting women naked, vulnerable, or linked in some way to abuse has been “a constant way for women to be portrayed†in the art world Henninger comments.
But back to Cordelle.
The problem is not female nudity or female sexuality. The problem is that The Century Project uses naked female bodies, eating disorders, and abuse in ways that promote voyeuristic interest. While childhood nudity should be free and joyful, in our culture that’s a big challenge because girls are already hypersexualized at younger and younger ages. As a result we — as a culture — often don’t know how to see a naked female body (regardless of age) other than in sexualized terms. Is she available? Arousing? Sexually interesting? Or not?
I am anti-censorship. I’m a huge fan of feel-good sexual exploration and the freedom to accept our own bodies on our own terms.
The Century Project is not it.
It’s the same old-same old: girls’ and women’s naked bodies on display. I saw the exhibit and talked to the photographer. For the most part, the “moving personal statements” moved me to want to vomit. The exhibit visually exploited women and put their stories on display for no apparent productive end.
Check the photographer’s website and see what he has to say under the FAQ “Why Women?” I remain unconvinced that he gets the issues. Cordelle’s explanation for exhibiting naked female bodies reinforces assumptions about women as different and needing special attention or unique protection. There’s something really off about it. He puts girls and women on display while claiming concern for our well being. Really, Frank: Don’t.
And P.S., Therese Shechter (Trixie Films) has continued this convo over at the blog American Virgin. Drop by and take a look!
Comments
dawn — February 15, 2009
I am really not ok with the little girls being in the show especially in a sample on the internet. I don't want to get into a Sally Mann discussion so I'll sum it up like this: White man taking picture of naked black little girl for exhibition and putting her pic up on the internet? In a show ostensibly to show the bodily changes of ADULT women? So not ok with me.
Lillian Ann Sluogcki — February 15, 2009
Interesting coincidence. I have just published a post on my blog about female nudity and the female gaze versus the male. The image I used is a nude photograph of myself, ten years ago. In this context, I am subject, not object. It is my representation of the female body. It is my portrait. The male gaze is very different. I know that this is primarily a cinematic terms, but extend the defintion to still photography. I found some of the images on the Century Project very disturbing, particuarly the young, naked girl who was screaming. I also agree that the image of the young black girl is also disturbing. Also it is neither transgressive or revolutionary to photography older women who are nude. It's just exploitive.
Feminist Review — February 15, 2009
Perhaps a better version of this project is the one done by Roseann Olson and compiled into the book This is Who I Am: Beauty Comes in All Shapes and Sizes.
I think that most people will react strongly against the showing of naked little girls. I do as well. What I wonder, though, is if we shouldn't take a moment to think about the immediate sexualization of women and girls' naked bodies, and consider that nakedness in itself isn't inherently sexual. Doesn't this picture raise these internal conflicts and questions within us? And is that the intention of the artist with this photo? Or is that my own feminist consciousness coming through?
Hayley Miller — February 16, 2009
I find it that striking that a stranger can take pictures of naked children and post them in the museum, but then a mother who took naked pictures of her child playing in the yard got arrested for child porn when she had them developed [this was years ago before digital photography]. The message is inconsistent. What if these were 3rd world children & women from a remote village in their normal naked dress? Is that more ok? If the children were photographed by their parents?
I wish nakedness of children could be seen as innocent and beautiful, but unfortunately that isn't the case [like breastfeeding].
I am also anti-censorship and pro-art, but that doesn't mean that exploitation can hide behind the guise of art.
Gay Riseborough — February 16, 2009
I am an artist and draw the nude figure regularly. I find myself conflicted regarding these photographs and the question of exploitation. Maybe they are exploitive, but I found them vaguely boring. We've seen so much of that sort of thing by now. What I found that interested me were the little statements -- so revealing of personality, of situations. I don't think these photos will get much attention. I notice the venues are all colleges, not museums. That, in itself, says something.
Jonathan Felix — February 17, 2009
Let me start by saying that I think a woman's body (any woman's body) is by far the most beautiful and exquisite creation on our planet. However, I feel our society first focuses on the sexuality of womens bodies, and then tacks on a little story and tries to pass it as art or political expression. I think there is a time and place for erotic pictures of women that express the beauties of their bodies in a beautiful way (non pornographic, see Lillian Ann Sluogcki). However, when many male photographers or artist try to capture a womens beauties, it ends up focusing on certain characteristics and becomes generally offensive, especially if they are nudes. Why are pictures of girls in jeans and tshirts not sexy? Mr. Cordelle's exhibit is old and archaic. I hope the current and future generations of men can come up with a better view of womens bodies and a better definition of sexy. And furthermore, I hope professional men stop taking the same naked pictures of women over and over again just to show the "radical changes over the course of the biological continuum" cause thats just BS. I dont think this helps women at all, and I dont think it changes our societies ideologies, and I also think it gives serious "meat" to the sexually driven stereotype that all men continue to face.
Naked Women. What’s Not to Love, Right? at Shira Tarrant — February 18, 2009
[...] Find out with my latest post to Girl With Pen. [...]
Cathy — February 20, 2009
He clearly doesn't understand the issue. The best comparison I have is that of our attempts to be a post-racial society, where people want to latch onto this image of people today being forward-thinking, and so when the New York Post publishes racist editorial cartoons, black people are told to lighten up. After all, this is a post-racial society so clearly that wasn't the intent. Instead of accepting it for what it is and having a real discussion on race issues, it's being swept under the rug so people can still think they are past racism.
The same is true of this. We want to latch onto this "womens' bodies are beautiful!" mentality without first addressing the frustrations that women feel when our bodies are so negatively represented in all forms of media. It's like telling us we should be able to see a book full of nude girls and women because we got the right to vote years ago, so sexism is over, isn't it? I'll appreciate Cordelle's mission when he first realizes that this is hardly the time to be portraying women this way as an attempt to empower them. Maybe in some perfect world where the average person can view the nude female body in a more neutral way. Not now, we are not that advanced as a society.