stein@gt-cmmsr.UUCP (Carolyn P. Steinhaus) (10/25/85)
Sigh. It does seem like some people catch on slowly.
First, let me say that, as a piece of art, the IEEE cover was
nicely done. To my eyes it was sensuous, but not pornographic.
However, that alone does not make it non- objectionable.
We are in a field where women are underrepresented and have been so
historically. I think it unlikely that a male nude or even a couple
would have ever been so used on a cover of a technical publication.
So. What does it mean that they did use a female figure that way.
That everyone in the intended audience would appreciate a subtle
erotic message? That no one would identify with the nude?
To me it is a subtle message that I as a women am related to
IEEE as a subject for erotica rather than a buyer of books.
I suspect that actually some "naughty boys" somewhere did this
just to see if they could get a rise out of nearby feminists,
and *prove* how unreasonable they are. Sigh. There are plenty
of feminists who love sex (yes, even hetrosexual sex) and still
think feminist issues are not ludicrous or trivial.
Frankly, I think most men would recognized the inappropriateness
of erotica in this context if it were not so onesided. How about
a nice graphic of a penis? Or a couple appraoching copulation?
Perhaps an improved future would allow for casual references to
sexuality, but the point here is that females are exposed while men
are not. Think of what it would be like to be the only naked person
in a group where everyone else was wearing clothes. While not taking
things that far, the IEEE cover was in that direction. Its the
context in which it appears that makes it objectionable, not the
art itself.
--
Carolyn P. Steinhaus
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!gt-cmmsr!steinbarry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/26/85)
From Carolyn P. Steinhaus (gt-cmmsr!stein): >Sigh. It does seem like some people catch on slowly. Well, I haven't *seen* the IEEE cover in question; maybe that's slowed down my catching on. But, since you say that: >First, let me say that, as a piece of art, the IEEE cover was >nicely done. To my eyes it was sensuous, but not pornographic. ...I'm going to assume that the cover was only objectionable to you for what it protrayed and where it portrayed it, not for the manner of portrayal. If this is so, then the topic is female nudes on the cover of technical pubs, not one, specific cover, and it shouldn't matter that I've not seen the particular cover you refer to. >However, that alone does not make it non- objectionable. >We are in a field where women are underrepresented and have been so >historically. I think it unlikely that a male nude or even a couple >would have ever been so used on a cover of a technical publication. I suspect you're right, but I take a different implication from this. The nude (of either sex) has been a mainstay in the arts for millenia. From the Greeks, we have inherited a (frequently maligned) idea that the human form is a thing of beauty. And, while erotic art is certainly one tradition, the fact is that the nude is also a common theme in non-erotic art, as a thing of visual beauty. It does seem that our culture has a bias in favor of female nudes, but I think this is as easily explained by a widespread cultural homophobia, as by an expression of sexism against women. >So. What does it mean that they did use a female figure that way. >That everyone in the intended audience would appreciate a subtle >erotic message? I don't think so. As I stated, use of the nude in art is not necessarily sexual. I assume that the IEEE picked the cover for its relevance to computer graphics, and its attractiveness. The fact that it was a nude only means that nudes are a common subject for artists. >That no one would identify with the nude? >To me it is a subtle message that I as a women am related to >IEEE as a subject for erotica rather than a buyer of books. Having not seen the specific cover, I can't say you're wrong. But you do make it sound as though nude=bad, and I can't agree to that. Nor even to nude=sex. Is the Venus de Milo sexual? Is nudism a sexual fetish? I don't think so. >I suspect that actually some "naughty boys" somewhere did this >just to see if they could get a rise out of nearby feminists, >and *prove* how unreasonable they are. Sigh. Possible, I suppose. But given that nudes are a traditional subject for art, I can't see any real basis for your suspicion. >There are plenty >of feminists who love sex (yes, even hetrosexual sex) and still >think feminist issues are not ludicrous or trivial. A *few* issues raised by a *few* feminists are ludicrous and trivial. Clearly this is not an indictment of feminism. >Frankly, I think most men would recognized the inappropriateness >of erotica in this context if it were not so onesided. How about >a nice graphic of a penis? Or a couple appraoching copulation? If you assume nude female = erotica, your question makes sense, but I question the assumption. Soap-box time: our culture has a hang-up about nudity. The fact is, there is nothing necessarily sexual about nudity. It is a matter of context. Since I've not seen the cover, I will not dispute with anyone who claims the cover was intentionally erotic; I don't know. What I will dispute is the notion that artists must bow to our cultural idiosyncracies simply because they're widely believed. Ultimately, erotica is in the eye of the beholder. When I first hit puberty, I found the National Geographic erotic. I was as thorough a victim of our cultural hangup about nudity as anyone. But that was *me* doing it, not the National Geographic. And I grew out of it. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry