In Kaja Silverman's article, she explains how institute of fashion and dress in general has transformed from being part of one's socio-economic status to defining gender. With a statement that she makes, "the male subject is as dependant on the gaze of the Otheras is the female subject.....that he is fundamenatlly exhibitionistic," male subjectivity is compared to that of a woman and in saying so, I slightly disagree with the statement that both genders are dependant to the gaze. I also argue that the portrayal of women and men in fashion and film differ quite drastically. In fashion, women's clothing is meant to appeal to men, while men's fashion is also meant to appeal to men. Dependancy on the "connoiseur"to look or gaze in essense may be similar, but the audience is men for both. That is, that women dress to impress of the gaze of men and men also dress to compare themselves to other men and who looks better, not necessarily to impress women.
Silverman also speaks on ornamentation and dressing the body so that it can be "culturally seen" in society, which is a very interesting point. People tend to dress or ornament themselves to represent who they are, what they are into and even what they care about. I also find it interesting when she states that "dress is one of the most important cultural implements for articulating and territorializing human corporeality..." Although it is an interesting point, I just don't see how the nature of the physical body is defined by dress in its entirety. In this same scope, I argue that when Silverman mentions "natural" and then mentions "beauty/beautiful" in terms of dress and the body, if the body is dressed then it is then NOT natural and beautiful. It is the same as wearing make-up and being called "naturally" beautiful despite the enhancement with make-up.
No comments:
Post a Comment