The Gaze and The Media Lecture - My Thoughts

I think it's pretty well known that using sex in advertising is a strategy for selling, as it sort of comes under shock tactics and sort of has its own category of advertising, so I would suggest that, whilst Rosalind Cowards theory makes sense, I also think that in the modern day world, where male grooming and appearance is becoming a big thing as well, that the camera can also work as an extension of the female gaze. Because of this I wouldn't really suggest that it was an extension of anyones gaze, as that sort of implies extra power to some people but not to others, I'd rather suggest that the camera is more of an insight into what were once other peoples private  moments. I use the word insight rather than intrusion, as I think that you must bare in mind that all people photographed for advertising campaigns both agreed to and were paid do be in the campaigns. 

As society is becoming more sexualised, I think the Titian painting used as part of an explanation of Bergers theory sums up most of the nudity in todays media. I think a good example is this Dolce & Gabbana advert, where both the male and female have equally semi challenging expressions. Whilst they're not fully challenging the camera, they seem to accept it, which I think is a strong reflection on todays media.

Despite saying this, it's difficult to disagree with the argument that their is more female nudity than male nudity in the media. I don't know enough about art history to really have any thoughts on Griselda Pollock's theory, but I would suggest that it's a difficult subject for feminism to attempt to change due to how firmly embedded it is into the media. I think as long as you have "good causes" subscribing to the idea that sex sells, it's somewhat difficult to challenge sexism in the media head on. This campaign for PETA, an organisation that campaigns for the Ethical treating of animals, is a perfect example. I would argue that the ethical treatment of people is more important than the ethical treatment of animals, and would suggest that any organisation campaigning for the ethical treatment of animals should be more than happy with the ethical treatment/use of people within their organisation. The fact that they deem it acceptable that an advert using nudity and innuendo such as this is somewhat astonishing to my mind, and shows just how "acceptable" nudity is within the media.

I would also argue that the idea of women being feeling uneasy being able to eat bananas in public, as suggested Sarah Lucas' work supporting Pollocks theory is absurd, although I suppose I can never truly be sure of this given that I'm male. Personally I feel like the whole idea of phallic innuendo is generally taken as a joke within society, as shown by this Volvo ad, a company which will generally have a male target audience.

That said, it does sort of imply that male nudity is somewhat of a joke in response to female nudity. I think that that's the way it will always be though, purely because female nudity in the media is such a big thing, I can't see how it can be stopped or even curbed without using fairly radical measures which would question the whole idea of a free market.