I recently enrolled in a Masters of Communications (looking at how graphic design can be used in political campaigns), so I’ve decided to try to blog more regularly again, in an attempt to remember how to write. (After writing that last sentence, I checked Facebook, Twitter, and read some emails. I clearly need to add ‘more blogging’ to that list.) Anyway, these are some thoughts I’ve been pondering that are slightly relevant to my thesis, but not quite.
Visual communication is generally thought to be inferior to verbal and written communication. But sometimes the lack of respect given to the visual as a means of communication gives it a power that more respected means don’t have. The Obamas and the Kennedys provide an interesting example. Presidents Obama and Kennedy are known for their brilliant use of oratory; both use/d speech to powerful effect. Meanwhile their wives are both most comfortably seen as fashion icons: beautiful, yes, but on the whole we don’t really care to hear them speak.
Jackie Kennedy place in fashion history is well-known. She helped popularise the kind of fashion epitomised by the Chanel suit: elegant, minimalist, luxurious, but with a lack of unnecessary ornamentation, and that didn’t get in the way of actually doing things. Her clothes had already been used to communicate political messages, and JFK’s interest in what she wore showed that he understood the way in which her fashion choices could be used to communicate in ways he never could: “nobody wonders what Lyndon and I wear.”
One of the things she remembered was how the president, shortly before their trip to Dallas, had for the first time in their marriage asked what she planned to wear: “‘There are going to be all these rich, Republican women at that lunch,’” J.F.K. told her, “‘wearing mink coats and diamond bracelets. And you’ve got to look as marvelous as any of them. Be simple—show these Texans what good taste really is.’
Jackie dressed in her pink Chanel suit in Dallas, Texas remains one of the most memorable representations of her. The suit was actually a knock-off (knock offs didn’t have the same negative connotations in those days), in response to pressure for her to ‘buy American‘. When JFK was killed, and LBJ sworn in, Jackie showed the world how that she also understood the power of the visual, and she used it to speak to the importance of that moment with a skill that matched her husband’s use of oratory.
In her autobiography, Lady Bird recalled the scene aboard Air Force One while accompanying the casket to Washington: “Mrs. Kennedy’s dress was stained with blood. One leg was almost entirely covered with it and her right glove was caked, it was caked with blood — her husband’s blood. Somehow that was one of the most poignant sights — that immaculate woman exquisitely dressed, and caked in blood.”Mrs. Kennedy repeatedly rebuffed suggestions, beginning in the chaos outside Parkland’s trauma room, that she change clothes. In “The Death of a President,” William Manchester chronicled how tensions on Air Force One grew with “the feeling that something must be done about her appearance.” Mrs. Johnson tried; so, later, did Mrs. Kennedy’s own mother, Janet Auchincloss.
…
Mrs. Johnson never forgot the essence of that message, or the fierceness in the 34-year-old widow’s voice as she refused all entreaties to change her clothes. “I want them to see what they have done to Jack,” she said.
In that suit she stood at Lyndon B. Johnson’s side as he took the oath of office on Air Force One, “a silhouette from another world,” as Manchester put it. At Andrews Air Force Base, a proposal was made to exit the plane on the starboard side to avoid news photographers. She rejected it. One of the last pictures of her in the suit is in the East Room. Her shoulders hang heavily. Smeared blood covers a leg, and her gaze is fixed on the casket being lowered onto the catafalque.
Michelle Obama is an incredibly smart, successful woman, but as First Lady, everyone is again much more interested in her value as Fashion Icon. That must infuriate her at times, even while she clearly enjoys embracing the fashion world. We prefer to keep her in the inferior, visual realm, where women ‘naturally’ belong. (Hilary Clinton was of course not suitable for positions of power, because of her insistence on aging and other crimes against this undervalued, but essential, womanly requirement.) But being an incredibly smart lady, she has learned to use this ‘inferior’ means of communication to say things that we won’t allow her to say through speech, lest she seem too angry.
Rebecca Traister makes an important argument that the ‘scary’ progress of the first black family in the Whitehouse had to be toned down or balanced out by a return to the 1960s – “Bamalot” – that erases Michelle Obama’s impressive educational and career achievements in favour of an image of her as wife and mother.
But, while the tradition that the Obamas reflect may be a very traditional, arguably regressive, image for white women, for a black woman to resign from her paid job and spend time nurturing and raising a family it is a revolutionary one. Jolene Ivey writes about her experiences of being a stay-at-home mother, surrounded by white women who were supportive, but who could never completely understand the experience from her point of view.
I can’t think of a better ambassador for Mocha Moms than Michelle Obama. For all the 16 years I was home with my kids, no one cared what my views were on anything more exciting than toilet training. She’ll be in the position to bring light to issues and organizations that are currently working in obscurity, and energize their efforts.
And so again, while we tried to relegate Obama to the visual, where we can enjoy the pretty clothes and feel secure in the knowledge that she’s too busy growing vegetables to be a threat to ‘whitey’, she’s used the means provided to her to communicate a revolutionary message of her own, in which a black woman can make choices to benefit her own family, rather than being forced to do another’s dirty work.
As far as I am concerned, she can call herself a “working” mom, a “stay at home” mom, a “whatever she wants” mom. Many of us are still basking in the glow, grinning from ear to ear, reveling in the fact that Barack and Michelle Obama are simply “there.”
This isn’t an argument that women have special powers – that they’re separate but equal. In a world where speech and the written word are valued above all other means of communication, everyone can and must be allowed to participate in that sphere. However, women’s liberation involved two different aims: both letting women participate in ‘men’s work’ and giving more respect to ‘women’s work’. Likewise, while we must make sure that the oppressed can participate in the written and verbal realms, we should also recognise the ways in which the visual is just as important and useful.
A few thoughts
The Catholic Church along with many other religions have not missed the power of aesthetics for communication. Royalty also through time has used aesthetics to convey power at first sight. And in nature (especially) aesthetics communicate without language.
On Michelle Obama though here the understanding does become complex. You really do have to divide up human preconceptions into bands to measure the appeal of the Obamas. There are those for whom simply a person being a woman draws respect, right along with the converse and every possible combination in between. The fact that Michelle Obama is a bright high achiever needs also to be guaged in that way. The fact that she has become the first lady adds another layer as does the fact that she is a black person, right on through to her fashion sense. That is the human condition.
I for one would like to here what she has to say, and how she goes about it. The fact that she is a beautiful and well presented woman adds to her appeal.
What might be an interesting study is the order of visual appreciations. ie if beautiful then what to look for next, else if not beautiful what to look for…..
There used to be a bar in St. Kilda called Jackie O. I always joked that the staff should wear little pink suits with bloodstains.
I notice Carla Bruni sometimes works the little suit and pillbox hat look.
I always thought of Jackie at that time as the anti Marilyn Monro, along with Audrey Hepburn. Very slender, brown haired women wearing simple elegant clothes. Their sexuality seems self-contained, under their control, whereas Marilyn’s sexuality seems more out of her control. Perhaps she seems to be dressing more for male eyes, whereas women like Jackie and Audrey seem to be dressing for women’s pleasure. Perhaps the same thing is true for Michelle Obama.
The story of Jackie purposely dressing in a simple style as opposed to the fur and jewels of the Texan Republican women reminds me of Jean Shrimpton’s visit to the Spring Racing Carnival in 1965 and the huge fuss that caused. The objection wasn’t so much that her dress was above the knee, but that it was so simple and unadorned by gloves, hat and stockings. The other women by her side now look thoroughly overdressed. But she was seen as not giving the event the respect it should be owed.
I love this visual communication blog
http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/
I’m sure most people here would already know about it but if you don’t, it’s worth a look.
re Jean Shrimpton, one of the UK politicians’ wives who attended the royal wedding last week is getting stick for “disrespect” because she didn’t wear a hat.
It can be quite astonishing how much these visual signifiers matter on some occasions.
An interesting art exhibition review from the NYT that raises some excellent points about the interplay of images and words, art and literature, artist and novelist, but also the perpetuation of women being present in art only for their “to-be-looked-at-ness” and the bias towards an Anglophone public.
Hilary Clinton isn’t president today because her political machine underestimated the potency of the Obama challenge in the primary campaigns. Her sex, age and appearance had little to do with it.
Katz, in that paragraph of the OP Hillary Clinton was being compared with other First Ladies, not with other presidential candidates.
Perhaps.
But in terms of physical attractiveness of First Ladies, Hillary Clinton is closer to the top of the ladder than the bottom.
I refer to the Mesdames Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush (senior).
Of the post WWII First Ladies, that leaves Mesdames Kennedy, Obama and maybe Bush (junior).
Welcome back to blogging, AW. Long may it continue at the expense of your coursework.
Re Marilyn Monroe.
Some points to make. As I’m sure everyone knows, she came from a very disturbed background and at the very least was a victim of dpmestic violence.She may, or may not have been expressing this in her behaviour.
In the fifties screen culture the archetype of the Femme Fatale seems to be reasonably common, as was tge Woman on a Pedestal stereotype (or Virgin archetype. (I hope I have my Jung right. Its been an awful long time since I read him.
Finally, whatever her personality disorders, she was a brilliant comedic and dramatic performer, and this can sometimes be forgotten in the drama of her life.
Re Jackie.
I’ve always seen her as an early 60s person, rather than some-one from the 50s.
Wow, a league ladder for “attractiveness”. Which is, as we all know, both (a) the only important thing about a woman, and (b) a measurable commodity. Measurable by blokes, according to some fantasy standard of fuckability.
Just … No, I have no words.
Pavlov’s cat,
Attractiveness is mostly relative. There are a lot of studies that reinforce primary appeal is derived from our parents and ourselves.
…and fuckability, despite our brainsize, is of primary importance.
The Clinton thing was a bracketed aside pointing to two idiots who criticise her on the visual, even when it’s clearly not relevant. I was suggesting that her critics were the idiots, the clue being that the critics are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
Yes, amazing that Katz manages to reduce Anna’s nuanced article to a League Ladder on First Ladies’ attractiveness. Way to miss the point completely.
I’m sure I’m missing something, if not a lot, here.
Cos discussion about clothing and fashion tends to get my back up a bit.
I find it all so trivial.
Or at least it should be.
Obviously its not and thats what gets my back up.
The importance attached to ‘fashion’ and dress is so loaded with social attitudes that are almost entirely negative for the bulk of the population.
Its used as a class weapon.
See tigtog’s #7 above.
Its used as an anti-women weapon.
See PC’s #11 above [and, pretty obviously, a major thrust of Anna's post].
[I hope I have correctly understood the inferences these two persons were making].
I find the interest in fashion, as such, boring.
But worse than boring.
I don’t mind the analysis of it from a social view and I know all societies have used personal decoration for status, rank and cultural reasons for yonks everywhere, so I suppose what I’m struggling to say here is that I object to the use of fashion and dress and decoration for such.
I’ve become very conscious of such recently as my granddaughter enters womanhood, 14 years old and obsessed with fashion in all sorts of ways.
Or socialised to be obsessed.
Do we buy her pink gear for presents at Xmas and birthdays?
Should we?
Should we not?
How much choice do we have?
The answer to that one is bugger all.
Try going into a toy shop and you are struck with a wall of pink for the girls’ section.
Housewifey and mum type toys packaged in pink.
Neon pink. Overwhelmingly so.
The boys have a variety of colours but mainly blue and black with mechanical toys and guns galore. Action stuff. Doing, not passive, not nurturing.
Its hard to buy the ‘right’ toys/przzies for him too.
We bought my granddaughter a camera for Xmas.
The sales assisstant recommended one that was slim cos girls prefer slim.
Apparently.
We bought her a watch for her birthday.
A chunky ‘male’ one?
Or a small, slim ‘elegant’ ‘female’ one that she may prefer cos she’s socialised?
How do we as grandparents handle this?
Comment tactfully on her clothing as she struggles with her personal and social identity?
And get it wrong.
Cos we are coming from a minority POV.
Keep our mouths shut?
Buy her what she is socialised to want?
Buy her what she should/could/would be wearing if that socialisation didn’t exist to make sure she’s a round peg in a round pigeon hole?
And get it wrong, probably.
I hate the dictates of fashion etc with its sexist and classist encumbrances.
“Visual communication is generally thought to be inferior to verbal and written communication.”
I really can’t provide any quantative analysis of this contention but wonder why you believe this?
Is this what you think purely with regard to political messages?
Visual imagery seems to attract the attention much more easily , emotionally and quickly than ploughing through the densities of text with it’s jungle of jargon.
I think Michelle Obama’s decision to stay in the background is both personal and political. It can’t be easy being President of the US. All the occupants seem to wither in the office, and Obama needs someone really intelligent he can unwind to at the end of the day, whom he can trust absolutely. I’m sure both her good sense and inteligence help him fashion his political style.Also, both of them are clearly concerned at the impact Daddy being President will have on their children. Because they take their personal as well as their public responsibilities deadly seriously, it not hard to understand why Michelle put her career on hold.
In terms of the politicalyou just have to see the crap being heaped on Obama, eg the birther nonsense. If Michelle Obama was visibly politically active the press would tear her apart in the same way they try to tear apart her husband. Under these circumstances, being a small target majes a lot of sense for the Obama administration.
Oh really?
What is the “essential requirement” being referred to here?
Presumably, this passage refers to the way(s) in which Hillary Clinton was being judged (doncha love the passive voice?) and found wanting.
1. Who is allegedly doing the judging in this passage?
2. What are the alleged criteria?
Wonderful article, Anna, and may there be more where they came from. Got the brain cells working on a Sunday morn.
Mrs. Obama and Kennedy have a lot of similarities, but it’s their differences that intrigue. Both Jacqueline and Jack Kennedy were born into US “aristocracy”, with debutante balls; they met each other through the same circle of friends, 9 years before the presidency.
It’s easy to admire a woman who outlived two husbands and two children in dignity, but it’s not so easy to relate to her – especially when she says something like “I do not think that there are any men who are faithful to their wives.” The mores of being a political couple in the US ’60s are alien to me.
Michelle Obama is the sort of woman who could spend an hour dressing herself from a St. Vinnies op-shop and come out looking like a queen. She enjoys clothing for her own sake. And hell: she’s just seems likable in person. One hour in company of Elizabeth II was enough for them to be best mates.
Mind you, there was a lot of nonsense about “disrespect” when they were photographed with their arms around each other – but that’s how commodified outrage has become; it’s just used to sell more women’s magazines. 400 years ago, a hug may have been seen as lèse majesté.
However, I do have one question on style:
And so on. Why this use of “we”? Do you do it to force people to re-question their own assumptions? A laudatory goal, but there must be a better way to do it. As the old punchline goes: “What do you mean ‘We’, white woman?”
PC @ 12:
That’s OK — in the spirit of the OP try some pictures!
HD @ 12:
There’s a nexus here you may have missed, HD, and it’s an important one. Presumably your impatience with, distrust of, and belief in the ‘triviality’ of fashion stems from your self-concept as an upright individual who, so far as is possible, sees through the trivial ephemera of everyday life and tries to occupy one’s time with important stuff. Of which fashion, you are certain, definitely isn’t one.
And yet…fashion and clothing trends are often coded in our culture as “wimmins stuff”.
Do you see the problem now?
So…here we have something that is ‘female-coded’(even though most of the wealthiest and most glamourous fashionistas are male!), which you feel perfectly OK about labelling as ‘trivial’ or ‘boring’, because that attitude confirms your status as somebody who only thinks about
men’s stuffimportant stuff that matters.The cultural encoding of fashion as ‘female’ acts as a cipher which enables a great many men to dismiss, devalue and ignore a great deal of the contribution of many intelligent, skilful, artisanal women (be they fashionistas or home sewers) — while preserving the social guise of being concerned only with
male-codedweighty matters of great importance.Not having a go at you here. Trying to explain something.
Meanwhile, there is another perfectly trivial and boring activity which, despite being boring and trivial, commands about 10-15 minutes of every nightly news bulletin. Rhymes with ‘bort’. And I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that it’s coded in our culture as ‘men’s stuff’.
Many, perhaps most, people male and female would object if 10-15 minutes of every nightly news bulletin was occupied with female-coded fashion. But we generally accept, with greater degrees of either celebration or resignation, that 10-15 minutes of every nightly news bulletin shall be occupied with male-coded sport.
It doesn’t matter how much netball ABC news tries show — sport is male-coded in our culture and the footage confirms this.
That situation alone pretty much guarantees that male faces, voices, bodies and attitudes will occupy the vast majority of the time that our culture encodes as ‘important stuff’ (the nightly news’).
Do you see the problem now?
Katz, stop being obtuse. Anna is talking about the politics of self-representation and how different First Ladies have worked with through those issues of self-representation. She isn’t producing a list of the most fuckable First Ladies through history. Yeah, we know Eleanor Roosevelt was kinda plain looking. Have you got anything interesting to say?
Not only see it Mercurius but largely if not virtually entirely agree with you.
[Except for the seeing myself as an upright etc individual stuff].
Thats why I included the bit about worrying about my grandson being stuck into a pigeon hole also with the toys, guns and mechanics for him [but I do see girls as being given a narrower role within the cjhoice of toys].
I also mentioned class, very briefly, cos I see fashion as having a class function also, thats reflected in my reference to tigtog’s comment. But I got the wrong number comment, this is the one I meant:
#4 “re Jean Shrimpton, one of the UK politicians’ wives who attended the royal wedding last week is getting stick for “disrespect” because she didn’t wear a hat”
A social taboo broken apparently.
So I don’t see fashion purely directed ar women.
Mainly perhaps, certainly ‘often’ as you said, but also to males.
My grandson is typical in that he wouldn’t wear pink because pink has been coded as a girls colour.
And certain items of clothing eg black singlets, baseball caps, uggs, flannelette shirts, are coded as working class.
Not to be worn at a posh function, able to be used as social class [with attendant pejoratives] identifiers and not be be seen at the opera.
The ‘suits’ that identify executives/pollies etc has even entered our vocabs as a class identifier label for people of rank and authority.
An interesting exercise I used to conduct in classes was to get kids to cut up pikkies of people in a single issue of our local metro rag.
I bought several copies and then split pages up among the kids and got them to cut out the pikkies where individual persons could be seen [no crowd pictures] and then stick them up on the wall within the categories used by the newspaper eg politics, social, sport, business.
Then get them to look at them.
The sexist divisions within our socuety are evident.
Politicians were almost entirely male nearly all wearing suits.
This was before Abbott in his jocks and a handbagless Gillard.
Social was mixed a bit, busines was almost entirely male, again in suits, sport was almost entirely male umless Anna Kornikova [sp?] was playing, or not, and netball probably didn’t appear except on a inner page after the footy and cricket which seem to be only played by fellas [not true I know but thats how the sports are portrayed].
Heh. Don’t even try to think about the complications once you add the coding for queer. My favourite t-shirt at the moment is lurid banana yellow with mauve collar and sleeve trims.
I call it my gay shirt.
Because, you know, textiles have a sexual orientation…
The simultaneous class marker function of fashion while also being coded as female frivolity serves a neat homosocial function, in case you haven’t noticed. It’s not the done thing to brag about how much one earns directly, but when one complains about how much the missus spends on new clothes or on renovating the interior decoration, then one gets away with the indirect brag about the level of one’s disposable income.
Complaining about how the wife spends all her time shopping is also an indirect brag about being able to afford a stay-at-home spouse whose time is spent keeping one’s trophies shined, all the better for displaying.
That this indirect bragging that codes women as frivolous by nature (rather than acknowledging that women are assigned the conspicuous consumption organisation as an expected/demanded aspect of hierarchical status display) helps keep the price of women’s labour down across the board is a bonus feature of it all.
Oh among the teens that I encounter via grandkids mainly they use the word ‘gay’ to denote something ….
Look I’m not sure exactly what they mean, I think its along the lines of different, unusual, unacceptable, weird … you know, “gay”. as in “That’s gay”.
And the flannelette shirt is named a ‘druggy shirt’ in my circle [I presume the easterners recognize the descriptor], worn by ‘ferals’ aka unemployed or working class plebs.
I’ve heard that expression used frequently in ‘higher’ social settings with pollies/business people/academics present and nobody blink.
I’m such an uptight upright individual I have to walk away on those occasions.
Either that or create a scene.
Religion with its strange attire should also rate a mention in this discussion of clothing.
The papal gear for example, the traditional nuns’ habit as opposed to the burkha which is less acceptable.
Clothing is a real divider of people.
Its only relatively recently that pink has been seen as a girls colour. Previously pink was seen as a traditional manly colour.
tigtog
As in “high maitenance” “trophy wife”?
Fine @ 23.
1. Self representation exists only relationally. Self representation employs a vocabulary of shared meanings. One of the negotiated meanings of First Ladydom is resolution of the question of what First Ladies are “supposed” to look like. A discussion of the construction of those shared and negotiated meanings would be an interesting one.
2. I used the word “attractive”. If you think that “attractive” equates to “fuckability”, then you have a very poor understanding of aesthetics. If I had meant “fuckable”, “sexually desirable”, or even just “desirable”, I would have used one of those terms. Plainly, I did not. Please don’t verbal me.
Then what do you mean when you say a woman is “attractive” Katz? Who or what do you think she’s attracting?
FXH that was fascinating. Thanks.
http://www.thescavenger.net/feminism-a-pop-culture/how-the-colour-pink-lost-its-masculinity.html
http://www.pinkstinks.co.uk/
I know I’m not supposed to just put in a link so I s’pose I’d better say something about this site.
How about this quote from the site?
“Pinkstinks is a campaign and social enterprise that challenges the culture of pink which invades every aspect of girls’ lives.”
What I think Fine is that Katz’s attraction is metaphysical, neoplatonic, why, divine almost. Don’t you see that he is Dante and Hillary Clinton is Beatrice? His attraction is in no way rooted in the physical, as it were. Why if that were the case, then his beauty contest of First Ladies above would be open to charges of misinterpreting a post about the visual realm with a post about, well, fuckability. Personally I just think he just doesn’t like turkey wattle. Well, too much information for me. But there you have it. Strange things can happen on a Sunday night.
I’m sure you’re completely correct o wondrous witch.
Well I’m going to take that advice. I have a book full of dense theoretical language which is, to be frank, beyond me, but the juxtaposition of two images in one chapter was very eloquent. On one page was, not this photograph ( I can’t find it online), but one very like it: Link, and overleaf was Renee Cox’s Yo Mama (1993)Link
I have read some extraordinary comments upon Cox’s photo – one described her as wielding her child like a machine gun. You could not get a more explicit demonstration of the twin threads of racism and extreme reaction against any depiction of motherhood that departs too much from the Madonna (or Pieta)image. Whether it is self-sacrifice or sacrifice of the career, we (sorry D&O) seem to demand of mothers that they a)suffer and b)do it quietly.
Great post Anna. Happy Mother’s Day.
When you say “turkey wattle”, Casey, which First Ladies come to mind?
Do you have any other physical characteristics of First Ladies you’d like to mention, Casey?
I’d be fascinated to read which physical characteristics you find notable.
I don’t really get this.
The world I live in values the visual over verbal or written. TV, films, images are more important than books and with the verbal content of TV and films mostly incidental.
She might not be President but its a bit of a stretch to suggest that Secretary of State isn’t a position of power.
Nice piece of writing, Anna. You’ve presented a couple of really good examples here!
FXH, I can’t remember the exact details, but you will have to admit that there is some difference between language and the world which is described by it. I think what Anna is getting at is the relationship between text and image in most advertising, or visual message. The image is usually there to support the meaning in the text.
… we (sorry D&O) seem to demand of mothers that they a)suffer and b)do it quietly.
Nothing to be sorry about, su. I just thought a more appropriate pronoun would be “they” (or “they and you” if you’re really trying to make a point). I would be very surprised if you’re the sort of person that demands mums suffer in silence.
I was the person who first used the word ‘fuckability’. I was mocking the use of the word ‘attractive’, which appeared to be being used as some sort of objective descriptor of women (to the point of creating a league table) rather than what it really is, the highly subjective name of the observer’s reaction, and which is usually used by men to mean, approximately, fuckable.
Most men (and alas quite a few women; such is patriarchy, not to mention the Stockholm Syndrome) use the word “attractive”, as Casey has suggested, as though it were the name of an attribute that women have, rather than the name of their own reactions, which of course is what it really is. It’s a bit like calling something ‘boring’ when what one really means is that one does not have the inner resources to find it interesting.
This is highly problematic.
Famously, in 1960, Kennedy and Nixon debated on TV. Those who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon had won. Those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy had won.
Almost universally, viewers deemed Kennedy to be more physically attractive than Nixon.
In other words, Kennedy was deemed to be higher on the physical attractiveness ladder than Nixon.
All of those millions of folks who came to that almost universal conclusion applied the same canons of attractiveness to form that judgement.
These canons of judgement are deeply ingrained into our culture.
For the short, lopsided, squinting and mottled, that canon is an unfortunate fact. But nevertheless it is a fact.
So, Katz you’ve said that you don’t mean ‘fuckability’ when you say ‘attractive’. So, what is it that you do mean?
There also seems to be huge gap in your logic above. People who saw the debate thought Kennedy had won, therefore he must be more physically attractive than Nixon? You could drive a large tuck through that gap.
*truck* Sorry.
Quite plainly, I asserted the causation to travel in the opposite direction.
How strange that you should reverse it…
Here are the opinions of 1,400,000 Google references on the topic of “nixon/kennedy/debate/attractive”. I challenge you to find more than a scattering that assert that Nixon was more physically attractive than Kennedy.
Certainly some people, sometimes, mean ‘fuckable’ when they say ‘attractive’. I know I often do.
However, not always. There are certain kinds of bearing, demeanor, charisma which I would describe as attractive in people (of either sex) without being sexual. Such a person can’t be repulsively ugly, or I’d have to find another word to describe their appeal, but the question of whether I’d like to fuck them simply doesn’t arise.
Is this causation or correlation, Katz?
Besides, you’re now completely side-tracking away from the question I asked you – and I’ve asked you twice now.
The answer’s in here Fine:
To elaborate a little, the Ancient Greeks are responsible for a large component of that canon.
It was further elaborated during the Italian Renaissance. Leonardo’s “Vitruvian Man” is a well-known example of Renaissance interest in the “correct” human proportions.
The West’s ideas about beauty have hardly changed since.
The interesting aspect of the Western history of physical beauty is how deeply interest in it was eclipsed during the Dark Ages and the Medieval period. Who knows? Perhaps a Dark Ages aesthetic may return one day.
“the highly subjective name of the observer’s reaction”
I’m sure that there are aspects of attractiveness that are universal – do to with symmetry etc
anna my two comments at 38 & 39 were meant to be conversational not confrontational.
It doesn’t answer my question at all Katz. It completely avoids it.
Thanks, FXH, I read them that way
In the first instance, Joe’s response is accurate. Widespread isn’t necessarily more important. TV may be more popular, but books are often considered “better” as a category, rather than making judgements about particular ways each medium is used. Illustrations in books tend to reduce in educational texts as the student gets older, and play a supporting role to the text, which is the main focus. That’s the kind of thing I mean.
As for your second comment, it was a throwaway bit of sarcasm, which clearly failed. In linking to Limbaugh and Coulter I thought it would be obvious that I wasn’t endorsing their view!
My point is partially: now that Clinton has shown herself worthy of competing at the more powerful level, criticisms of her looks are even less relevant. I thought it demonstrated some interesting things about a) how we use the visual to put ‘lesser beings’ in their place, b) how criticisms of the visual matter less when the person gets the opportunity to compete and be taken seriously in the verbal/written field.
“My point is partially: now that Clinton has shown herself worthy of competing at the more powerful level, criticisms of her looks are even less relevant.”
I suspect there’s less criticism of her clothes now, because there’s nothing new to say. If she kept changing her style it would invite new criticism – of her clothes, not her intellect. There’s no point remarking on yet another outing for the aqua pantsuit. But there are probably still the same number of people who would prefer that she would dress more like Madeleine Albright or Condoleeza Rice
It may be that the mainstream media focused / focuses on Jackie’s clothing and style but, at least these days, and possibly always was, there is a small but significant bunch of men who spend time, perhaps too much , analysing JFK’s Style:
Heres just one example:
http://www.ivy-style.com/index.php?s=jfk
I know I know – I’m a bit defensive about the “men aren’t interested in clothes / style” definitive statement tossed around.
From The Wire:
Det. William ‘Bunk’ Moreland: It’s a Joseph Abboud. He puts dark buttons instead of brass on his blazers. That’s the Abboud signature.
Off. James ‘Jimmy’ McNulty: You know what they call a guy who pays that much attention to his clothes, don’t you?
Det. William ‘Bunk’ Moreland: A grown-up.
FXH – did you hear this review of the Manstyle exhibition on RN?
A bit tangential, but on topic, IMO:
http://jezebel.com/5799724/hillary-clinton-photoshopped-out-of-situation-room-photo
Does one dare laugh?
For what it’s worth, I would never say that. I do think we (sorry again Down & Out) may spend less time analysing men’s style, although Katz’s point about the Nixon/Kennedy debate shows we don’t completely ignore it either.
I think much of the problem is that on the whole most people don’t learn how to use and analyse the visual, so we often have a problem knowing what’s relevant and what isn’t in criticisms that focus on it.
Well, I perceive Vitruvian Man as attractive, but not fuckable.
Tony Abbott appears in a pair of Speedos and is lauded for being ‘genuine’. Should Julia Gillard appear anywhere in a swimsuit I doubt the headlines would be about how ‘genuine’ she is. It would be all about her fuckability or lack thereof.
russell – no I didn’t catch that RN program – thanks – I shall program it into my new DAB+ and Internet radio/podcast receiver and listen.
I was a bit disappointed in the exhibition myself
My guess is that Nixon’s and Kennedy’s style contrast has received more commentary over a longer period of time than any other connected pair of individuals in the history of the world.
Lee Lin Chin is the best dressed newsreader in Australia
Fran – what a good pic. I saw the original and what immediately attracted the eye was Hilary – she had her hand over her mouth as if she was witnessing something extraordinary.
But when I looked at the ‘edited’ pic my feeling was that it was now a more ‘serious’ pic, with just men in it.
They also edited out another woman at the back of the photo as a matter of, apparently, Hassidic principle.
FXH @ 64 – Maybe, but she hasn’t got much competition.
You could drive a large tuck through that gap
Excellent Freudian ‘slip’ Fine.
Speaking of media images – WTF?: http://www.theage.com.au/world/paper-erases-clinton-from-history-20110509-1ef5d.html
Mindy @ 61 – there has been no shortage of people telling Abbott to put some more clothes on!
Fran @ 58 – I wonder how many people that paper employs just to filter women out of photos!??!
Except that the guy with his head down looking at the computer borrowed HC’s lip gloss only a few minutes earlier, so that is still there. ; ) (Sorry MK)
@ Chris – absolutely, I’ve been one of them. But my point still stands that it was used as evidence of him being a genuine bloke. If Julia Gillard did the same thing it would be all about her perceived attractiveness or lack thereof, not that she as a genuine ‘sheila’ who enjoyed Australian beach culture.
Nice post Anna, what i wanted to say, before i got sidetracked by Fran @ 58, Kundera memories and the kinder run, was how important it was for the Democratic luminaries to get Eleanor Roosevelt along to their events. The pics I’ve seen of ER at Kennedy’s and LBJ’s inaugurations don’t seem to show any warmth towards the new Prezs but the parties calculus seems to have been better a stern ER than none at all.
“If Julia Gillard did the same thing …” it would be seen as not genuine, because she hasn’t always been seen to be doing it, as Abbott has.
But say she always had been seen as someone who enjoyed a stroll along the beach, in a swimsuit (maybe with a sarong and a big hat, there’s her colouring to consider). Other than comparisons with fitness/fatness levels between the two, I don’t think people would comment that much on her physical attractiveness, as on her attire.
Is commenting on her attire a bad thing? Some people think it is, and others don’t.
anna -one of the things that interests me and might be relevant to your academic work – is that initially the Internet was a text medium – in fact I remember the “first” browser that showed images – Mosaic – there was much debate as to how images shouldn’t be used much – mainly bandwidth arguments.
What is interesting is that these days I think almost everyone if asked would describe the WWW as a visual/images/movies medium.
adrian@64 – agreed – its universally pretty bloody woeful how our newsreaders dress – especially the men – black suits, pale shiney pastel coloured ties, dark shirts, no sense of how things flatter them or the screen, huge footballers/fist sized full Windsor knots……. one can only imagine their shoes and socks.
Women are almost always subjected to more critical scrutiny than men for their attire and for their physical appearance.
Only a naif, a hermit, or a person in deep denial would disagree.
If a man desires to be well turned-out in a professional or in a social setting, his choices are fairly narrow, well defined, and easy to follow.
The same cannot be said for a woman in the same settings.
On the other hand, the canons of physical acceptability for men are as wide as their clothing choice is narrow.
The opposite applies to women.
Gillard would be crucified if she were photographed fetched up on the beach in her togs.
“If a man desires to be well turned-out in a professional or in a social setting, his choices are fairly narrow, well defined, and easy to follow. The same cannot be said for a woman in the same settings”
True, but although the choices are much wider you can limit yourself to the safe and unremarkable if you want to (which doesn’t generally include the colour burnt orange).
On Hilary Clinton: clothes and other things intersect. I don’t mind Hilary’s clothes, they reflect her values and choices, that’s fine. But whereas I see Julia Gillard as missing the mark, clotheswise, in formal settings, Hilary gets away with it because she’s been known as a powerful woman for a long time.
If I see Julia in a photo like this I think ‘looks like St Trinians rather than a PM’, whereas when you see an image of Hilary you can’t separate her image from the power she has always represented – she sort of doesn’t need the formal clothes to say POWER for her. With that much power, clothes aren’t so important.
I went to check your link, Russell, fully expecting it to be to yet another unremarkable outfit that you are projecting your issues all over, but alas, all I get is the front page of Radio National, which has quite a few photos on it. A more specific link to the image you’re spotlighting, perhaps?
TigTog – sorry, not clever enough to link to the specific image. It’s the first image at the top: Gillard and some Malaysian minister, and yes, it is an unremarkable outfit, but to me it looks out of place in the context.
Russel said:
You’re obviously some kind of stupid, Russel. “Give me convenience or give me death”, ‘ey sport?
Agreed as an “unremarkable outfit”, yet still somehow “out of place”, eh? Simultaneously? Extraordinary achievement, that.
To keep this somewhat on topic, what visual signifiers lead you to this conclusion?
On the RN homepage I see there’s a picture of Gillard and I assume a Malaysian minister, I don’t know because the caption doesn’t say. The caption says: The Immmigration Minister explains the ‘mutually beneficial Malaysian refugee swap.
You really should learn about the right click functions on your computer mouse. Thank you for describing the image.
So, what visual signifiers about that head and shoulder shot, in which you can’t even see the whole outfit, lead you to the conclusion that the outfit is nonetheless “out of place”?
“To keep this somewhat on topic, what visual signifiers lead you to this conclusion”
His is a very formal outfit – a power outfit. He represents power and he displays it with the formality of the suit, crisp white shirt, pocket square, and lapel pin.
Julia’s shirt looks to me like a man’s shirt worn without a tie, so sort of informal, unfinished. There’s no pin or necklace or other signifier of position or formality. Having two blues, shirt and jacket, doesn’t give that crisp look that impresses as ‘formal’. Her clothes don’t match up with his as status signifiers.
P.S. when you look at the image properties using the right click button, there is a description that also should pop up if you are using a latest-generation browser:
The Malaysian and the Australian PMs (Credit:AFP Photo: Andrew Taylor)
TigTog – I know about saving an image and putting it on a webpage that I create, but I don’t know how to put it on LP. Copying the shortcut takes you to another page that doesn’t have the image.
I do understand that we all interpret images differently, I don’t think you need to assume I look at the photo with some sort of malice towards Julia Gillard. Her, I think poor clothes sense, doesn’t influence my perception of her as a very intelligent and capable person.
Yes, coping the url from Properties works, thanks.
Just reading in Time magazine how much the plainly dressed Hilary says she enjoyed watching THAT wedding, and that reminded of Julia. Just so you know, she looked quite OK at the wedding – I wouldn’t say I thought it was the perfect thing for her, but she looked like most other people there – she didn’t look out of place.
TESTING
http://images.theage.com.au/2011/05/09/2352401/729-hillary-situation2-420×0.jpg
@jumpnmcar, this is the third time that links to that picture have appeared in this thread. Do people not read other people’s links before they put one up? Perhaps adding a brief description might help avoid repeats?
Sorry TigTog
TESTING was just that. You at 86.
Saturday salon would probably be a better place to do a test ,huh.
The picture was the first i clicked on.
@84
sorry ..sheeesh..
Here’s some guy talking about Nina Powell’s book (which I haven’t read) One Dimensional Woman.
I was reading something else there but saw that piece and for some reason it seemed to follow on from the original article. Obama is choosing to stay at home and raise her kids and this may well be a good thing if its a choice. (I imagine if most mums and dads had the choice they’d be stay at home parents.) Cos the image in the Saturn Society posts, and i assume, those Powell refers to are still pretty oppressive, just in a different way.
In my case, I even managed an exchange with Russell about the subject matter TT … I’m not sure why jumpnmcar was twesting with that link, but I doubt a description would have helped.
Belated wishes Anna for great luck in your Masters!
Came across this today. Dunno what to make of it, I have some misgivings about the basic idea.
Abstract:
@ Jules
That presumes that a lot of women are in control of hiring and firing. Thats a big presumption.
A few more images: the obvious ones of Sonia and Bill – she certainly leant glamour, youth and style to his boring and staid image.
Here’s one of Margaret Whitlam as I think she felt comfortably dressed – she didn’t give the impression she was a fashionista, more our Eleanor Roosevelt.
And here in a formal setting – who is the odd one out? As I remember, Margaret transcended the clothes issue by sheer force of personality. She complemented Gough physically, in size, and by the kind of independent energy she had.
They say they don’t publish images of women because the should be appreciated for who they are and what they do.
eh?
http://www.smh.com.au/world/jewish-paper-says-sorry-for-clinton-vanishing-act-20110510-1egdv.html#ixzz1LuvaHuTj
But with respect, if you can’t see who they are and what they do, cause you’ve made em disappear, how do you appreciate them?
I think you appreciate them as homemakers, Casey – in their place, barefoot, pregnant and invisible.
Re that newspaper turning Hillary and the anti-terrorist expert into ghosts. Surely proof that religion drives people mad. Without them the mood is intense, with them its downright scary. You really feel for what they’re seeing.
Good on her (And I’m not a Hillary fan.)
Question though, why is the woman anti-terrorist expert atbthe back of the room, craning to see over the shoulders of the men? One would’ve thought she was right up the front. If she so important to be in the room with all those blokes, you can bet she did a lot of the preparatory work. Just wondering.
Mindy @ 98, yeah its a big presumption. The guy (of course) that found that study and brought it to my attention has a thing about women dominating hiring and firing via personnel departments which I don’t particularly agree with, and I also find it kind of typical that there is thing going on with men talking about the oppression of women that really pushes the idea that women are more responsible for it than men. (Probably cos they’re women and you know how we can’t trust them etc etc.)
The whole study seems inherently stupid imo, but I haven’t read it properly. I have issues with the idea of “attractive” and “plain” for a start.
If you’re wondering what i’m getting at … a blood stained suit is a powerful image, and one that was controlled by the wearer of the suit. Till then she was just another clown in a suit.
I just realised I left out a big chunk in the first thing I posted here. (I did it last night while being interrupted by phone calls and stuff … oops.)
Basically the point was that all images are co opted – I really don’t know much about fashion but it seems the image JK portrayed – “elegant, minimalist, luxurious, but with a lack of unnecessary ornamentation, and that didn’t get in the way of actually doing things.” – is the basis of the professional woman’s wardrobe. (Is that right? It’s certainly my impression.)
Its sposed to be a symbol of the freedom our society offers women these days but really its just another wage slave uniform. Its a symbol of submission to the dominant order. This is how you will fit in.
(But isn’t that what all fashion is all about? Paris is the worlds fashion capital cos for so long everyone copied what French royals wore – it was a sign of subservience.)
The crux of the issue is the nature of this evidence.
Yes well, I’m not sure I see your argument here. Are you trying to say that, because they don’t have ready access to written or verbal media so they can articulate their political message that women are using fashion to send a subversive message? That is, that fashion and family are are being used to undermine patriarchy (to use a by now arcane term)?
Patrickb – it isn’t, generally, seen as appropriate for politicians wives to say or write much. Remember the fuss when Margaret Whitlam wrote a diary for Women’s Weekly?
When I was looking at the pics of the McMahons it wasn’t so much the word subversive that I was thinking of, as disruptive. Jacqui Kennedy dressed (for women?) with elegant simplicity – tasteful, not sexy – and thus was the essential other half of the ‘Camelot’ image. I would guess that she attracted the women vote without alienating the male vote.
Sonia McMahon used the power attractive women have (let’s call it, umm, desireability) by dressing (for men?) which attracted attention ….. but did it disrupt the message Bill McMahon sent (careful, traditional, conservative) or enhance it? Being young at the time I saw it as new, youthful, exciting, but perhaps many older voters found it didn’t fit the ‘brand’ of the Liberal Party.