Gender Representation and Profit

Many will argue that the music industry has always profited from the allure of sexual availability expressed through lyrics, voice, tone and so forth. The music video opened up the possibility of this allure being explored more explicitly via images such as in Madonna’s ‘Erotica’ (1992). Yet with the emergence of social and also instant media, the sexual image of female performers has gained an entirely new dimension. Rather than being limited to the strict 3 to 5 minute music video format, stars can tweet or instagram photos of themselves in the beloved format of the selfie. In the context of Rihanna, Lady Gaga et al consistently posting pictures of themselves – many of which in a state of half or full nudity – a ‘photo scandal’ in 2011 which depicted an 18 year old Cyrus in her underwear unassumingly pouting into the camera now appears more like a cunning publicity stunt by her management. Was this a private photograph which inexplicably became public, or was it already writing on the wall for Cyrus’ transformation into a quasi-nymphomaniac?

Much of the sexual allure promoted by the music industry and seemingly endorsed and performed by its female stars relies on the dissolution between the public and the private. Madonna’s (bi)sexuality was aggressively explored in many music videos and stage performances, yet her privacy was always fiercely protected. Social media used by a new generation of female stars on the other hand actively questions any strict boundaries between the public and private as stars are ‘caught’ in intimate moments. These are not performances but they are moments that the star generously shares with her grateful ‘followers’. This is of course a pure game which shall ultimately result in an increase in record sales: the more sexual or controversial the image, the more free publicity for the star, the more followers on social media, the more advertising opportunities for the upcoming album and so forth.

Another major element in the sexualization of the music industry’s female stars appears to be a visual aesthetic which, in fact, has been borrowed from the strip club. [...]

Does the success of a female artist relate to the extent of which she is willing to undress on stage, in videos or photographs? [...]

The popularity of photography amongst female pop stars is by no means an embrace of the avantgarde, but rather, it is the embrace of an economic formula which equates the stars’ image with sexuality and increased record sales. Sinead O’Conner is right to question who will profit from, and also who will be empowered by, this formula.

Source: admin [Marco Bohr], "The Pornofication of the Female Pop Star," Visual Culture Blog, October 4, 2013, accessed October 4, 2013, http://visualcultureblog.com/2013/10/the-pornofication-of-the-female-pop-star/

---

GQ’s attempts of sexualizing the Glee cast also fits into a larger corporate strategy. GQ is run by Condé Nast, a powerful company with a long and legendary history of publishing stylish magazines [which owns, for example, Vanity Fair, Architectural Digest, bon appétit, Brides, Glamour, The New Yorker, M, Vogue, Teen Vogue, etc. (cf. http://www.condenast.com/brands)] and, more recently, websites. Since December 2009, Condé Nast is in a digital joint venture, which grouped together five of the world’s biggest publishing companies: Condé Nast, Time Inc., Hearst, Meredith and, importantly, the parent company of Fox Broadcasting, News Corp. Fox is the very same company that also produces Glee, and the clear implication here is that, GQ magazine also acted on behalf of Fox. The scandal surrounding the Glee photographs benefits everyone involved: Fox creates international awareness to their TV show, GQ increases readership of their magazine, and the internet has another scandal to feed off from. 

The irony is that Fox is a right-wing propaganda machine and a beacon of Evangelical Christianity most prominently in the form of the commentator Glenn Beck. That Glee belongs to their most prized possessions is an apparent idiosyncrasy to begin with. The TV shows is filled with sexual innuendo, references to girl-on-girl action, teenage pregnancy, masturbation and so on. The so-called Celibacy Club in Glee completely mocks the preaching of Evangelicals as all its members are as promiscuous as any other teenager that is represented in the show. Nevertheless, the show seeks to contain it’s sexual undertone with a veil of innocence. With Glee, Fox has created a complex sign system that functions extremely well in the American market: on one hand sex is omnipresent, on the other, it’s never fully apparent and disguised by a veil of innocence. The GQ shoot breaks this apparent agreement between Fox and the viewer’s of Glee – a groups so powerful that they have their own nomenclature: Gleeks. The most common criticism by Gleeks and non-Gleeks alike is that the photos ‘go too far’. But was that not exactly GQ and Fox’s strategy to begin with: that the photos rupture the belief that the protagonists in Glee are innocent teenagers? The GQ shoot represents a coming of age of the Glee cast as signs in a complex and paradoxical sign economy. [...] 

One aspect in the infamous GQ shoot I have thus far not mentioned however: while the female cast members of Glee are seen in their underwear, their male counterpart is, at all times, fully dressed. The implication here is clear: the sexual coming of age of Glee is defined along strict gender boundaries. In other words, the sexual awakening of Glee is specific to the female subjects of the show. Of course the GQ photographs do not represent who the subjects in them really are. Nor do they represent the vision of a photographer making use of every toolkit in his box. Rather, the scandal surrounding the GQ photos is representative of a sexual sign economy in the mass media and culture that Fox/News Corp and GQ/Condé Nast have carefully nurtured and universally benefitted from.

 Source: admin [Marco Bohr], "Gender and Representation in Glee Photo Shoot," Visual Culture Blog, October 23, 2010, accessed October 4, 2013, http://visualcultureblog.com/2010/10/gender-and-representation-in-glee-photo-shoot/

---

The exhibitionism-to-profit function is clear, but what then also of thousands, if not millions, of women who use the same instant social media networks to post such "intimate moments" or sexually-revealing images? Although some are clearly financially monopolizing on the cultural sex signs that their bodies happen to possess (or in the case of a growing number of them, have obtained through plastic surgery; cf. http://www.surgery.org/sites/default/files/2012-top5.pdf), what of the many women who are not making any significant profit? We could ask the question: would stars, such as Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Spears, etc., still post such images of themselves and be caught in such cultural contexts even without their financial gain?

It seems to me that the answer is likely "yes" for the simple reason that many other women, who are not making any noticeable financial profit from their posts, are doing likewise. The proliferation of female self-objectification suggests a deeper motive than the financial, namely, the psychological-spiritual. In simple terms, it's for attention. The actions are morally wrong because, as Aquinas said, they are against goodness itself, the true flourishing of humans. And we should remember that human flourishing is not the same as sexual reproduction, itself a morally-neutral good until intentionally directed by a moral agent.

What is interesting about this growing trend of self-objectification is that it is not necessarily primarily for the purpose of obtaining the pleasure from sexual intercourse itself because for most women, most of their viewers will not be physically close enough to engage in intercourse. There must be other pleasures that drive the activity, and one that comes to my mind is the pleasure of being seen in itself, i.e. attention. When we "at-tend," we stretch out to the Other; we focus on them; we see them. But paradoxically, in the process of seeing them, we do not see them but their image that they have carefully constructed for us to see.

Another way to put this is how the cultural critic John Berger put it in his Ways of Seeing television series: there is a difference between being naked and being nude. Being naked is to be myself as I am. We usually associate nudity with art, however. Being nude is "to be seen naked by others and yet not recognized for oneself" ("Women in Art," episode 2, approx. 5 min.). Nudity is the reduction of nakedness to object, where the nakedness of another becomes a sign, a kind of clothing in itself that we cannot escape. This sign may then be manipulated by any intention as the history of sold art plays out, from oil painting to pornography to Cyrus's "The Wrecking Ball."

It is precisely on the level of psychological sign that sex, soda, and pop stars can be reduced to serving the same function, a function not subtly suggested to us by our own culture: the glorification of the self as the solution to loneliness, isolation from God.

Obviously the only real solution to isolation from God is to realize that God is always present and lovingly calls us back to Himself: "Repent and believe the Gospel" (Mk. 1:15).