Do body paint wetsuits celebrate or objectify women?
I’ve always felt the sexism crowd got one thing terribly wrong, something so at odds with our biology.
Can it really be so degrading to regard the female body as a precious stone? As a goddess? To be enchanted by a real beauty? To have your will broken with the heaving of her breasts, the twitching of her belly, the quivering of her thighs?
Earlier today, a BeachGrit reader presented a link to the short film, below, 4 Surfer Girls Wearing Body Paint. Its creator wrote, “These 4 surfer gals look like they’re wearing wetsuits, but look again! They’re actually wearing pasties, strapless thongs, and body paint!”
What do you do when something comes in like that? Do you pretend you aren’t moved? Do you pretend you’re above the fizzing of hormones? Do you pretend that it’s sophisticated to ignore the mysterious ecstasy of desire?
The two-minute film has had 331,000 views and was made to celebrate the terrific realism of Los Angeles body painter, Paul Roustan.
Shall we examine his bio, if only to legitimise the wonderful film below?
“These intricate, ephemeral body paintings are experienced through live performance, video, and still photography. Roustan’s photographs, elaborately crafted images, often use the decorated body as one element in a larger construction to achieve a narrative, expressive goal. Telling stories about people, places, and ideas, his work explores the multiple layers of meaning combining the human figure with different elements. The fine balance between vulnerability and strength, image and concept, is captured in vibrant, evocative photographs.”
How do you feel about the movie? Does it harden your flesh and steel your muscles or does your brain shake with anger?
Sexist or no?
It shows and proves the entitlement and privilege that women have to be naked in public that men don’t.
That’s it.
So what is the Art Historians take on the original question of “Is this Sexist”?
Sorry I don’t understand.
Well gee whiz I was waiting for the CNN comment and it didn’t take long. I did mention it varies from culture to culture but I stand by my view that we have less control over our perception of beauty than we have control over it. If I’m wrong I will have to live with the fact that I’m a shallow arse hole shaped by a lifetime of Vogue covers telling me what is beautiful.
yessss. beauty is a social construct. a++.
I’ll concede there are definitely learned parts to everyone’s definition but I still believe for the most part our subconscious plays the greater part. It’s hard to find anything definitive on the subject but this is quite intertesting: http://edition.cnn.com/2012…
Okay teach me to like ugly then.
There’s always the chance that this is just another crappy piece of LA cheese.
It’s not sexist. I know this because I asked my wife.
Sexism? That depends on the answer to one question:
Are the ‘wetsuits’ edible?
His “wetsuit” logo is ugly, and offensive enough on its own.
He just provided further proof that black people can’t swim
Hey! racism is tomorrow. We are talking about sexism today.
ny post posed the same question. they too must be fans of beachgrit.
http://nypost.com/2016/03/0…
What’s sexist is that women need to keep their breasts covered in the first place. Fuckin absurd
why paint their cans? if they wanna get em out, get em out.
tits out for the boys.
Lemmy with the up-vote… surprise surprise.
Let’s go girls, get em out!!
The body painting is far less questionable than some of the airbrushing on those shitty old boards!
Sexist towards who? Men or women?
For women, it’s not degrading, or prejudiced, or hateful. Nor does it outline any outdated ‘rules’ of gender roles.
It’s just using a woman’s body as a canvass – and in fact, doesn’t look much different to women who are actually wearing wetsuits and rashies.
As for why the artist chose to use women’s bodies instead of men’s… Well, that was probably more for aesthetic reasons. So maybe it’s sexist towards men. But was that what you were implying when you posed the question @Beach_Grit:disqus ?
Mrs. Chas Smith…is that you???
Shh… don’t tell anyone.
Your secret is safe with me!
It would be awfully hard to hide the male genitalia with a coat of paint.
Unless the water was really cold.
Case in point.
…oh! I was just looking for angle. I was spellbound!
Would this be the same if it were fat birds with body boards, i don’t think so. So is it sexist – probably not, is it designed to be titillating and attention gabbing? Yes. And we all clicked on it in the name of art (tits and fanny).
Umm I think you don’t understand sexism. Alas.
Sexist
One can admire and feel ecstasy for bodies. It’s when it repeatedly becomes the main determinant of a person’s worth and value and comes to be a key shaper of expectations and opportunities – limiting alternatives, even making them unobtainable or dangerous. When you are just objectified and any sense of agency is stripped away it also gets demeaning. This happens a lot with surfing.
Also, ask yourself why Paul Rousten went straight for the female forms here. Think beyond his own personal desires. He went there because of a broader sexist structure and not to celebrate women’s sexuality and life. What bodies did he choose to sexualise in regards to surfing ? Why not men’s? Why not the women demonstrating sexual agency?
Short answer: yes this can be seen as sexist.
Perhaps this is him asking us to think about this (personally I don’t think so). If it is he lacks imagination, skills, and ain’t much of an ‘artist’.
Very well explained. While you’re here, tell me: why do we celebrate intelligence over beauty when both are genetic gifts?
Maybe because average people can feign a reasonable level of intelligence despite the fact at least half of us are of less than average intelligence, go out on the street and you’d be hard pressed to find someone who believes they are of less than average intelligence. When people celebrate intelligence in their minds they are celebrating one of their own.
I celebrate beauty, I am drawn in by it, fascinated by it and we all have our own fluid definitions of it, I married a beautiful woman does that make me a creep who objectifies females? I believe not, but as a result of this union I have two beautiful children and one thing that all the naysayers throwing guilt about like confetti is my children’s lives will be a lot easier for it, rightly or wrongly, subconsciously people will favour physically beautiful specimens, that is nature at work my friends.
There is nothing stopping a female artist using the male form for their creative expression, there will be no cries of sexism, no guilt for highlighting the physical superiority they willingly display while the average man hides behind knee length boardshorts and a rash shirt worn as “sun protection”
It’s not nature at work if you just told us beauty = fluid definitions. Right?
Of course it is, every culture has it’s own definition of beauty which probably helps continue their own unique genetic traits, a survival default, some stray out of the cultural norm, others keep the gene pool similar there are always exceptions to the rule.
Nobody taught me my definition of beauty, I knew beauty from a young age, that is my definition of beauty, my own, maybe there is some influence from media and society but when you really put some thought into it there really are forces beyond the control of our conscious mind when we build that definition, why does it feel good to look at beautiful women? I honestly don’t know, why am I compelled to take a second look when I see a beautiful woman? This is far more entrenched than a learned behaviour and yet we are told this is wrong or that it is harmful to the well being of women.
I have looked at the body painters website and he has worked with male models as well but to be honest the female form is a much better canvas for this medium. Of course I am subconsciously biased due to my being male. Also all of the girls looked like they were doing it for themselves, it’s fun, it looks good and they volunteered to do it. Hopefully they used their intellectual prowess to make a balanced and informed decision.
i’m not sure that “we” actually do celebrate intelligence over beauty. but let’s assume you’re correct. i’d say it’s because beauty is both subjective and transient. whereas intelligence is always an incredibly useful trait.
Humans are pretty basic, primates with smart phones at best. Beauty can be spotted at a 100 yards and it’s attainable. It can be brought, sold, captured and held.
Intelligence is a different beast altogether. Easily hidden and capable of greatness at the same time. You could grasp at it for your whole life and never touch it. That’s why it sits higher on the shelf.
who is this mysterious Royal “we” doing all this celebrating of intelligence over beauty??
Since when does either USA or AUS celebrate intelligence over beauty?
Brilliantly said.
STAB is going to be pretty “chaffed” that you beat them to the punch on this one…
Derek has an intern