Well the greatest machine of all, in my mind is MTV. Because it the production and consumption is blatantly obvious, but for some reason, we continue to indulge ourselves in both the bland or offensive videos, as well as great moments of visual art.
MTV and its female address by Lisa Lewis
This article offers an interesting insight into MTV’s textual address, and how its was undermined in the 1980s by Lauper, Madonna, Benetar and other female artist. Lewis suggests the singers used access signs, which are those which appropriate traditional male signifiers, such as street culture, bars and pubs. Furthermore, they use discovery signs, signifiers of female activity, to legitimate and privilege femme behaviors. It’s an interesting suggestion, and I agree that to subvert traditional partriarchal signifiers we must drawn attention to the privileges and rituals engaged in their production. However doesn’t this imply continue the binary opposition of female and male.
I think the idea of discovery signs, which seeks to bring female activities out of “negative” terms is more encouraging(Lewis, 1990). As it attempts to present dance, and dressing up in more positive and liberating terms. Conversely, it could be argued that these are simply indulging the male gaze, as I’m sure Laura Mulvey would suggest. The female body is simply being objectified for the male gaze and enjoyment. To discern whether these activities are positive or negative in the production of female subjectivity, we would need to analyse why females feel the need to engage in these activities. Ultimately, they work to categorise an individual as female. Perhaps terms such as positive and negative aren’t appropriate in these discussions.
But surely, we need to operate with a moral or ethical regime or standard. Not simply for the containment of human behavior, but to ensure we are all accountable for our behavior.
Oh well, this has turned into a post, which asks more questions, that provides answers. Though, that maybe for the best.
Anyway, I will leave you with one of my favourite “girl power” videos of the 1990s.
I enjoy this video as it the cinematic frame ruptures, and the original two shots from boys bathroom to girls bathroom, becomes one larger shot, where each group flows from one room to the other. I particularly enjoy that, they all end up in the girls toilet, cause really, it’s a lot nicer (and cleaner!).
This is pretty much the dichotomy that Tetslaff discusses regarding Madonna’s early videos. The fetishisation of the female body vs. a kind of empowering activation of the female space. I’m really not sure where I stand on this — in many ways the outcome of such texts depends on the individual viewing experience, and I wonder whether that’s really a valid form of radical action, or whether something more inclusively/openly alternative is necessary.
But then, I don’t know. I’m not really sure what I think about all this and I think my conceptual structures are a little primitive here.
Still, good points raised.
I agree, I think we have to view this as conceptual structures applicable to the 1980s and early 90s. But modes of address probably should have evolved since then. Yet now we see a greater emphasis on female fetishization, which is apparently liberating! Go figure.
I think a lot of the problem relates to the binary categories we are unable to break out of. You are either male or female in some theoretical discourse (all though there are many other categories at work). Therefore, woman have usually attempted to appropriate male activities and signifiers in an attempt to gain power and authority. Unfortunately, it merely points to the power relations already in operation.
I think this was some of the problem I have with the bell hooks reading. While it establishes the importance of speech and the voice, it also compartmentalises each. Indeed, it is important to make everyone aware of the power relations and modes of address, which become naturalised into our culture. But, how do we go about dismantling these binarisms?