Sunday, 27 February 2011
Friday, 11 February 2011
"The drawings are decidedly not representations of situations existing in reality. Rather, they are incarnations of frames of mind. The bodies are nude but neutral - vehicle rather than flesh. They remain in the domain of the spirit." Juul Kraijer 2004 - website
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Self-portrait in the kitchen - 2007 ? (1)
As soon as you think or write about glamour you enter dangerous territory. Are we talking about artificiality and the lure of false values? About gold-digging seducers or women on the make? What about the ethics of fur or diamonds; or cosmetic surgery and the problems of body dysmorphia in the young? Is the idea of glamour exclusively western and white?
Does glamour empower women, or turn them into objects? It is important to remember that women practise glamour, they are not simply the object of the male gaze. And, historically, glamorous women were just as likely to be seen as dangerous to men as victims themselves. Glamour can represent self-assertion, sexual confidence, playfulness, pleasure and delight. But in the end, nothing empowers women so much as a good education and a well-paid job (2).
Glamour versus feminism? Just look at the images in the media we all adore.
Carol Dyhouse - The Observer, Sunday 21 March 2010
Carol Dyhouse is a research professor at the University of Sussex. Her new book, Glamour: Women, History, Feminism
Note 1 : I personally don't have THE "well-paid job" ...
Note 2 : the point is that, so far, in my personal research through feminism etc, what makes most sense to me is what is written here : click the link to my previous post.