NSFW
So the American Atheists Convention is going on this weekend – Easter weekend, you know. Tom Flynn has the glory of giving the Easter sermon.
There’s an art show and auction. I loved the one last year. I kept wandering back to it to gaze some more.
But this year…There’s one guy who has a bunch of portraits of The Godmen of Atheism, and along with them – some naked women. The Godmen are all fully dressed, and the women, not so much.
Like this one:
See the oh so witty caption? “What glass ceiling?” Hahaharight, because naked woman among all the Godmen in suits – yeah that’s busting the glass ceiling all right. And the Women’s Rights barcode? Hahaharight because whatever.
I looked up AA’s Code of Conduct again.
American Atheists does not tolerate harassment of or by conference participants in any form. Prohibited conduct may include but is not limited to harassment related to gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, sexual images in public spaces (not related to convention sessions or materials)…
Hmmm.
Clearly men are respectable and clothed and women see no glass ceiling as long as men see their boobs.
Or something.
Who? What?
Cheezy charcoal portrait of Hitchens, the sort of thing sold on every street corner. A photo paste up with ugly misogynist themes.
Are these the work of the same person? Who is this guy, and why is he participating in the AA show/auction?
Since when did atheist/skeptical conventions decide they needed to outdo Sturgis on the objectification front?
ahhhhhhhhh an NSFW would have helped..
Sorry; added.
I don’t know that anybody in charge at AA is aware of this. I kind of hope they’ll become aware of it.
Yes, it’s the same artist. He has Dawkins and Harris and Sagan, all fully clothed, and then three naked random (i.e. not Atheist Godwomen) women. Headshots of men in clothes, doing thinking, and full length women naked, doing nakeding.
I don’t know the author, but don’t you think that’s precisely his point? “Ladies, why are you complaining that you can’t be presented alongside famous male atheists/skeptics? Of course you can, here’s what you need to do: …”
Fight sexism with more sexism?
I think there are way better ways of getting the point across without the sexist display.
Unless I misread what you said and you think the artist was being a douchebag while saying “yeah, ladies, this is all you have to do” instead of the artist making a feminist statement. I would agree with that.
I wouldn’t say it’s sexist if it’s meant in the way I interpret it. It’s what’s needed for the message to come through, although I guess it came so close to home that it became a victim of Poe’s Law 🙂
No, I do think he may have been making a feminist statement. I don’t know if he did, but I think it could be made into a feminist statement. If it weren’t for … Poe’s law.
Ladies, there is no glass ceiling for sex workers. The sky’s the limit! So why would you want to do anything else??
I would think, if this particular artist were trying to make a feminist statement, we would see other evidence of feminism in his works. Like, say, a single painting of a woman with her clothes on.
Again, I don’t really know what his intentions were. But if he was trying to express through visual art a sarcastic observation similar to what Blanche expressed in the comment #11 above, then what purpose would the painting of a clothed woman serve?
You are missing my point.
I’d be more inclined to think that this man was attempting to make a feminist statement if ANY of his other works featured women with clothes on.
Maybe, sure. Where can I see his other works?
Rubbish. Actually objectifying women is not a satire on objectifying women. A bit like hitting someone is not a satire on violence. The artist is either sexist or highly incompetent (or of course both).
From the OP:
“There’s one guy who has a bunch of portraits of The Godmen of Atheism, and along with them – some naked women. The Godmen are all fully dressed, and the women, not so much.”
All three of those paintings are included in the thread here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203215693889402&set=a.3182366194303.2153329.1120150328&type=1&stream_ref=10
Stephanie’s thread is my source.
Oh boy, was I ever wrong!!! :/
Still, just this one piece I think could make good satire. I’ve heard it many times (from young sexy rich women): “What glass ceiling? I made it to the top, therefore every woman can!”
Oh, sure, it’s an eminently satirizable subject.
About my comment @ 5 – I did point this out to the AA people.
Ha, how did I miss that comment?? It includes “doing nakeding”!!
With breasts in the center level (directly in the center of the ‘glass ceiling’ image) that leaves little guesswork as to what the focus of the painting is about. I was wondering if it was satire, but if so, you have to work awfully hard to find it. Also, quality wise, it’s absolute crap.
Facebook has removed my photo of the top painting for nudity and/or pornography. Their terms of service specifically say they’d like you to be able to show that photo you took of the Michaelangelo piece on your vacation, but they have deemed this beyond the pale.
See? even FB thinks it’s crappy art.
I’m already disappointed with American Atheists for a lot of things, I have no confidence that this will be pulled. Would love to be surprised though.
Especially since they tweeted one of the others yesterday. Sigh.
@16 opposablethumbs
“Rubbish. Actually objectifying women is not a satire on objectifying women. A bit like hitting someone is not a satire on violence. The artist is either sexist or highly incompetent (or of course both).”
Well, hitting someone can be part of a satire on violence. It would be hard to have a satire of violence without some kind of violence depicted.
And I actually disagree with the first part, too. I saw someone do an absolutely brilliant set of pieces on the objectification of women by, literally, making objects out of women. Naked woman table, naked woman chairs. Soulless faces staring at you. It was, intentionally, creepy, and not sexy at all. Got the point across. “This is the harm.”
I didn’t say “depicted”, though, did I – I said hitting someone. Actually hitting someone, actually hurting and physically damaging someone, isn’t a satire on violence, it’s … violence.
As for the objectification of women, yes I take your point and I have seen (pictures of, not the actual) furniture you refer to (unless it’s been done several times, which wouldn’t surprise me, in which case I could have just seen something similar; can’t be sure). It’s all about the framing, isn’t it – context is all (and I don’t think the furniture cuts it, YMMV (or at least not the ones I’ve seen, which might of course not be the same ones)); I think it’s possible – but in practice extremely difficult to create a work using images of naked women to satirise or criticise sexism without actually adding to the harm.