„Ljepota je dio povijesti idealizacije koja je sama dio povijesti utjehe. Ali ljepota možda neće uvijek utješiti. Ljepota lica i tijela muči, pokorava; ljepota je bahata. Ljepota koja je ljudska i ljepota koja je stvorena (umjetnost) – obje pobuđuju fantaziju o posjedovanju. Naš model ravnodušnosti dolazi od ljepote prirode – prirode koja je rezervirana, nadsvođujuća, koju je nemoguće posjedovati„ - rekla je Susan Sontag.
Sontag je tako bar donekle definirala pojam koji nastojimo dešifrirati već stoljećima, no postoji li zaista konkretan odgovor na pitanje štoljepota jest?
Iako mit o ljepoti u nekoj formi postoji od kad postoji patrijarhat, u svojoj je modernoj formi izum koji je relativno nedavno izmišljen. Svoj je procvat doživio u doba industrijske revolucije. Sasvim logično, prije razvitka tehnologija i masovne produkcije sadržaja kao što je fotografija, obična žena bila je rijetko izložena prikazima ljepote izvan Crkve. Budući da je obitelj bila produktivna jedinica, a ženski je rad nadopunjavao muški, vrijednost žena koje nisu bile aristokratkinje ili prostitutke, ležala je isključivo u njihovim radnim sposobnostima, ekonomskoj snalažljivosti, fizičkoj snazi i plodnosti. Fizička privlačnost je tako igrala ulogu za obične žene na tržištu braka, ali ljepota kakvom je mi razumijemo nije.
Nakon industrijalizacije obitelji kao radna jedinica biva uništena, a i sama veličina obitelji se smanjuje. Ovi promijenjeni obiteljski uvjeti, uz urbanizaciju, povećan tvornički sistem i bolji standard života stvaraju sasvim odvojenu sferu kućanstva, sferu čiji je primiran cilj ugoda. U skladu s tim, razvila se nova klasa pismene, aktivne žene o čijoj je submisiji ili bolje rečeno konzumerizmu kapitalizam ovisio.
Stvar se zahuktala 50- ih. Nakon Drugog svjetskog rata i potrage za novim tržištima došlo je do redefiniranje ženske ljepote pa je žena po novom modelu morala biti vječno mlada, lijepa i vitka. Kako bi prodali svoje proizvode, oglašivači su kod novih potencijalnih kupaca morali umjetno izazvati nezadovoljstvo i potrebu za nečim. Tako im je bilo lakše prodati proizvod koji bi kupcima trebao „pomoći“ da ponovno budu „sretniji“. A gdje pronaći bolju nišu za zaradu nego u industriji ljepote. Ljepota je ionako, kako to je to objasnila Susan Sontag, dio povijesti idealizacije koja je sama dio povijesti utjehe.
Ideju ljepote pobliže opisuje i Naomi Wolf koja je najpoznatija po svojoj knjizi „Mit o ljepoti“ („The Beauty Myth“) iz 1991. U predgovoru drugog izdanja iz 2002. navodi kako su uz neke od reakcije na prvo izdanje išle u smjeru Platonovog Simpozija, poznatog dijaloga na temu vječnih i nepromjenjivih ideala, u vidu rečenica poput: "Žene su ionako oduvijek patile zbog ljepote!" Spisateljica ističe kako je zanimljivo da nikom nije bilo jasno da ideali ljepote nisu pali s neba, nego da su došli od nekud i kako su tu da služe svrsi. Ta je svrha, objašnjava Wolf prvenstveno financijska, kako bi se povećao profit oglašivača čiji dolari koji dolaze od reklama dovode do toga da mediji zauzvrat kreiraju ideale. Dodaje kako je u pozadini i politička svrha. Što su žene postajale snažnije politički, to su ideali ljepote postajali teži za dostignuti, uglavnom kako bi im oduzeli energiju i usporili njegov napredak.
"Mit o ljepoti priča ovu priču: Kvaliteta pod imenom "ljepota" postoji objektivno i univerzalno. Žene moraju željeti utjeloviti tu kvalitetu, a muškarci moraju željeti posjedovati žene koje utjelovljuju taj ideal. Ovo je utjelovljenje imperativ za žene, a ne za muškarce, isto je opravdano i prirodno jer to tako biološki, seksualno i evolucijski: Snažni se muškarci bore za lijepe žene , a lijepe žene su reproduktivno uspješnije. Ženska ljepota mora biti u korelaciji s njihovom fertilnošću, a budući da je sistem baziran na na seksualnoj selekciji, to je neizbježno i nepromjenjivo", objašnjava Wolf.
Ništa od ovog nije istina. "Ljepota" je valutni sistempoput zlata. Kao svaka ekonomska jedinica, određena je politikom, a u modernim je vremenima na Zapadu postala sistem vjerovanjakoji osigurava mušku dominaciju netaknutom. Kroz pripisivanje vrijednosti ženama u vidu vertikalne hijerarhije, vodeći se kulturalno nametnutim fizičkim standardima, to je ekspresija odnosa moći u kojoj se žene moraju neprirodno natjecati za resurse koji su muškarci zauzeli za sebe. "Ljepota" isto tako nije univerzalna i nepromjenjiva. Primjerice, Zapad tvrdi da svi ideali ženske ljepote proizlaze iz Platonovog ideala žene, dok se Maori pak dive golemoj vulvi, a pleme Padug velikim grudima. Niti je "ljepota" funkcija evolucije: Njeni se ideali mijenjaju puno bržim tempom nego što je to evolucija vrsta. I Charles Darwin je sam bio neuvjeren vlastitim objašnjenjem da je "ljepota "rezultat seksualne selekcije koja je devijacija od pravila prirodne selekcije. Antropologija je opovrgnula misao da žene moraju biti lijepe kako bi bile odabrane da bi se parile...Niti je to nešto što samo žene rade, a muškarci gledaju: među Nigerijskim plemenom Woodabe, žene imaju ekonomsku moć, a pleme je opsjednuto muškom ljepotom, muškarci iz ovog plemena provedu sate u detaljnim make up seansama te se natječu provokativno naslikani uz ples, pritom koristeći zavodničke izraze lica u izborima za ljepotu u kojima su suci žene.
Wolf izvodi zaključak kako mit o ljepoti, nema povijesno i biološko opravdanje. Ona postavlja pitanje: Ako mit o ljepoti nije baziran na evoluciji, spolu, rodu, estetici ili Bogu, na čemu je onda baziran? Taj isti mit tvrdi da se u njemu radi o intimnosti, seksu, životu i slavljenju žene. Onda daje odgovor i kaže: Zapravo je sastavljen od emocionalne distance, politike, financija i seksualne represije. U mitu o ljepoti nije uopće riječ o ženama. Riječ je o muškim institucijama i institucionalnoj moći. Kvalitete koje određeni period naziva ljepotom u ženama su samo simboli ženskog ponašanja koje taj period smatra poželjnima. Kod mita o ljepoti se uvijek zapravo radi o propisivanju ponašanja, a ne izgleda.
photos by Viktor Shalom, Instagram and Pinterest
text by Iva Hanzen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is beauty really an aesthetic category?
"Beauty is part of the history of idealization that is itself part of the history of consolation. But beauty may not always console. Beauty of face and body tortures, obeys; Beauty is arrogant. Beauty of the human and beauty that is created (art) - both excite the fantasy of possession. Our model of indifference comes from beauty of the nature - the nature which is reserved, arching, which is impossible to own " - said Susan Sontag.
Sontag at least partially defined the notion that we are trying to decipher for centuries, but is there really a concrete answer to the question of what beauty is?
Although beauty myth in some form exists since patriarchy, in its modern form is an invention that was invented relatively recently. It reached its peak in the era of the Industrial Revolution. Logically, before the development of technology and mass production of content such as photography, ordinary woman was rarely exposed to images of beauty outside the Church. Because the family was a productive unit, and women's work complemented the male's, the value of women who were not prostitutes or aristocrat, lay solely in their capacity for work, economic resourcefulness, physical strength and fertility. Physical attractiveness played the role for ordinary women in the marriage market, but beauty how we understand it today didn't.
After the industrialization, family as a work unit was destroyed, and it also decreased in size. These changed conditions of families, along with urbanization, increased factory system and better standard of living created a completely separate sphere of the household, the sphere whose uncompressed goal was pleasure. Accordingly, we developed a new class of literate, active women whose submission or should we say consumerism capitalism depended on.
The thing heated up in the 50s. After the World War II and search for new markets, there has been a redefinition of female beauty and a woman according to the new model had to be eternally young, beautiful and slim. In order to sell their products, advertisers had to artificially provoke dissatisfaction and the need for something with new potential buyers. It was easier that way for them to sell products to customers which were supposed to "help" the customers to be "happier". And where better to find a niche for making money than in the beauty industry. Beauty is anyway, as it was explained by Susan Sontag, part of the history of idealization that is itself part of the history of consolation.
The idea of beauty was also closely described by Naomi Wolf, who is best known for her book "The Beauty Myth" from 1991. In the preface to the second edition from 2002. she states that some of the reaction to the first edition went in the direction of Plato's Symposium, the famous dialogue on the eternal and immutable ideals, in the form of sentences like: "Women have always suffered because of beauty anyway!" The writer points out that it is interesting that no one realised that the ideals of beauty have not fallen from the sky, but that they came from somewhere and that are there to serve a purpose. The purpose, explains Wolf is primarily financial, to increase profits of the advertisers whose dollars which come from advertising have led the media to cerate the beauty ideals in return. She adds that in the background there is also a political purpose. As women were becoming more powerful politically, the ideals of beauty became more difficult to achieve, mainly so their energy could be weaken and their progress slowed down.
"Beauty myth tells this story: The quality called 'beauty' exists objectively and universally. Women must want to embody this quality, and men must want to possess women who embody this ideal. This embodiment is an imperative for women and not for men, the same is legitimate and natural for it is so biologically, sexually and evolutionary: Strong men battle for beautiful women, and beautiful women are reproductively successful. Female beauty must be correlated with their fertility, and since the system is based on the sexual selection, it is inevitable and unchangeable, "explains Wolf.
None of that is true. "Beauty" is an exchange system, such as gold. As each economic unit, it is determined by politics, and in modern times in the West it became a belief system that ensures male dominance intact. Through the attribution of value to women in the form of a vertical hierarchy, led by culturally imposed physical standards, it is the expression of power relations in which women must unnaturally compete for resources that are occupied by men for themselves. "Beauty" is also not universal and unchanging. For example, the West maintains the notion that all the ideals of feminine beauty derive from Plato's ideal of women, while the Maori admire enormous vulva, and tribe Padug large breasts. Nor has "beauty" any evolution function: Its ideals are changing much faster than evolution of species. And Charles Darwin himself was unconvinced with his own explanation that "beauty" is the result of sexual selection, which is a deviation from the rules of natural selection. Anthropology has refuted the idea that women must be beautiful in order to be selected to be mated ... Nor is it something that only women do, while men watch: in the Nigerian tribe Woodabe, women have economic power, and the tribe is obsessed with the male beauty, Men from this tribe spend hours in the detailed make-up sessions and compete provocatively painted while they dance, at the same time using sexy expressions in the beauty elections in which judges are women.
Wolf concludes how there is no historical and biological justification in beauty myth. She raises the question: If the beauty myth is not based on evolution, sex, gender, aesthetics, or God, what is it based on then? This same myth claims that it is about intimacy, sex, life and celebration of women. Then she gives the answer and says: It's actually made up of emotional distance, politics, finance, and sexual repression. In the beauty myth there is not even a word about women. It is about male institutions and institutional power. Qualities that a certain period calls the beauty in women are only symbols of female behavior that this period consideres desirable. eauty myth is always really about prescribing behavior, not appearance.
photos by Viktor Shalom, Instagram and Pinterest
text by Iva Hanzen
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar