In Faulk’s chapter entitled “ ‘Spectacular’ Bodies,” the author discusses the “Living Pictures” phenomenon that proved so popular in the music halls of the late Victorian Era. Faulk also discusses the various reactions to this phenomenon, attributing their responses to varying social class and ideology. Faulk writes, “…the female nude was not linked simply to scopic pleasure for late-Victorian London spectators; audiences participated in a complex production of meaning when they encountered the female body in settings that encouraged aesthetic evaluation.”[1] As Faulk implies, much of the controversy regarding the “Living Pictures” revolved around the classification of the female subject. Was she a working class woman transformed into a picture of beauty, embodying art? Or rather, is she a working class woman subjected to the vulgarity and sexual implications of being displayed in a nude body suit? Many of the questions that society asked regarding these pictures reminded me of the same arguments that surround the pornography industry of today, or, perhaps a magazine like Playboy. Do these businesses showcase a woman’s beauty or victimize unknowing woman with no economic alternative? The answer at which Faulk arrives, and which I believe is true of modern-day “female subjectification” is that one must judge on a case-by-case basis. It seems that critics of the Victorian Era attempted to make broad generalizations such as “tableaux vivants are degrading.” Well, yes, it seems that at times this art form was specifically geared toward the sexual enjoyment of middle class men. But, Faulk suggests with Kilyani’s Pictures and advanced special effects, that society became intrigued by the “visual spectacle.”[2] Faulk comments, “Comolli draws attention to the proliferation of optical inventions in the late nineteenth century – camera, magic lanterns, dioramas, biographs - …that place the body under new, intense scrutiny.”[3] Kilyani’s pictures allowed this art form to become a family affair. Boys would take their girlfriends, and neither party found anything wrong with appreciating the female form as it related to high art. Lady Somerset, an upperclass woman involved in the social purity movement, felt regardless that the living pictures victimized women. Faulk says that her “…intention, which appears to have been to speak for women unable to articulate their own concerns – established these women as speaking subjects in a public sphere.”[4] Faulk then exemplifies this point through the story of La Milo, who takes her success in the living pictures out into the streets, posing in a public parade. This anecdote reminds me of the TV shows like The Girls Next Door and HBO documentaries that feature women who feel empowered by their careers in the sex industry. There is no definitive moral answer to the questions asked in the Victorian Era or today, but I find it fascinating in itself that we are faced with the same moral battles, another hint that Victorian society is not so unlike out own.
So crazy that we had the same ideas Lindsay! I swear I didn't read your blog before class!
ReplyDelete