Melody Tremain

Sarah Newlands

Forbidden Knowledge

Berger Museum Essay

Back to Ethics and Social Responsibility

When I took the time to look at the assignment that resulted in this essay, I began to get very excited. I recently became engaged and so had begun to accumulate bridal magazines.  I had thought that these would be a poor place to begin my search for Renaissance styles for a variety of reasons. For example, the majority of these books are full-page, full-color advertisements for full or more than beauty length dresses. This would not seem to be a place of blatant, or even subtle, posturing of the models because she is, for once, not the center of the ad.

I was so wrong.

Instead what I found was simply shocking examples of submissive posturing and women reacting to men in precisely some of the same ways which John Berger describes in his book, Ways of Seeing. Unfortunately I could not include all of the photos I wished to. I picked photos which best emulated John Berger’s vision of a woman who “has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually” (page 46). All of these pictures are advertisement pages from the April/May 2006 edition of Modern Bride.

Photo set number one reminded me strongly of John Berger, although I could not place why it did so to begin with. This photo set is of two separate photos of a woman in full wedding day attire placed with a naked man. I say naked very deliberately because, according to John Berger’s definitions of the words naked and nude, being naked is to be oneself, without disguise. To be nude is to be objectified. This man is naked because he has no concept of being viewed. He is the viewer, looking at the world around him. Twice in a row, it is the woman who is aware of being viewed. She is posturing for this male, in a manner which indicates her desire, even her expectation of being seen. Then it is she who protects man from us, again as viewers. It struck me then as to why I knew Berger would appreciate the irony and ultimate paradox within this series. Berger simplified his statements about women up to this point on page 47 by saying that men “act” and women “appear”. The irony here is that the man is merely looking, even away while female is attempting to serve his every perceived need. She is both enchantress and protector, while he would be stretched to be known as a viewer.

In the next photo, titled Wild (Flower) Child, we see a woman standing alone against a plain, dark background. Her silver toned dress is lightly adorned with pale pink roses, elegant crystallized jewelry, and silver frosted leaves. It is her posture that surprises so. When looked at critically, this pose seems highly unnatural, and probably uncomfortable. The only scenario that can be imagined is this woman was washing herself in the shower when something startled her be falling to the floor. For no other reason would she pose in such a manner, if she did not know she was being accounted. Yet, somehow in this context, it feels highly appropriate.

It is almost as if she is caressing herself in the viewers’ absence. Her expression is carefully guarded, even calculated. This falls in line quite easily with Berger’s school of thought that “a woman’s presence…defines what can and cannot be done to her” (pg 46). He continues to explain that if she can control this presence, she can control what can be done to her. According to that theory, picturing this woman as a nymph or sprite with gentle tendencies means simply that she expects the viewer to treat her as if she is a precious, unusual creature that may frighten easily. The fantasy could easily continue as she rises out of this dress, which would be as a delicate and rare flower, or perhaps a pure white spray of water.

This creates a sense of mystery, of curiosity and expectation, but it is certainly a superficial sense. Although this woman is fully clothed, the understanding of her body beneath the corset is quite strong. We can visually follow the curve of a hip, the indent of an abdomen. Color is filled in from her cheeks and passed along the tops of her shoulders. We fill in the rest with vivid imagination.

The photo that comes next is easily the most innocent of the stack, yet possibly the most devious because of it. A young girl of somewhere below 10 years of age is seated upon a small dark ottoman against a rose hued background. She is dressed simply in pink and white as a flower girl. For a girl of such a young age, she seems quiet, nearly sedate. Hands folded neatly in her lap, eyes directed towards the floor, ankles neatly crossed, it is the angle of her neck which makes her seem so adult. If this were a church, she would be nodding in deference to a father frustrated with her squirming. Pink here is a color of promise, of the red she will blossom into. She has already become adept at controlling her body.

These wedding photos make excellent examples of a modern use of Renaissance postures in painting, because the very purpose of this type of photography is to put a dichotomy between the model and her gown. The model and gown must be seen as one desirable unit, but there must be enough room between them that the spectator-spender-bride-to-be can mentally slip a photo of herself into that dress and want it. Perhaps that is the most unusual part of these postures and the biggest difference between what they are here, and what they were originally. These photos and postures are no longer directed towards a male viewer. Nobody really believes many American males will read this and study the dresses in detail. Instead, the woman is shown a picture that essentially says look at me as if you were a man. If you feel desire, this pose (dress) is obviously working. This creates a place that is familiar enough that it is accepted but wrong enough, submissive enough, that the consumer begins to tell herself all of the improvements she could make to it.

This opens the doors to possibility, where every bride thrives.

 

Works Cited

"Advertisements." Modern Bride Apr.-May 2006: 1-504. 

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972. 7-166. 

 

Back to Ethics and Social Responsibility