What's Wrong With the "Images of Women?"

By Griselda Pollock

Summary By: Maricarmen Martínez

Pollock argues that the Images of Women (IOW) approach to the visual arts is difficult to understand and to put into practice because the relationship between "high" and "low" culture is not clear. She adds that is hard to explain the meaning of terms such as 'patriarchy' and 'oppression' when these are applied to the images of women in the visual arts and publicity. In addition, Pollock believes that IOW method does not provide for a coherent practice against sexism.

The first problem Pollock sees with IOW is the very expression "images of women". This term suggests that we can distinguish women as a gender from the ways in which woemen are represented or, women from their images. Also, this could imply that it is possible to distinguish between good (positive) images of women and bad ( negative) images of women. This distinction is difficult to make because all accessible constructions of gender take place within the parameters of patriarchal ideology. Thus, it is hard to figure out how these "positive" images of women could and would be. Moreover, it is difficult to conceive what kind of images are necessary to represent women.

Pollock suggests that we take the signifier 'woman' and analyze the meanings signified by the images associated with this signifier. These images are themselves signifiers She proposes that a good way to analyze these images of women is to see how their meanings are connected to other images and to other meanings. She proposes that a good way to analyze these images will be to see how they are related to images of men. Hopefully, this will clarify the signifieds 'man' and 'woman'. Pollock proposes that REVERSALS of images are a good strategy to see the meanings attached to the signifier 'woman ' in its relation to the signifier 'man.'

One of the "reversals" takes the form of two pictures advertising blue jeans. One of them presents a man with the face of a lion in the midst of a wild landscape. The other presents a label with the brand name 'Levis' attached to a nude portion of the female body. For Pollock, this is more than the exploitation of the female body. In this case the signifier 'woman' signifies 'sale.' For Pollock, "what recuperates a bottle of sherry or a car in advertisements from being read as a still life, and indicate their status as purchasable commodities, is the presence of woman by virtue of what woman introduces into the image." (139)

Often, when women make images of men their erotic representations reproduce the traditional images of the masculine body of patriarchal "high art." Thus, male nudity is often presented as active. The nude male does not gaze at the spectator. Usually female nudes are passive and look at the spectator as if inviting him. However, recently, pornographic magazines for men have given the same disengaged aspect to female nudity. This suggests that patriarchal ideology can simply transfer the construction of male sexuality to the female body. Thus, it is difficult for "women artists to create an alternative imagery outside existing ideological forms." (142)