Gender in Photographs part two
Continuing on from my last post about gender related topics within photography, I have chosen to
look at some more famous photos in a similar manner.
In this photo you can see Lyndon. B. Johnson being sworn in as president of the United States shortly after the assassination of John. F. Kennedy. By his side is Jackie Kennedy, the wife of the recently deceased president. This picture has an overwhelming sense sadness in it. Johnson, as well as everyone in the background all have very serious expressions on their faces. This photo also has an overwhelming, yet not as obvious, sense of male power and female weakness. The main person in this photo is Johnson, the big man who has been called in to save the day and America during their time of need. He is the hero in this photo. But almost as much as this photo is to make us look up at President Johnson, it equally if not more, makes us look down at Jackie Kennedy. The former first lady, who was unable to save her husband, is pictured crying and altogether looking helpless by another mans side. It doesn't help that the background is full of men looking serious and dignified while the only other women whose face we can see is blocked off by Johnson's raised arm.
The last photograph that I've chosen is that of 'cowboy' Clarence Hailey. In 1949 Life magazine ran an article describing his life. It is fair to say that most people, if they read this article, would consider him to be a 'real man'. But what does the phrase a 'real man' actually mean? Surely it doesn't simply mean that he is a male human who truly exists? Or at least, that's not what most people get from it. Is being a 'real man' simply base around fairly trivial attributes or is there more to it?
Without the article most people would think that they can get a pretty good idea of this man just from the photo. I'm sure many would even deem him a 'real man'. Does that mean that the phrase comes from purely looks of a person? Everything about this photo screams 'man'! His hat, cigarette, bandanna, the little you can see of his jacket and even his facial expression. So why is it that when a photo of a women, like the one of the migrant mother, focuses so much on the face, people don't call her a 'real women' with the same positive meaning?
The last photograph that I've chosen is that of 'cowboy' Clarence Hailey. In 1949 Life magazine ran an article describing his life. It is fair to say that most people, if they read this article, would consider him to be a 'real man'. But what does the phrase a 'real man' actually mean? Surely it doesn't simply mean that he is a male human who truly exists? Or at least, that's not what most people get from it. Is being a 'real man' simply base around fairly trivial attributes or is there more to it?Without the article most people would think that they can get a pretty good idea of this man just from the photo. I'm sure many would even deem him a 'real man'. Does that mean that the phrase comes from purely looks of a person? Everything about this photo screams 'man'! His hat, cigarette, bandanna, the little you can see of his jacket and even his facial expression. So why is it that when a photo of a women, like the one of the migrant mother, focuses so much on the face, people don't call her a 'real women' with the same positive meaning?
No comments:
Post a Comment