cop: study task 3

Both Storey and Dyer's analyses of Mulvey's essay 'Visual pleasure and narrative cinema' seek to explore Mulvey's claims about spectator's theory. Storey is primarily concerned with the 'male gaze' and how the female body is erotically presented within film. Dyers brings in aspects of what could be termed the 'female gaze' – he talks about the film 'Picnic' and how the main male character frequently takes his shirt off, as if presenting himself for female spectators. However, Dyer himself also seems to disprove of this comparison later in the essay by referencing Mary Ann Doane's quote: 'female spectator is a concept, not a person'. There is no such thing as a 'female gaze', he seems to say. Male displays of power and ideal body types in film is a male power fantasy. As Storey says, the male spectator looks to these male characters as a reflection of themselves, thus they serve as an ego boost for the male audience rather than an erotic image for women.

Storey's focus is on the idea of fetishization of the female body to moviegoers, and when he speaks of the male audience he talks about them identifying themselves with the power fantasy these men present in terms of a sexual nature. However, Dyer's power fantasy encompasses the male ego as a whole – as a pillar of strength for his female counterpart that '[fights] for his family'. He considers how the audience, both male and female, identify with their favourite stars and attempt to emulate them.

Both Storey's and Dyer's texts on Mulvey's essay suggest that Mulvey's message was about male empowerment in cinema film, exploring it and describing why it needs to change. Whilst Storey focuses on the male ideal in erotic settings and how this is problematic and detrimental to the female star, Dyer's evaluation is broader in terms of his handling of the male ego. He touches on eroticism, but extensively explores other reflections of themselves that moviegoers see in film.

cop: study task 2

cop: study task 1

Rowland Barthes addresses the issues concerning artist and author ownership in his 1967 essay ‘The Death of The Author’. This relates to the contemporary Illustrative work as a question; who owns the art we make? Barthes says ‘the writer can only imitate a gesture […] never original’. Is he saying that nothing is original nowadays? In this new social media world especially, copyright claims are becoming more frequent. So it begs the question, who does own it? The consumer? The creator? The publisher? This short essay will discuss the probability with ownership, using an example of Katsushika Hokusai’s artwork.

The artist is undoubtable, Hokusai is famous for many pieces of art he created. His name is recognisable everywhere. His most subjectively famous piece ‘The Great Wave off Kanagawa’, is repurposed and redesigned everywhere. Does this mean it still belongs to him? Rowland Barthes says ‘language knows a ‘subject’, not a ‘person’’, is this Rowland saying that people only see the piece of art and not the creator behind it? This can be relevant when looking at the ‘Great Wave’ from Hokusai, as it has been repurposed into a lot of modern items, such as mugs, t-shirts, posters. The question is do people buy these items to support the artist, or because of the piece of art?

We have to pose the question whether people would buy these merchandises knowing the artist or just because it looks nice? This subject of ownership is something that Michael Rock touches upon in his essay ‘The Designer as Author’, Rock states ‘[…] most design is done in a collaborative setting’. Some may interpret Rock as saying no design is completely by one person, it includes many others. It could be argued that Hokusai’s art was like this, as with traditional Japanese woodblock printing there are many artists involved in the process, from the carver, the inker, the printer, the publisher. So does this beg the question of whether Hokusai’s art is solo or collaborative, if you come up with the idea does it make it truly only yours?

Hokusai’s ‘the Great Wave’ was created within Japan’s period of isolation, meaning he had no contact with the outside world other than Japan. His influences were minimal, lending to the idea that he could be the sole influencer of his work. It is only later on, when the country was reopened, that people started to see his work. It began to be repurposed as you can see in the picture, in this modern world being collaborated with ‘Pokemon’ which was created in 1995, a very long time after Hokusai, however Hokusai’s influence still remained in this contemporary era. This idea can be heard in Barthes’ essay in his ending quote, ‘the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author’. Hokusai’s work is only recognised properly in this modern era after his death.