Image Thing

[Mujer Libre]

This is an image I made in photoshop. I found a stock of a woman in an Australian flag bikini, and I just had to make it into a feminist and anti-nationalist image. I'm a bit of a photoshop newbie so any suggestions would be awesome.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8628/11copy4ij.jpg

[Rollo]

More is less, filters sometiems work for the devil and try anti aliasing the ropes.

[Black Dagger]

I like your linking of patriarchy and patriotism, very clever, but what is the net meant to symbolise? The trap of ignorance?

As for the net, i think it might look better if it was blended into the image a little more? In general it works the way it is now, but when i look at the top left corner of the image, near the wom*n's mouth, the contrast between layers is quite marked. Though you have obviously already attempted to blend the images, perhaps you could adjust the brightness/contrast of the image and see if you like the result?

Also, perhaps make the text stand out a little more? I'm weary to suggest this because i think there is definately the possibility that trying to make the text more prominent will in fact make it too prominent, it is definately a fine balance. That said, the text is a very pale colour, and as such the word 'Patriarchy' for example gets a bit lost in the background image.

This is nevertheless a great piece, with an excellent message, I hope my criticisms have been helpful.

[Mujer Libre]

I've altered it a bit. I replaced the net with a broken glass bg and darkened the text a bit. And Rollo, there are no filters in this at all!

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/2748/11copy3po.jpg

[Black Dagger]

What do you think about shifting the text down and to the right? (basically to the centre of the image). It works the way it is now, but i think it gets a bit obscured by the background image. I like the changes you made, the broken glass gives the image a good texture, but it has (unfortunately) almost completely eliminated the 'ignorance is a trap' symbolism of the first design. Perhaps you could another stock on top of the ones you are already using? Or at least have a fiddle :)

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 10 2006, 12:07 PM
What do you think about shifting the text down and to the right? (basically to the centre of the image). It works the way it is now, but i think it gets a bit obscured by the background image. I like the changes you made, the broken glass gives the image a good texture, but it has (unfortunately) almost completely eliminated the 'ignorance is a trap' symbolism of the first design. Perhaps you could another stock on top of the ones you are already using? Or at least have a fiddle :)
Yeah, I'll move the text over a bit, and I'll find some time somewhere to look for new stocks. I was quite proud of the glass effect. :D

[TC]

. I found a stock of a woman in an Australian flag bikini, and I just had to make it into a feminist and anti-nationalist image.

...i can see the &#39;patriotism/nationalism&#39; aspect but i don&#39;t see what the image has to do with patriarchy...are women in bikinis just agents of patriarchy or victims of patriarchy or some such wacko thing or what?<_<

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:11 PM

. I found a stock of a woman in an Australian flag bikini, and I just had to make it into a feminist and anti-nationalist image.

...i can see the &#39;patriotism/nationalism&#39; aspect but i don&#39;t see what the image has to do with patriarchy...are women in bikinis just agents of patriarchy or victims of patriarchy or some such wacko thing or what?<_<
Yeah, lol.

But seriously- the kind of women who wear Australian flag bikinis are most likely to be those things... Also it&#39;s the type of image it is. It&#39;s a faceless woman- just her body, specifically breasts and lips. It&#39;s a woman reduced down to sexy bits, wrapped in nationalism.

Now I just have to sit back and wait for the accusations that I&#39;m anti-sex.

[TC]

But seriously- the kind of women who wear Australian flag bikinis are most likely to be those things...

I think thats a rather appallingly social conservative thing to suggest. The only thing that a woman who who wants to show off her body is most likely to be is confident and comfortable enough with herself.


... Also it&#39;s the type of image it is. It&#39;s a faceless woman- just her body, specifically breasts and lips. It&#39;s a woman reduced down to sexy bits, wrapped in nationalism.


Would you make the same critique of this image:
http://www.silkytemptations.com/images/medium/pm_LM-LB45.jpg

Its a faceless man, just his body, specifically chest and crotch. It&#39;s a man reduced down to sexy bits, wrapped in nationalism&#33;

Except i don&#39;t think you&#39;d see it that way...because ultimately the analysis of the images are B.S. and can be interpreted any way you like, and different subjects in identical situations will be interpreted differently in order to support a nonfalsifiable hypothesis which betrays the fact that radical "feminism" has no empirical basis it simply amounts to a rather reactionary collection of opinions.

and uh, since when is the lower half of someone&#39;s face not their face, but the upper half of someone&#39;s body is all of their &#39;sexy bits&#39;. The image you used is actually half her face and half her body. Its also rather unclear how it was presented in the origional since you edited it, i mean, was it part of a website selling aussie flag bikinis? lol.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by TC
I think thats a rather appallingly social conservative thing to suggest. The only thing that a woman who who wants to show off her body is most likely to be is confident and comfortable enough with herself.

How is that &#39;socially conservative&#39;?

ML is saying nothing about womyn showing their body, you&#39;re deliberately misinterpreting her comments - probably because you&#39;re aware that ML is not a &#39;proper&#39; feminist by your warped Leninist definition, sorry, &#39;marxist&#39; - quite frankly your post in this thread is just irritating trash lol.

Tragic Clown, do you have any comments to make about the graphic itself? Constructive criticism? Lol.

[TC]

The image is explicitly political so my comments are political, its a direct critic of the graphic to criticize the message, so don&#39;t derail it blackdagger.


How is that &#39;socially conservative&#39;?

Its social conservative to suggest that female sexual expression is patriarchal, that was what Mujer Libres "most likely to be those things" refered to given the context.


ML is saying nothing about womyn showing their body, you&#39;re deliberately misinterpreting her comments

She does suggest that women in bikinis and images that focus on &#39;sexy bits&#39; are suggestive of patriarchy. In any case i responded to her directly and she can clarify her position on her own she doesn&#39;t need you to stick up for her and try to put words in her mouth :-p.

I am certaintly not "deliberately" misinterpreting her comments and its rather silly to think i&#39;d have any motivation to do so, if she thinks i&#39;ve misunderstood though she can clarify her position.

[Mujer Libre]

Yeah, you ARE misrepresenting my words, as you always do TC.
I SAID that images which reduce women down to body parts objectify women- no women in bikinis in general. I never even suggested that. Either you&#39;re willfully misinterpreting me OR you have no comprehension skills.

I did mention women in AUSTRALIAN FLAG BIKINIS, but that&#39;s a whole different kettle of fish.

But I forgot, your brand of feminism is the only appropriate one, right? :rolleyes:

[TC]

I SAID that images which reduce women down to body parts objectify women- no women in bikinis in general.

Right and my question is, do images that reduce men down to body parts objectify men?:

http://www.silkytemptations.com/images/medium/pm_LM-LB45.jpg

Or does an image of a mostly nude man with his face cropped out in australian or british flag swim suit not objectify men when the same type of image objectifies women?

My question is that do you read different things into the same types of images according to the gender of the model? Is the image itself being analyzed or is ideology being projected onto the image.

So, whats your feelings about the faceless guy in the aussie/british flag swim trunks?

[Rollo]

That&#39;s objectifying men.

[bcbm]

Right and my question is, do images that reduce men down to body parts objectify men?

Absolutely, as well as reinforcing certain societal conventions on beauty.

[TC]

well, i disagree...although i suppose it depends on how the term &#39;objectifies&#39; is used. If its meant as "the object of sexual interest/desire, etc" as in &#39;object&#39; in the part of speech, then it &#39;sexually objectifies&#39; both and theres nothing wrong or especially political with this...

...but if its meant, as i believe certain anti-sex "feminists" use the term, to imply that it reduces them to merely an object rather than a person in such a way as to *degrade* their personhood, then i think neither women nor men are objectified in such a way by those types of images. I also don&#39;t think that reference to specific women or specific men implies a way of viewing all women or all men, and that claiming such is extrapolating beyond the empirical, material framework available.


In any case i&#39;m more interested in Mujer Libre&#39;s response to my last post.



Absolutely, as well as reinforcing certain societal conventions on beauty.

Beautiful people don&#39;t &#39;reinforce&#39; anything, and if beauty is a subjective thing composed of conventions than your assuption that these people are beautiful (a comment that hasn&#39;t been made before) shows more about your feelings about beauty projected onto society than it does about societal conventions or general social positions on it.

This is one of the problems with the &#39;male gaze&#39; style critiques, they actually don&#39;t show anything about &#39;male gaze&#39;, they only show what some radical "feminist"&#39;s gaze is.