Eroticism In Images

Tom Ford has recently released controversial advertisements. The images feature a new scent for men. The scent will be successful. Not because it smells sexy and mysterious, but rather because the advertisements are erotic and enticing.

In the first image a woman (well we assume it’s a woman) cups her incredibly large breasts with her long fingernails—the new scent suffocating in her cleavage.

In the second image the same woman seductively toys the cologne—which barely hides her soaking wet vagina from view.

In the third and final image a sweaty man dressed in a suit stares at the viewer, seeming to say “Don’t you wish you were me?” Two sets of arms with long red fingernails grope his chest…presumably the same woman from the previous advertisements.

The images can all be viewed (and can be downloaded as wallpaper) at http://www.tomford.com
They ARE explicit but viewing them might help you understand my argument better.

What I find interesting is that the woman’s face or eyes are not visible in any of the ads. By removing her true features the advertisements successfully objectifies her. Without a pair of eyes staring back at the viewer we are able to view her without guilt or qualms.

This is not new to society. I would like to examine art of the past as an example.

Manet’s Olympia features a prostitute staring at the viewer. The work was controversial for many reasons—among them being the fact that the painting puts the viewer in the place of the prospective buyer of the woman. WE as the viewer are the one dishing out the dough to have a night of pleasure. This makes us squirm.

Another work (also very explicit, please be warned) is Courbet’s Origin of the World. It is merely a painting of a vagina. This painting was considered MORE acceptable than Olympia, because the viewer (as in Tom Ford’s images) cannot see the eyes of the subject. By purely objectifying her it is safe to look at her. She can’t see us drooling over her body.

It seems that we have made no progress as a society. If the woman in Tom Ford’s images was clearly visible, would we be as apt to accept them? Because we can’t see her and she can’t see us it feels safe. It’s someone we don’t know. Someone we don’t care about. We merely like looking at her body. What if a woman you truly loved and cared about was the subject of those advertisements? You would never know, because you can’t see her face. If the viewer WAS allowed to see her eyes—think how disturbed you would be. Most of us do not know individuals in the porn industry and it would be a shock to see someone we knew and cared about in such an image.

How is it that after all this time we are STILL producing works of art and advertisements that are intended to bring pleasure to men? If a man were to be placed in a similarly provocative advertisement he would be labeled as “gay” or “sick.” Women don’t get soft porn ads. Women get to BE the soft porn ads FOR men.

How is advertising better than prostitution? Both are selling their bodies. Both women are abused. Both are taken for granted. Both deserve better.

We are worth so much more. We cannot help the bodies that we are born with—the genes that we are composed of. What we CAN help is what we do with our insides—our brains and our hearts. It seems to me that society is still struggling with the concept that women are EQUAL. We deserve respect.