This is what the ads kept boasting all week--
Sharon Reed, Channel 19 Action News reporter, took part in the Cleveland
Spencer Tunick installation in the spring so that she could document the experience for the rest of us.
Being the sucker I am, I watched the damn 11 o'clock news in the hopes that she might have
something interesting and new to say about it.
Instead I just ended up feeling disgruntled.
Sharon Reed drooled and lavished praise on Tunick and his nude photo shoot in Cleveland, stating such hyperbolic (and overused) things as "it's about art; it's about so much more" and that this story "was the most important story of her life." She mewled and yammered over and over about how it was all about the art and that's why she had chosen not to censor this artistic vision.
You can see her story HERE (hopefully).
All that being said, let me now explain the ads for this news story that have been plaguing television viewers all week. They boasted again and again that you were gonna get to see Sharon Reed bare it all in the name of art. And each gratuitous time, they included close-up shots of her ass, her fingers slowly dragging her zipper down her fly, her fingers seductively pulling down the waist of her jeans for the camera. Again and again and again. Every shot of her completely and totally sexualized--playing up the "forbidden" aspect of what she was doing. Not only that but the news kept reminding us that her upcoming story was for "mature audiences only" and right before it came on, they had the usual warning:
Due to the graphic and
sensitive nature of this news story,
viewer discretion is advised.
Here's what bothers me:
1) Sharon Reed claims to be in it all because of the art.
2) The point of her news story (lame and shallow though it was) was to emphasize (in every trite cliche way) how it WAS all about the art and NOT about sex--at one point she even stated that "a lot of people seem to equate the nude shot with the sexual act" but "not Spencer... not [her]". This I have to digress for a moment to address: you have 3,000 naked people all freezing and standing around with one another, you have the awkwardness of being around tons of other naked people, of COURSE people are going to joke to ease the tension--it's not a matter of them thinking all the nudity to be sexualized, it's a matter of them honing in on SOME aspect of it that they can joke about so everyone can giggle and feel a bit more comfortable. But again, for Sharon Reed, it was all about the art.
AND YET
3) The news exploited the sexual aspect of this photo shoot as much as it could to get viewers.
Like I stated earlier, every ad had a hint of the forbidden, the erotic in it. They made sure to post warning after warning about the "mature" nature of the story. And the actual story itself included the most ridiculously gratuitous shots of Sharon Reed unzipping her pants in slow-mo, and on top of that, had one of the most Playboy Bikini model moments where Sharon Reed stood in her bra and underwear and the camera literally (and I am not exaggerating on this) completely avoided getting her head in the shot, zoomed in on her huge breasts, slowly and languorously sleazed itself down to her stomach and belly-button ring, in the way that only those greasy guys at the bar with the bit of drool glistening on their chins when they look at you can do. It was disturbingly sexualized.
And that's what's so ridiculous about it all. Here the news is, exploiting the nudity of an act that WAS intended sheerly for art, making us feel like this nudity is naughty and dirty so that they can exploit this taboo to get more viewers to tune in! The photo shoot was really quite far from being sexualized--you had 3,000 people standing in the cold, embarrasedly grinning at one another, enjoying the freedom and the fact that it WASN'T about the sex, and yet the news chose to turn it (like it does everything) into a sexualized thing. The story, once it started, tried to play itself up as being about the aesthetic nature of the nude. But had they focused on this in the commercial--had they stated that a news story would be coming up shortly that was about the aesthetic value of the nude body and its place in art--very few would've tuned in. So they just threw in a bit of T&A to hook the viewers. Sad and pathetic.
The news, the media, is the antithesis of all art--the exploiter and distorter of art. This story just cemented that fact. They are selling sex and taboo, Spencer Tunick was not. They reinforce this idea of the human body being sexual and taboo and dirty over and over through their warnings of "graphic and sensitive" images. They convince us that the naked body is something to keep covered and something that is graphic enough that perhaps we should change the channel so our kids don't get a glimpse of the story. And yet THEY USE THIS, EXPLOIT THIS, PLAY ON THIS FACT so that they can get viewers to tune in. They flaunt the naughtiness of it in front of us, knowing that they are being a tease and that we'll stick around for the strip show.
Once long ago, Eleven gave me an essay loosely related to this idea (I don't recollect the title or author, so hopefully he can relay this info in the comments section). Anyways, it discussed the fact that it is not the naked body that holds the sexual charge, but the clothed/half-clothed body. It is the mysteriousness, the hint at what's to come that draws us in, that arouses our senses, that gets us fiery within. It's the expectation. Not the naked boob. Not the exposed pussy.
I've read articles about strippers that reinforces this fact too--many strippers go tanning to get a better looking body. However, instead of tanning in the nude like many women do so they can avoid tan-lines, these women deliberately tan with g-strings on and/or bras. Why is this? Because, they explain, men get way more turned on when they are convinced that they are seeing something they shouldn't be seeing--when they are seeing the forbidden, the areas that never see the light of day.
The media is the exact same way. I mean, we see it again and again so clearly that even shows like SNL make fun of it. They're teases. They toy with us, giving us just a glimpse of that untanned flesh by telling us somewhere within the next half an hour they will be revealing a) how the world is gonna end or b) a story about some half-nekkid chick who got caught on film and they get us to sit through the WHOLE 1/2 an hour of news just for that one story. I mean, for god's sake, the top story yesterday was about those two blond flakes--the "sexy sisters" as Channel 19 referred to them--who got arrested for driving under the influence and ended up exposing themselves to policemen, throwing their own urine all over, etc. etc. This was the TOP NEWS STORY! Ridiculous.
The news teases us with hints of sex and sexuality--that's exactly how it gets its viewers. And yet again and again, it expresses consternation for the taboo, reinforcing the view of the naked body as completely sexualized, something we may wanna think twice before exposing our kids to, even if it's in the name of art.
When are we gonna STOP sexualizing the nude body??
-------
