Talk:Gaze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a fantastic article. Thanks for writing it! -- The Anome 09:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very kind of you to say :) Dysprosia 10:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article has been changed since my rant earlier today. Therefore, I have relegated my protest and the responses to it to this page's history. I left the responses that address my complaint about NPOV. This just happened to be the first 'pedia article I've encountered that covered a feminist subject. I retract my complaint. <>< tbc 05:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course, the power relationship implied by "the gaze" is now available on an equal-opportunity basis: can we have some discussion of the "female gaze" vs. the "male gaze"? -- The Anome 22:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had previously not come across anything that was concentrating on a "female gaze", but I'll try and add something now. Dysprosia 00:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's some stuff on it now, but it was all rather quick, and probably still needs a bit more fleshing out, but at least it's there now. Dysprosia 00:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The following comment was previously made on the main article itself. Please keep it in talk. Jogloran 08:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This term "the gaze" really belongs to Foucault in reference to his theory of knowledge and power. Lacan is a stretch.   
Google the term and you will see what I mean.

Contents 1 First Sentence 2 Unclear 3 Existentialism 4 Gaze and feminism

[edit] First Sentence

I don't understand this:

...is one that deals with how an audience views other people presented.

Should presented just be removed?

Please sign your posts to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

I don't think it should be removed. If you look at the entire sentence:

The concept of gaze (often also called the gaze), in analysing visual media, is one that deals with how an audience views other people presented.

The concept of The Gaze is usually specific to analyses of visual media (though not always). The other people being presented are presented in visual media. That is, we're not just talking about other people you run into on the street, but specifically about how you view and relate to people presented in film and television (usually). -Seth Mahoney 19:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Added the original French term.--WadeMcR 04:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear

I'm not clear from the first paragraph of this article precisely what "gaze" would be defined as. The intro paragraph describes it vaguely, indirectly, but does not offer a definition. It's a bit like saying "pregnancy is kinda like when a woman gets a big stomach and sometimes feels bad" but doesn't specify that she is carrying an developing but as yet unborn fetus and is going to give birth. (this may not be the best metaphor to illustrate, but I hope the point is not lost). As a reader I had to read onwards a bit to begin to understand, although am still unclear. Does "gaze" in this reference actually mean "point of view"? thanks

[edit] Existentialism

My understanding of "the gaze" comes from Existentialism, particularly Sartre. That's gotta predate Foucault. It should probably be mentioned here. Nick Urban 07:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaze and feminism

I take great issue with the sections "Gaze and feminist theory" and "Responses to 'male gaze,'" as both are extremely biased and possibly factually inaccurate. The Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral, factual encyclopedia, not a launching pad for anti-male propaganda by radical feminists who try to demonize male sexuality. Neither section contains any citations, and furthermore, I take issue with the following points:

First section:

• First paragraph: uncited statements and personal hypotheses.
• Second paragraph: heavy gender bias and personal assessments, e.g., stating that male=active, female=passive.
• Third paragraph: weasel words ("some advertising", "it is argued"), and heavy bias (total lack of regard for advertising featuring sexualized male models).

Second section:

• First paragraph: first restates the hypothesis of the first section, then begins to offer an alternative viewpoint (which has been tagged with "citation needed," no doubt maliciously), but jumps immediately into an out-of-place sentence that attempts to refute the responses, even though the section claims to be about responses to the male gaze, not what extremist feminists think about the responses themselves.
• Second paragraph: somewhat incoherent philosophizing about whether or not there is a female gaze. The female gaze obviously needs its own section, since many seem to agree that there is such a thing.
• Third paragraph: out of place restatement of things found in the first section, continuing to attack the responses.
• Fourth paragraph: attempt to refute the statement that there is a female gaze, along with highly sexist statements against men.
• Fifth paragraph: out-of-place brief statement about nonsexual same-sex uses of "the gaze."

Thus, aside from the entire issue of the "male gaze," which, aside from the occasional cases of unwelcome lechery in which it might be a justifiable complaint, is mainly a wholesale attack on male sexuality, this entire section is heavily biased, uncited, and poorly structured. The radical feminist theory needs to be consolidated into its own section, the responses to their hypotheses need to be expanded and clarified (and protected from further abusive additions that give the appearance of neutrality through weasel words alone), the information on the female gaze needs to be given its own section, and the remaining out-of-place text needs to be either removed or revised. --HarmonicFeather 06:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that this author should include some sort of verification, the research on this subject overwhelmingly supports this interpretation. It would be harder to find articles and books that argue from a different position. Mulvey links her idea of the gaze closely to Lacan and the Oeidpus complex, so one can easily see the roots of such binaries between male and female. Also, as uncomfortable as it might make one, the male/action, woman/passive is not a new configuration. Simply go to scholar.google.com and begin searching through articles, there are simply too many to list here.

If the research overwhelmingly supports it, the research needs to be cited. If citing it is "too much work," then the uncited claims need to be removed. It's this simple. Furthermore, it's not a matter of "comfort" or "discomfort," it's about accuracy versus ideological, subversive falsehoods. What "research" is being cited here? Is it objective research, carried out by independent universities, government agencies, and neutral parties, that has been carefully reviewed, published in independent, respected, peer-reviewed journals, and repeatedly reverified? Or is it unproven assumptions and hypotheses based upon poor samples, published in opinion pieces or publications lacking academic and scientific rigor, funded by biased individuals or organizations with a specific agenda to pursue? Not all purported "research" is created equal, and it is not my responsibility to support or disprove the claims in the article, it is the author's. If unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific research can be added to the article, then we can begin resolving the enormous biases and problems in the article. Otherwise, the uncited, biased, and dubious assertions need to be removed. --HarmonicFeather 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)