Media Project: A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words

A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words

Photography is art. It’s a medium that manages to wield more prestige and sophistication than most other forms of media by using artistic integrity and beauty to explain pushing the normal societal boundaries of taste. But when photography is used in mass media, do these same reasons hold? Is the true explanation behind that scantily clad actress a matter of artistry…or is it a testament to Ariel Levy’s theory of “raunch culture” which rules the lives and successes of these entertainment industry women? Today, there is perhaps no revered photographer working in mass media known better than Annie Leibovitz, a highly celebrated American photographer. Her beautiful photographs of celebrities grace the covers of countless magazines, including the two above. There is no argument on my part on the beauty of Leibovitz’s work, but rather the motive behind choosing to photograph certain celebrities—female celebrities, specifically—in certain ways. Using examples from Leibovitz’s photographs that have been featured in Vanity Fair over the years, Ariel Levy’s theory of women and “raunch culture” from her book Female Chauvinists Pigs becomes an issue as it becomes increasingly obvious that it is the female celebrities whose images require more artistic nudity than that of their male counterparts.

Compare the two magazine spreads of celebrities shown above. The first comes from a 1995 Vanity Fair issue featuring the “Hollywood Highest – The Class of 2000” (Jennifer Jason Leigh, Uma Thurman, Nicole Kidman, Patricia Arquette, Linda Fiorentino, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sarah Jessica Parker, Julianne Moore, Angela Bassett, Sandra Bullock). The second comes from a spread published close after, a 1996 issue of Vanity Fair featuring “Boys’ Town”(Tim Roth, Leonardo DiCaprio, Matthew McConaughey, Benicio Del Toro, Michael Rapaport, Stephen Dorff, Johnathon Schaech, David Arquette, Will Smith, Skeet Ulrich ). Both spreads are the work of Leibovitz. Neither created much of a public outcry or negative reaction. But what do you see? The obvious observation is that there is about as much skin in one photograph as there is not in the other. These ten women—talented, intelligent, strong and independent women—are all in various states of undress. Their poses are seductive and sultry. Nicole Kidman has her hands over her lady bits. Linda Fiorentino covers her bare breasts. Sarah Jessica Parker’s skirt is hiked up so high that it might be a girdle. As for the men, their poses are cool and casual. Out of all ten, Leonardo DiCaprio is the only one to be baring even the smallest patch of skin—the rest are in full suits and blazers. Yet, I would also call their poses sexy and seductive. Somehow, in order to capture the same strength and attractiveness, one group needs to be disrobed and the other does not.

For Levy, it’s not the fact that these women are being photographed in this way that’s the problem. Instead, it’s fact that the men don’t have to in order to produce the same power and strength. She discusses a similar phenomenon when she declares that, “not one male Olympian has found it necessary to show us his penis in the pages of a magazine. Proving that you are hot…is still exclusively women’s work” (33). Somehow, women have managed to tie their sexuality into their success. Levy says that “it is not enough to be successful, rich, and accomplished…women at the pinnacle of their fields, feel compelled to display their solicitude” (33). Leibovitz is not a man. She is not a “male chauvinist pig” who wants to objectify the actresses in this spread by forcing them to pose scantily dressed for her own “superior male” purposes. Most likely, she sees art and beauty in their bodies and wants to show them, seeks to create a sexy and powerful image. The problem lies in the fact that sexy and powerful have now become synonymous for women. These female actresses are guising this sexual objectification of themselves as pride in their femininity and sexual nature. A successful female cannot be powerful without being sexy. Levy states that “this is our establishment, these are our role models, this high fashion and low culture…being a part of it makes you a strong, powerful woman. Because we have determined that all empowered women must be overtly and publicly sexual” (26). Levy finds the problem comes from the system, and that men are not the only ones at fault for this “raunch culture” that has spread. Women have their hands in this, as well, and that’s something that needs to be addressed.

In general, I haven’t always agreed with Levy’s arguments, as I find some of them pigeonholing issues that cannot be put into such tight, neat boxes, but looking at these two photo spreads and thinking about the motivations behind them makes me believe that she does have her points. Why does Leibovitz choose to photograph the women in this blatantly sexual way, and not the men? Aren’t men’s bodies just as artistically beautiful as women’s? I suppose that you can argue many explanations for it, but I’m inclined to believe that it had to do—at least in part—with society’s need to consider these women sexy before they accept them as anything greater. And in order to consider a women sexy, she has to prove that she is sexual by indulging in this “raunch culture” that has her stripping down and proving it. In many ways, I think that women need the power that has grown to come only with sexual attractiveness to gain public acceptance. Levy says that women in the entertainment industry have to “appear that much more confident, aggressive, and unconflicted about [their] choices—she has to do everything Fred Astaire does, backwards, in heels” (94), and they do. It’s not enough to do what the men do. You have to become “one of the guys”—meaning be all right with this blatantly sexual image of woman. Embrace it, in fact—in order to compete in our patriarchal world. While this might not always be the case, there seems to be cause for argument in it here.


From these two spreads in the mid-90s, Leibovitz hasn’t seemed to change her ways much. In 2006, this picture of Scarlett Johansson, Tom Ford and Keira Knightley hit the pages of Vanity Fair. Both women are completely nude, while Ford merely shows some chest hair. And who could forget the scandal that erupted after 15-year-old Miley Cyrus posed with only a blanket for cover for a 2008 Leibovitz shoot? It seems that “raunch culture” finds its limit when it concerns teens (though Knightley was only 21-years-old when she posed for her entirely nude photograph), for Cyrus did not go unscathed for her choice to disrobe. Still, the fact remains that these young women found it both necessary and acceptable to pose for these photographs. Hiding behind the “it’s art” excuse can only go so far. There is a discomfort level that should have been there that isn’t. When I say this, I don’t mean that these women should be ashamed of their bodies or that it’s unnatural for them to enjoy the sexual or risqué. I truly believe that they have every right to express themselves and to enjoy their bodies as they will, but they also must acknowledge why they feel this way. Is it truly for them, or is it for others? Are they—unbeknownst to even themselves perhaps—playing under the rules that society has forced them into? Have they tricked themselves into believing that this is truly an act of feminine power and pride in their own bodies, or is it merely a way to gain acceptance from the men and women around them? It’s impossible to make a general claim that would prove one claim correct over the other, but I have a feeling that the truth lies somewhere in-between. Photography is art, but a picture’s worth a thousand words. Some of those words may not be the best when viewed under a feminist lens.