Exploitation of the Female Form in Art and Poetry..!

The female form is a pervasive trope in both historical
and contemporary visual art.
It is equated to a specific brand of frail, feminine beauty,
and often that beauty is the main focus of the artwork.
To capture that delicate beauty, artists use the isolated
female form as a visual tool.
Although the females aren’t necessarily sexualized,
they are still objectified.
Their bodies are depicted out of context,
disembodied from any personality other
than their stereotypical femininity.

The same phenomenon occurs in poetry.
Who owns these body parts?
Is it the calloused skin of a tennis player’s palms?
Is it the sun-damaged skin of a middle-aged
Asian woman?
No. In the context of recycled tumblr poetry,
‘skin’ refers to the pale, unblemished skin
of a young white girl. Let’s play this game again.
Is the collarbone from a marathon runner
or a ballet dancer?
Is it male or female? Is it strong or weak?

Earlier this year I used the word ‘clavicle’
in a poem, to which viperslang responded
with the comment, “finally a poem that employs
 the word “clavicle” masterfully.”
When I wrote the poem, I was hesitant
to use the word because I knew of its reputation
of empty overuse.
But I used it anyway.
Why?
Because my poem was about dinosaurs and fossils
and LITERAL skeletons.
The clavicle I implied was mineralized
and had the dull brown color of something old
that was dug out of the ground.
The clavicle wasn’t pretty or beautiful or gendered.
In fact, the clavicle was not really human
—it belonged to an extinct dinosaur.
Does this make my word choice masterful?
I don’t know, but at least I used a word
in a relevant context instead of using
it as a vague placeholder to exploit the female
form in a misguided effort to convey beauty.

Why would someone want to convey fragile
beauty with the female figure?
One reason is to embody that beauty
as their own.
The logic is that the delicateness
of an artwork is the same delicateness
of the artist.
Another reason involves conquest.
In this scenario, the artist labors
to capture the elusive female form
as a show of skill.
The artist perceives feminine beauty
as a skittish deer, and the artist dons
the role of a hunter.

The first reason is typically executed
by females, and the second by males.
Think about it. Males don’t employ
the feminine body to reference themselves.
They use it to reference an idealized
female muse.
That muse can be a girlfriend or schoolboy crush
or a woman in a painting.
In any case, the male exerts ownership
over the muse through portrayal.
Here’s an example (note the possessiveness
of the last line).
Here’s a canonical example by Shakespeare
(again, look at the last line).

The next time you encounter an artist
with the female form as a recurring theme
in his/her work, be suspicious.
Critically analyze the function
of the feminine form.
What someone calls “celebration
of the female body” can be thinly
-disguised exploitation.
Then turn the lens on yourself and repeat.