PocketWatch Romances

Thanks to Warren Ellis (scary man, but I like the way he writes), I discovered Filament Magazine. It’s a great concept (an alternative to the current crop of trashy “women’s” mags out there, with a serving of yummy manflesh on the side, objectification intended* (see ‘the Female Gaze‘)).

So I took a look at the ‘inside’ link, to see what it was all about. Because I am a visual person, my eyes were drawn down to the pictures of men first. My initial reactions were as follows:
– This shows his character? How? (I like that big tattoo, though)
– Helloooo underexposure! This could be a fab picture but I can’t see it. (It’s not my screen brightness, either, I checked.)
– Photoshopped nipples are no one’s friend. (I keep trying to decide if it’s really ’shopped or if it’s just the flash/fill making him look funny. I also keep getting the feeling that he was standing in front of a plain background and the crucifix and book case were added in postproduction. It bothers me, okay?)

I don’t know, maybe they slapped some okay-but-not-good-enough-for-print pics up for their samples? I don’t think that it’s me expecting too much — underexposure and excessive/obvious photoshopping are two of those things that are kind of, well… Obvious no-nos. At least to me. (Of course, I grew up surrounded by gorgeous pictures taken by my mom, who used an Olympus OM1 and real film, so I could be basing my expectations/theories on outdated technology used by someone with taste rooted in a time a generation and a half ago, so.)

* If it’s not intended, then why use the female-centered construction of ‘the male gaze’, which as far as I can tell is usually said to be all about the objectifying of innocent women/girls? (See: Wikipedia, Finally Feminism 101, Dr. Lucas’ notes on Male Gaze for an Ads-and-Gender class (faaaaascinating, as is genderads.com).

One Response to “Fascinating.”