“Can the power of the female nude neutralize the misogynist bigotry of the presumed Republican presidential nominee?” asked Nora Caplan-Bricker, of Slate.
Probably not.
Full disclaimer, there’s a few things that I love: Women. Nudity. Nude women. Art. Installations. Progressive politics. Antagonizing extremists. I just wanted to get that out of the way.
But in the last couple of months, as our neighbors to the east have prepared for the Republican National Convention, a specific call for art (?) has weighed on my mind/nerves: Photographer Spencer Tunick sought out women interested in voluntarily posing nude during the first day of the RNC (July 18, 2016).
The call went over well. Tunick received interest from more than 1800 women. He finally arranged 100 of those women to hold mirrors on Sunday morning for his installation titled “Everything She Says Means Everything.” The protest was received favorably: explore the Instagram hashtag, see his website, or view the work and get more insights with the artist by reading his exclusive interview with the classic feminist magazine, Esquire.
Still, I’m not sure who “she” is— Tunick has been the spokesman for his campaign about what “She Means.” While he does host an impressive 20 statements from the 1800 interested women, he still happily speaks on behalf of the women he refers to as “brave” in his description of his photograph and installation:
Dude, what? To be more specific:
1. If you want to reflect the knowledge and wisdom of progressive women, wouldn’t a microphone be more useful than a mirror?
Sure, a microphone isn’t as aesthetically pleasing, but the mirror isn’t quite getting the message across to me (and I’m sure, many others). Actually, what is the message? All I’m seeing is a vague reference to “the knowledge and wisdom of progressive women.”
Instead of providing the progressive women he finds so wise and knowledgeable a space for their voices to be heard, Tunick has provided them a space to participate as subjects of his art project as mostly silent props. He doesn’t explicate the supposed “wisdom” he finds so important to “reflect… onto the convention center…” He’s exploits a group he considers marginalized by republican politics and takes advantage of their desire to be heard to further his own sad, uninspired career.
2) What about the concept of “Mother Nature”?
Tunick’s first sentence jumps all over the place, and in it, he quickly mentions “… the concept of ‘Mother Nature’…” and, just as quickly, moves on. Like his vague reference to “the knowledge and wisdom of progressive women,” the “concept of Mother Nature” is also somehow projected.
What about the concept of Mother Nature? I’m not really sure where he’s trying to go with this. Is this a jab at environmental policy? Something about GMOs? Who knows.
I’m not sure how Mother Nature is represented in this piece besides that there are nude women. The “Mother Nature” trope has its own problematic, sexist history and stereotypes, which carry the idea that women are inherently different, separate from man, untamed, and wild— remember, Mother Nature doesn’t just bloom flowers in spring, but she’s also the evil bitch responsible for tornadoes.
3) If the feminine is sacred, why is the feminine a prop?
I don’t have any objections to a nude protest, but I’m not really sure how having 100 women risk being arrested for public indecency preserves the “sacred feminine.” I’m also not sure why something so sacred was used as a prop. Tunick’s only request for this project was that the women who participate were willing to be naked.
I also think “sacred” is a strange choice of word, considering Tunick’s piece is supposed to be oppositional to RNC politics. “Sacred femininity” seems more to be a concern of anti-choice legislation, a concept similar to purity and protection— whereas nakedness might be more in the vein of the vulnerability associated with women who are unsure of their ability to access abortion and birth control.
4) “Women are a reflection and embodiment of nature, the sun, the sky and the land”
Whoa, buddy. This sounds like a lot of pressure. I’m not scientist, but I’m pretty sure I am not an embodiment of major celestial bodies, land masses, or physical phenomena. Sure, “we’re all made of star stuff” or whatever, but I’m not an earth goddess. I’m not the embodiment of nature— I’m just part of it. I don’t know if Tunick is putting women on a pedestal or a shrine, but idolizing other adults, instead of actually interacting with their ideas, and rhapsodizing the symbolism of their gender, instead of pronouncing equality, is definitely unhealthy.
5) “We will rely upon the strength, intuition and wisdom of progressive and enlightened women to find our place in nature and to regain the balance within it”
Again, I’m not sure what the specifics of this “progressive wisdom” is, so I’d love to get a more in-depth look as to what that entails.
Is “progressive wisdom” based on following your intuition and feelings? If so, I’m probably not going to call it progressive. Intuition is often biased toward tradition because tradition makes us comfortable. I’m more concerned with rationality and discussion. Relying on how something feels isn’t the best practice. Intuition is a great tool— but it shouldn’t be the sole resource.
Tunick’s assumption that women have a sacred, advanced power to “regain the balance” with nature is shortsighted at best, and misogynistic and fetishisitic at worst (also, my guess).
The naked truth
All in all, “Everything She Says Means Everything” means absolutely nothing to me. It’s just a male artist being applauded for making completely uninspired work based on using women’s naked bodies as props. It’s watered down feminist theory presented for clickbait and as corporate swill. Tunick is a fucking shill and I’m not falling for his regressive “liberal” bullshit.
