Visual representations of female techno/house producers

I recently acquired this album by the Argentinian/German techo producer Dinky:

http://images.hhv.de/catalog/detail_big/00176/176422.jpg

Now, the music on the album is experimental techno, so I was kinda perplexed why it was marketed with a cleavage pic of the artist. (Incidentally, this is what Dinky's breakthrough album from 2003 looked like - what happened in between?)

Then I was reminded of Nina Kraviz, who was similarly marketed with her good looks, even though her music is mostly rough and minimal house:

http://images.hhv.de/catalog/detail_big/00264/264781.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=605bwlAz_iQ

With producers like Kraviz or Ellen Allien there have been accusations that their talents are second to their pretty faces, which are used to market music that wouldn't get so much attention if it was done by a guy. Personally I still think their music's great, but it seems pretty obvious that gender and femininity is used as a selling point for many female and techno artists.

With male techno/house producers, it's pretty much the rule that their faces don't appear on their record covers, except for superstars like Moby. But with female producers it seems to be other way around: it's an exception if their face doesn't appear in the cover. And if you're being cynical, you could say that in some cases, such as with K-Hand or Steffi, it's because the artist isn't stereotypically good-looking and/or feminine.

So why does this happen? Is it because female producers are still so rare that their mere gender is a selling point? Is it because the audience for techno is predominantly male and straight, so the good looks of these women are used to market stuff for that audience. Do these artists themselves feel that their gender and feminity is important in representations of their music, and if so, why is that different from the traditionally gender neutral visuals of techno produced by males?

http://sexymusicians.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/sexydj-girl1.jpg

With male techno/house producers, it's pretty much the rule that their faces don't appear on their record covers

don't think this is the case at all tbh. might have been more so 15-20 years ago

(Incidentally, this is what Dinky's breakthrough album from 2003 looked like - what happened in between?)

someone took at least one more photo of her in the intervening 6 years

http://static.boomkat.com/images/143230/333.jpg

NB. the excursions into found sound chamber pop a la Psapp on that Dinky album rather more surprising than the pretty cover.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/Cream_sandra_collins.jpg

With male techno/house producers, it's pretty much the rule that their faces don't appear on their record covers

don't think this is the case at all tbh. might have been more so 15-20 years ago

Really? I admit I'm not following techno as closely as I did in the 90s, but I'm not sure if this has changed so much. Let's take a small selection of male techno/house producers from the 00s (I'm just gonna pick random names that come to my mind):

Ricardo Villalobos: 5 albums, no face on any of their covers.

Nicolas Jaar: one album, no face on cover.

Deepchord: 5 albums, no faces.

Paul Kalkbrenner: 6 albums, face in 2 of them.

Modeselektor: 4 albums, faces in 1 of them.

Luomo: 5 albums, no faces.

Omar S: 2 albums, face in both of them.

Matthew Herbert: 8 albums in the 00s, no faces.

Metro Area: 1 album, no faces.

Pantha du Prince: 3 albums, no faces.

Âme: 2 albums, no faces.

Booka Shade: 4 albums, faces in 2 of them.

Burial: 2 albums, one has a cartoon figure that apparently is a pic of the man himself, though this wasn't known when the album was released.

Vitalic: 3 albums, no faces.

I remember reading about how she'd been spending a lot of time studying music and learning more about playing piano and guitar. What did you think of it, Tim? Any good? That album cover is a bit at odds with how she (I assume) chooses to portray herself through her website etc.

xposts

So yeah, to me it looks like "no faces on male album covers" still seems to be the rule. Even in the cases where the faces do appear, they aren't commonly depicted in ways that would make them look attractive. (Then only exception to this on my list is Paul Kalkbrenner, who I think is, perhaps not coincidentally, gay.)

(x-post)

http://ecards.k7-de.com/k7/DJ-Kicks/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/K7270CD.jpg

Yeah, that Dinky album is really good. It has an almost psych trancey way of juxtaposing high-pitched riffs and loops in a "busy" manner (though the beats are housey); she did the same thing on her previous album too, but I think it's more successful on Anemik.

(x-post)

Yeah, I'm sure you can find counter-examples; I didn't say it's an absolute rule with no exceptions, but it still appears to be the rule. (Also, DJ Kicks always has the face of the artist on cover, doesn't it?)

When you consider some of the really overt Sex Sells stuff that has been used to flog dance music over the years the Dinky and Nina Kraviz covers are pretty tasteful and restrained by comparison.

Nina Kraviz stans I know tend to describe her music as sensual deep house rather than rough and minimal, although I'd imagine the image does filter back into that perception. And Ellen Allien owns the label she releases her records on and presumably has control over sleeves and marketing.

Is it because female producers are still so rare that their mere gender is a selling point?

In the sort of techno and house scenes we're talking about they're not particularly rare.

Is it because the audience for techno is predominantly male and straight

It's a LOT less boys club than, say, the 90s techno scene, or the current post-dubstep scene. And a very significant proportion of that audience is gay.

so the good looks of these women are used to market stuff for that audience

Yes and no, depending on who it is.

Do these artists themselves feel that their gender and feminity is important in representations of their music

Probably, how do we know?

And Ellen Allien owns the record she releases her records on and presumably has control over sleeves and marketing.

Yes, I wasn't saying that the artists themselves aren't in control of how they're represented; I think most of them are. But regardless of that, their representations still seems to be gendered in ways that those of male artists usually aren't.

I mean, Ellen Allien owns Bpitch Control, but the albums on the label by male artists usually don't feature their faces on the covers, whereas 4 of her 5 albums do.

Yeah, I'm sure you can find counter-examples; I didn't say it's an absolute rule with no exceptions, but it still appears to be the rule. (Also, DJ Kicks always has the face of the artist on cover, doesn't it?)

using the highly scientific methods of scooting around Discogs and using my ailing memory, I think "the rule" is stretching it a bit. the 'big boring photo of the DJ' motif is a lot more prevalent in mix albums as you say, but if anything I think that counters your point rather than supports it. anyway I think this is an interesting topic in its own way but I'm not convinced that house/techno enacts it in an especially different way to eg punk or metal

I think there's is a difference, because in punk/metal, as well as pop, it's the vocalist who's usually given a polished and gendered representation; though this may have its own problematics, it doesn't strike me as that odd, as the vocalist is usually the figurehead of the act, so it's so weird that she's represented strongly. But the types of music that I'm discussing here are not vocal-driven, and therefore not gendered by the vocalist, which with male artists has corresponded with non-gendered record covers. But with these female artists that doesn't seem to be the case, despite them being producers first and foremost, not singers. (For example, on that Dinky album the only singing is done by a male guest artist.)

I could cynically assume it's due to the fact attractive pictures of women sell, but at the same time, are men more or less likely to buy something from a female artist?

I'd like to think it's because women are more likely comfortable or invested in self-image and personal presentation and want to have their picture indicating the music therein in a further representation of their personas, but that's probably wishful thinking.

I'd imagine there to be perfectly good reasons why someone like Dinky, whose artist name doesn't give you any her gender, might want a picture of herself on her album sleeve. and why X producer dude who is part of the 95%* of house/techno producers who are male wouldn't consider this to be quite as urgent. whether this came into play wrt the Dinky album cover I wouldn't presume to say

*actual stats may vary

I'd like to think it's because women are more likely comfortable or invested in self-image and personal presentation and want to have their picture indicating the music therein in a further representation of their personas

Funniest thing I've read all day, seriously.

:(

if you wanna know why xyz is on the sleeve of their record, best thing to do is ask them

frowny face indicative of the popping of my idealistic utopian vision balloon

Awww, sorry for disillusionment, mh.

Suare - that actually isn't true, especially not when it comes to something quite so structurally biased as gender presentation.

Masonic Boom made some good & thoughtful posts on the subject of Nina Kraviz on this thread:

Electronic Artist You'd Most Like To Put In Your... Y'Know

If they make a conscious decision to put themselves on the record cover it's probably because they feel it's important you know what they look like. or perhaps that they don't feel there's an active perception of ANY women producing this type of music so they want people who flip through albums to think "I guess women do this too"

more depressing answer is "boobs sell" which is why they seem to appear in every advertisement for every product ever

* flies off in my boob-shaped utopian balloon *

I've noticed before that photos of female producers too often don't convey a very strong sense of "this is an artist who makes stuff." I don't think it's realistic to expect attractiveness to be downplayed, per se, but with attractive male producers there's still this sense of "here's an agent who does things" and with women I think they're too often made to look like cover models. I don't think it's that men's faces aren't put on their records, it's just the WAY they're put on the records.

I think that the way they're portrayed has a lot more to do with the way women and men are photographed rather than what an artist is supposed to look like. Is there a field where pictures of men are more free-form and more fashionable/whimsical/emotional? Certainly not compared to pictures of women in the same field.

I mean, unless an artist is supposed to look like a man

Suare - that actually isn't true, especially not when it comes to something quite so structurally biased as gender presentation.

― emil.y,

Fair point, I was being somewhat flip - just a little wary of ascribing motivations towards any specific individual artist without asking them.

I've noticed before that photos of female producers too often don't convey a very strong sense of "this is an artist who makes stuff." I don't think it's realistic to expect attractiveness to be downplayed, per se, but with attractive male producers there's still this sense of "here's an agent who does things" and with women I think they're too often made to look like cover models. I don't think it's that men's faces aren't put on their records, it's just the WAY they're put on the records.

This may be true of other genres, but in electronic music there's a long and prevalent tradition of not putting the photo of the (male) artist on the cover or album sleeve at all, possibly because of the machinistic/robotic aesthetic assumed by many people in the scene, the idea that this music isn't "personal expression" as idealized by rock, rather than a product (hence the preferred label used by these people is "producer", rather than the more individualistic-sounding "artist" or "composer" or "musician") designed to be consumed by the dancefloor. I still don't know how many of my favourite techno artists look like, because their photos have never appeared in their records. And the question I'm asking is, why does this aesthetic seem to be less prevalent when it comes to female producers?

lol still asserting this "rule"

http://ebenezergo.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/lindstrom.jpg

http://www.residentadvisor.net/images/reviews/2010/sasha-involver-global-under.jpg

http://newsflash.bigshotmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Prins-Thomas-album-AC121675-300.jpg

http://img2.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/e/h/ehgmmxh8v5bn5vnx.jpg

"traditionally, house and techno record covers usually don't feature images of the artist"
"but here are some cases where they do!"
"traditionally, house and techno record covers usually don't feature images of the artist"
"but here are some cases where they do!"
"traditionally, house and techno record covers usually don't feature images of the artist"
"but here are some cases where they do!"

I don't think Tuomas is claiming that males aren't ever featured on their release covers, and he's right that female producers have their images used to sell their music more often, even in more underground dance music scenes that are much less driven by the kind of imagery more common to the commercial dance music scene. That doesn't say anything about the decisions that go into any individual cover but on the whole I don't think it's something that can be explained away with counterexamples.

lol@the idea that even half the people who consume techno buy any, or know what's on the sleeves.

Pretty sure house & techno lads are familiar with how Nina Kraviz looks. And plenty of other female techno / house artists. Went to Hot Creations / Paradise closing at DC10 the other week and was saddened to see writhing female podium dancers everywhere..

I think that dance/electronic artists, especially with dj mixes, are much more likely than rock bands to have their own image on the cover.

a solo record is much more likely to have a photo of the artist on the cover than a record made by two or more people is to have a photo of the band members

yes!

people may well know what the artist looks like, but the idea of the "cover" being important or indicative of anything is haywire, not least since actual dance music is still driven by singles, either digital or vinyl, and mixes (mostly digital) and i'm not sure many artists are slapping their faces on 12-inch sleeves or attaching jpgs to mixes.

http://www.residentadvisor.net/images/reviews/2011/ostgutcd17.jpg

compare and contrast with this cover, though, gender differences ahoy:
http://ostgut.de/media/image/resize/L/Record-9-8e177a3718b63b192d282c119bb39026.jpg

note that it may actually be a better indicator of the real panoramabar if prosumer was stretched out naked, according to my limited knowledge

If I could make any of the men on this thread saying this stuff doesn't matter feel any of the alienation I grew up with as a female dance music listener reading e.g. Mixmag, seeing that for men in dance music it is cool to be just some balding guy in jeans and a t-shirt who wants to talk about hi-hat patterns, but the only women in the magazine are the hott semi-naked teenage model pouting on the front cover and the skinny young things on the street fashion page. I seriously got the message that I would not be welcome in a club since I didn't and couldn't look like those women - a feeling not dispelled by trying it out a few times.

So I thought I'd post this and get clowned for not belonging on a dance music thread on the internet instead. Have at it.

mixmag's actual title was "tits and e, guvnor", you have to remember that

not sure who was saying "this doesn't matter" or words to that effect, with the exception of Ronan's last post; I think these things 'matter' a lot but bits of what Tuomas was saying struck me as kind of unrepresentative and/or outdated

But, caustic joking aside, the mixmag/"club" scene always seemed (from my regional, secluded, not actually able to go to events of the time) perspective as the club-led, commercialized, overground image of electronic dance music as it became in the late 90s. I have no doubt that this included good clubs and some people with a genuine love of the music, but it also has all the image-led baggage connected to that, including misogyny, entry/denial based on looks (both to venues and to making music), and the need for a saleable image.

I don't think that's the case for the music scene at large, but it definitely exists and a lot of musicians have to cross back and forth between friendlier spaces and a more commercial world.

I think Tuomas's point is very valid, but to the extent that women are marginalized and more likely to feel pressure to look attractive in a stereotypical way, or "fun," or strike sort of sexy pose or dress stylishly compared to the army of men in trim t-shirts staring straight-faced at the camera

actually I just started looking at the artist pics for a bunch of people on the resident advisor dj page and nearly every one, regardless of gender, is just kind of smilelessly staring at the camera

yikes

(many xps, to mh) Oh, sure, it was, but Jockey Slut got round the whole thing by never having any women in at all (plus, uh, the title), and DJ/Muzik/7 would go maybe 3 mean+moody woman-free issues and then have a Mixmag-style bikini special, so the shelves of my provincial backwater newsagent were not bursting with more positive alternatives

(one less xp, to DJM) yeah, I think it has changed a bit, and I totally concede my own views are outdated, but as a general rule "female producer looks attractive on album cover, male producer either does not appear on album cover or is shown side-on scowling into decks and drum machines with face half-obscured by headphones" still seems... somewhat true

I do take the point that dance music is not "about" albums, but if they exist, and feature visual statements about that specific release/artist in particular in a way that 12"s or downloaded mix mp3s tend not to, then it seems fair to consider them

On a related note, I checked out the covers of all the Panoramabar releases. The Cassy one is obviously a huge offender of the "women are photographed differently" rule, but of all the mixes so far only Nick Höppner's does not feature his picture on the cover. Here is his image on Resident Advisor:
http://www.residentadvisor.net/images/profiles/nickhoppner.jpg

I was actively put off by commercial mixes, especially those that would stuff commercial record stores in the late 90s (hello cheesy mixes with "mood" or "ultra" or "lounge" in the name, or ministry of sound) and didn't think live dance stuff would really be my scene because of what I did see -- that and images from events in magazine and the growing coverage on the web. In reality, I wasn't any nerdier or less attractive than anyone else into the music, but the way it was being pitched was pretty fucked up.

I can see the shitty misogynist flip side to this, though -- the idea of privilege, that I'm being sold a bill of goods, and that if I go out to a club or dance event then I should see girls in bikinis and if I buy an album by a female artist why wouldn't she want to show herself to me on the cover and..

* vomits all over keyboard *

not sure who was saying "this doesn't matter" or words to that effect, with the exception of Ronan's last post

actually my point was that cd or album covers are an archaic and fairly irrelevant part of (dance) music.

that's not the equivalent of saying "this doesn't matter".

i agree it's fair to consider covers, in an abstract way, but it is worth bearing in mind how many people actually see these visual representations or place stock in them - very few.

most of the time artists in dance music don't have to provide any visual representation of themselves.

i don't think i'd recognise photos of the vast majority of djs, male or female, apart from a few long-serving exceptions.

djs that tour and play commercial $$ venues are definitely recognizable to their fans, but I think that's only a limited crossover to ilx-world

Album & single covers make more of an impact that the 500 or so physical copies something might actually sell, they're displayed in itunes, on MP3 players, shown with online reviews, etc. I probably see a cover image more now on my iphone than I did when I used CD wallets.

Pretty sure house & techno lads are familiar with how Nina Kraviz looks. And plenty of other female techno / house artists. Went to Hot Creations / Paradise closing at DC10 the other week and was saddened to see writhing female podium dancers everywhere..

― mmmm, Monday, October 8, 2012 11:54 AM Bookmark

Yeah, I went to the Fade to Mind party they had in Seattle and there were female gogo dancers (pretty sure this was the promoter's doing, I've heard reports of similar at his other events) and I was just like, "Really tho?" They looked really bored.

I saw Nina Kraviz play last week to a largely gay audience and whenever I looked over at the booth she was shimmying and shaking and whatnot between mixing. My straight friend was quite appreciative. I insisted she stole all those moves from me.

Album & single covers make more of an impact that the 500 or so physical copies something might actually sell, they're displayed in itunes, on MP3 players, shown with online reviews, etc. I probably see a cover image more now on my iphone than I did when I used CD wallets.

Yeah, I was gonna say, I don't think it's true what Ronan says that these images are totally insignificant to techno and house listeners, except for maybe those who only go to clubs and never listen to this music elsewhere. Even those online-only DJ mixes and other web releases there's usually an accompanying image tagged to the file, which you'll see on your MP3 player, the "album art" window of your computer audio player, etc.

But regardless of how many people see or don't see these images, I think it's still important to discuss the aesthetic and social tendencies that inform them.

i don't think i'd recognise photos of the vast majority of djs, male or female, apart from a few long-serving exceptions.

otm

http://i.imgur.com/Jj0NE.jpg

http://www.xlr8r.com/files/news/benklock_09132012.jpg

Album & single covers make more of an impact that the 500 or so physical copies something might actually sell, they're displayed in itunes, on MP3 players, shown with online reviews, etc. I probably see a cover image more now on my iphone than I did when I used CD wallets.

yeah but the single covers (digital or vinyl) almost never involve an artist's face, i don't think i've ever seen an mp3 that has an artist's face as the attached image.

Even those online-only DJ mixes and other web releases there's usually an accompanying image tagged to the file, which you'll see on your MP3 player, the "album art" window of your computer audio player, etc.

i listen to more unofficial mixes than i do to anything else, and this is totally untrue ime, my iphone is full of these mixes and few if any have photos, and in rare cases that they do it's not a person, more likely to be the logo of the podcast or club.

But regardless of how many people see or don't see these images, I think it's still important to discuss the aesthetic and social tendencies that inform them.

i don't disagree, but i was trying to make the point that given their increased irrelevance, perhaps it's not a surprise they're quite old fashioned, clichéd even? i mean, if designers for mixes/albums can't stop doing those lame dude in a vaguely industrial black and white setting photos then it doesn't surprise me the best idea for women is exploitative.

having said all of that, i think the nina kraviz image above is not particularly sexualised, i mean, isn't that just a picture of a woman? she's not scantily clad or anything, though i can see how you'd say her femininity is being used to sell the record. i think in techno as much as there is just overt sexism, there is also a thing where sometimes guys tend to automatically imbue a woman's music with qualities that may or may not be there, based on her gender.

if you've read people talking about cassy or steffi over the years then you'll know what i mean.

she's not scantily clad or anything

tbf she is wearing a see-through top, but her hotel room mirror probably wasn't lit by a camera flash

in the album cover? you can barely see her... her face is also covered. i don't think my mum would find that risqué.

oh I thought that was her in millmeister's pic

Also, even if the album cover doesn't sexualize her particularly strongly (though I do think there's some sexualization going on with the lighting, colours and her pose, at least compared to those "lame dude in a vaguely industrial black and white setting photos" of male artists), the video of "Ghetto Kraviz" I linked to most certainly does. And my point wasn't just that female techno/house producers are sexualized, but that their record covers tend to call attention to their gender in ways that covers of male artists typically don't.

(xx-post)

well videos is a whole other debate!

It's important to differentiate between the Mixmag-style bosh and bikinis strand of dance music (and Hot Creations is moving ever closer to that in terms of audience and attitudes) and the German-centric stuff Tuomas is talking about.

In the latter scene, my guess is that the latter audience fancies itself as significantly more liberal and its maybe more interesting to discuss this question in that context. ie it should be blindingly obvious that the former scene is inherently sexist but the way in which the attitudes filter through into less overtly sexist scenes is interesting.

I reckon artist albums are probably more important to non-indie leaning dance music than they were 10 or 12 years ago, certainly in terms of DJs and producers building their personal profile, but the artists under discussion here ARE probably more auteurish than most techno producers. The way in which the artist represents themselves or the label represents the artist extends to a lot more than just album covers.

(Xpost - the thread topic is "visual representations of female techno/house producers" not "women on dance music album covers" dude)

there is also a thing where sometimes guys tend to automatically imbue a woman's music with qualities that may or may not be there, based on her gender.

if you've read people talking about cassy or steffi over the years then you'll know what i mean

Hate this so much by the way.

ugh@hotcreations

feels like their time in the sun is beginning to fade at least

it's kind of weird to say "artist x presents themselves in a sexual way" based on a couple of photos where that's true, when most of the female artists mentioned here have presented themselves just as much in a non-sexual or asexual way over their careers.

there is also a thing where sometimes guys tend to automatically imbue a woman's music with qualities that may or may not be there, based on her gender.

if you've read people talking about cassy or steffi over the years then you'll know what i mean

Hate this so much by the way.

I've always kinda assumed most female producers would hate this phenomenon too, and that's why I'm a bit perplexed why so many of them choose to emphasize their gender, even though techno conventions would allow them for an easy way to hide it (besides the common lack of artist photos in record sleeves, most techno pseudonyms are non-gendered too). Besides the photo thing, many of them also have artist names who reveal their gender: they either use their real name, or some other female name, or have a gendered pseudonym like Sister Bliss or Miss Djax. In fact the only time I remember being surprised to learn that an artist I'd been digging was female was with Neotropic: her pseudonym is totally genderless, her albums have no photos of her, and even though the album credits give out her name (Riz Maslen), it's not one that I would immediately associate with either gender.

Though of course it's possible there are many female producers who use techno's anonymity in the way outlined above, it's just that I don't know they're female because they're successful at being anonymous.

it's kind of weird to say "artist x presents themselves in a sexual way" based on a couple of photos where that's true, when most of the female artists mentioned here have presented themselves just as much in a non-sexual or asexual way over their careers.

It's not just sexuality we're talking here rather than gender in general: why do female producers (seemingly) emphasize their gender more than male ones?

I'm a bit perplexed why so many of them choose to emphasize their gender, even though techno conventions would allow them for an easy way to hide it (besides the common lack of artist photos in record sleeves, most techno pseudonyms are non-gendered too)

but that's the thing - one's options are "emphasise" or "hide" one's female gender, there's no way one can just be female. The mere fact of being visibly female is an emphasis on one's femaleness.

Because the norm is male, a producer who is not identified as female is assumed to be male, not left as an anonymous genderless blank. Having other people assume you are male, when you're not, is having other people assume you're a different human being than you are. It's tantamount to lying. Why are you suggesting that it's weird that producers would not want to lie about themselves?

if you're making music and you're socialising with other people who make music, and you're a different gender from the norm, it's going to be apparent. It's not something you can do anything about. You might as well inhabit it and make it your own, of your own initiative: your other option is making it an even bigger deal by fighting to hide it.

It isn't female producers who emphasise their gender more than male ones, it's male producers who are able to exist as if their gender is unremarkable.

I mean yeah if you see a picture of a male DJ you're not thinking "hmmm why is he emphasising his maleness?" even if he has a hipster haircut and a tight t-shirt on.

or if he has a beard!

what cis said, "male" is seen as the default gender to such an extent that merely being a woman is seen as "emphasising" one's gender

i mean, you could equally talk about the male artists who use their actual male names or male honorifics...

techno conventions would allow them for an easy way to hide it

idk - you can do this but maintaining the whole thing a la Burial or Drexciya or whoever seems enough of a ballache as it is, let alone if they were women and inevitably had to deal with ppl coming to gender-based nonsense conclusions about their motives for annoymity

thanks cis for getting at what I thought was weird about a lot of this thread but wasn't able to articulate

and being anonymous or masking one's gender are JUST as much a statement on gender as just existing, just ask eg kevin blechdom

what cis said, "male" is seen as the default gender to such an extent that merely being a woman is seen as "emphasising" one's gender

That still doesn't explain away the original question in the thread: why use these polished photos where the artist is depicted in stereotypically feminine ways, when most male artist don't have any photos of themselves on the cover? If you're artist name is "Nina" or "Ellen", that should be enough to differentiate from the "every techno producer is male" assumption, so why are these photos needed?

your argument about what "most" covers look like is a blind alley without stats. your argument about genderising artists extends way beyond the field of House music.

Yeah, it does, but in many other genres the artist is always depicted on the cover, regardless of the gender. It's the disparity of depictions in techno/house that made think about this issue in the first place.

i don't think an argument based on incredibly loose generalisations is an argument worth having? patriarchy and heteronormativity exist, them sneaky buggers get everywhere, but people have agency and exist in complicated relationships to them, what's your point again?

I'm struggling too. Can you give an example of a cover which is completely unrepresentative of the music?

I don't have any specific "point", I just thought it would be an interesting subject to discuss. Pretty much any discussion like this can be summed up with "patriarchy and heteronormativity exist, them sneaky buggers get everywhere, but people have agency and exist in complicated relationships to them", but that doesn't mean they're not worth having.

(x-post)

if all you're doing is acting surprised that they exist, or denying agency, or saying things like "in many other genres the artist is always depicted on the cover" which is literally indefensible then i don't see how there's any real discussion at all

i mean, you could equally talk about the male artists who use their actual male names or male honorifics...

― lex pretend, Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:21 AM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Guy Mann Dude, Buddy Guy...

i was interested in spacecadet's thoughts about clubbing as exclusionary and the relationship between "sexiness" and sexistness tho

I'm struggling too. Can you give an example of a cover which is completely unrepresentative of the music?

My point wasn't really that the covers are "completely unrepresentative", rather than that the ways of representation available to women seem to more limited than those available for men. But if you want an example, there's the Cassy mix someone posted above. If you look at the full cover, I fail to see how that represents the music inside.

(The images linked to are NSFW.)

where the artist is depicted in stereotypically feminine ways

i don't get what being depicted in a stereotypically feminine way is - are we talking 'dressed in a ra-ra skirt' or 'doing some needlepoint' or are we talking 'wearing makeup' or 'having a woman's haircut'?

the majority of album covers with the female producer on the front that i can think of are a headshot: you could argue that there's more effort made to make a female artist conventionally attractive in than headshot than there would be for a male artist, but that's true of all pictures of female artists/producers/human beings.

in that headshot

or saying things like "in many other genres the artist is always depicted on the cover" which is literally indefensible then i don't see how there's any real discussion at all

Okay, maybe that was an exaggeration, but you wouldn't probably disagree that in, say, pop music having the artist on the cover is much, much more common than in house/techno?

Yeah, that Cassy one supports your case in a way the Dinky one doesn't.

i don't think the Cassy cover supports anything tbh unless nudity is stereotypically feminine

that's true of all pictures of female artists/producers/human beings.

Is it really? Just look at the cover of the 2003 Dinky album I linked to in the first post, and compare it to Anemik: don't you think there's a big difference in degrees of conventional feminity there?

kiki being stereotypically feminine on the cover of his boogybytes mix?

http://theletter.co.uk/images/boobybytes1.jpg

i don't think the Cassy cover supports anything tbh unless nudity is stereotypically feminine

Can you name many albums by straight male artists that would have a cover like that?

Yeah, let me know when a male DJ appears nude in gatefold.

Because the norm is male, a producer who is not identified as female is assumed to be male, not left as an anonymous genderless blank. Having other people assume you are male, when you're not, is having other people assume you're a different human being than you are. It's tantamount to lying. Why are you suggesting that it's weird that producers would not want to lie about themselves?

this is what I feel, like, the nina kraviz one above, she just looks like "a woman". is she supposed to look more like a man or something? or less feminine? it's a photo of a woman, wearing fairly non-descript clothes, in low light.

(Xpost - the thread topic is "visual representations of female techno/house producers" not "women on dance music album covers" dude)

it's focussed so far on covers. and videos, i mean dance music videos... how many of them have you even watched in the last five years? they aren't even a part of dance music.

It isn't female producers who emphasise their gender more than male ones, it's male producers who are able to exist as if their gender is unremarkable.

this is exactly right.

where the artist is depicted in stereotypically feminine ways

it's a picture, of a woman! what's stereotypical about it? and anyway, half of this debate is about album covers being done in stereotypical ways, big surprise when the person designing them is prob lower on the artistic food chain than someone drawing on school desk.

i don't think the Cassy cover supports anything tbh unless nudity is stereotypically feminine

well, it's widely believed that female nudity is more "sexy" and worth seeing than male nudity. (there was that awful piece in the graun Guide when that male stripper film came out that argued that male nudity was always funny and unsexy)

Tuomas you realise on the cover of that first Dinky album she looks like on of the models in Robert Palmer's "Addicted to Love" video, right?

Didn't realise slicked-back hair was such a challenge to hegemony tbh

that's the only time cassy has ever appeared on the cover of any of her releases. her follow-up commercial mix looked like:

http://s.discogss.com/image/R-2058046-1261421407.jpeg

i've been fighting the urge to post the orig Diamond Dogs cover

if you're arguing that this

http://images-jp.amazon.com/images/P/B000084TT7.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

is deglamourised or ungendered or makes no play with sexuality then lol x infinity

Tuomas you realise on the cover of that first Dinky album she looks like on of the models in Robert Palmer's "Addicted to Love" video, right?

She's also smoking a cigarette, and you know what they say about those kind of girls.

Tuomas I think the reason you're tying yourself in knots a bit here is because you're trying to tackle both "visual representation of women vs men in techno" and "why are women presenting themselves in this way in this supposedly faceless genre?" at the same time.

This is also overlooking people like Anja Schneider and Maya Jane Coles who have very recognisable images and aren't particularly sexualised. I mean even Ellen Allien's album covers post-Berlinette are about disguising or adorning her face in different ways, Bjork-style.

where the artist is depicted in stereotypically feminine ways

it's a picture, of a woman! what's stereotypical about it?

For example, the colours and lighting (seductive, soft, deep reds; as opposed to more stark colours often found in photos of male techno artists), her pose (leaning forwards, more passive than active, slightly sexual), the way her long hair (very much a feminine signifier) covers her eyes (denying the agency her stare could give her, further objectifying her)... Do you really think every photo of a woman is equally feminine, regardless of the staging/pose/colours/etc?

if you're arguing that this

http://images-jp.amazon.com/images/P/B000084TT7.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

is deglamourised or ungendered or makes no play with sexuality then lol x infinity

I wasn't arguing that, I was saying that the cover of Anemik clearly depicts her in a more stereotypically feminine way.

in 1940 maybe

I think some people are confusing "sexuality" and "feminity" in this thread, they are not fully interchangeable terms.

tbh i find this whole conversation weird because i'm sort of the opposite of Tuomas -- without thinking very hard about it I'd assume that the visual style of female producers is actually less stereotypically "feminine", less "sexy", more androgynous and arty?

and i've always assumed there was a reaction against the podium dancer image: a female producer, in order to be taken seriously in a genre where there's a common hypersexualised image of female consumers, needs to make herself visibly different. So the visual style of female producers, in my head at least, tends towards sharp haircuts, simple cuts of clothing, avant makeup. Not "masculine" but trying to avoid a certain set of "sexy" female signifiers.

Maybe it's just cos I mostly listen to those corny german fuxors?

(to me this also ties into what spacecadet was talking about upthread)

Perhaps the Dinky album cover is intended to fool Nicola Roberts fans* into buying the album?

*Most niche accidental demographic ever obviously.

For example, the colours and lighting (seductive, soft, deep reds; as opposed to more stark colours often found in photos of male techno artists), her pose (leaning forwards, more passive than active, slightly sexual), the way her long hair (very much a feminine signifier) covers her eyes (denying the agency her stare could give her, further objectifying her)... Do you really think every photo of a woman is equally feminine, regardless of the staging/pose/colours/etc?

not at all, but this photo to me is more arty rather than anything else.

certainly it's clear judging by reactions here that it's a matter of opinion, at best.

also given she has long hair, should she shave it to avoid being criticised for a feminine album cover? or just not appear on the cover? i don't really know what's expected of women here, to be more like the men, or to be less like themselves, if it is themselves, or what.

tbh i find this whole conversation weird because i'm sort of the opposite of Tuomas -- without thinking very hard about it I'd assume that the visual style of female producers is actually less stereotypically "feminine", less "sexy", more androgynous and arty?

"Less feminine" and "less sexy" compared to what? My point wasn't to compare house/techno to other genres, some of which obviously have more stereotypical and/or sexual depictions of female artists, rather than to talk about the disparities within this particular genre.

i think the problem with that is that this has to be discussed in the context of album covers as a whole, not least because there such an irrelevant sidenote to techno itself.

they're

My point wasn't to compare house/techno to other genres, some of which obviously have more stereotypical and/or sexual depictions of female artists, rather than to talk about the disparities within this particular genre.

sorry, I don't understand this, could you rephrase please?

for a start, less "feminine" and less "sexy" compared to what other women are wearing on the dancefloor.

I'm not saying my assumption is right: I'm saying it's interesting that my unreflective assumption was the opposite of yours.

Can you name many albums by straight male artists that would have a cover like that?

http://www.udancecn.com/uploads/Tiga%20-%20DJ%20Kicks.jpg

My point wasn't to compare house/techno to other genres, some of which obviously have more stereotypical and/or sexual depictions of female artists, rather than to talk about the disparities within this particular genre.

sorry, I don't understand this, could you rephrase please?

Read the first post: I was discussing about the disparity between record covers of male and female techno/house producers. Obviously if you bring people on the dancefloor to the discussion, that's a somewhat different (though I guess related) issue.

Sic, Tiga doesn't appeart to be nude on that cover...?

he's lying down and poking his pert little bum in the air though

for our enjoyment

the tart

Read the first post: I was discussing about the disparity between record covers of male and female techno/house producers. Obviously if you bring people on the dancefloor to the discussion, that's a somewhat different (though I guess related) issue.

you're talking about the disparities within this particular genre in terms of producers' visual representation being "masculine" or "feminine" or "gender neutral" but if you won't allow reference outside the genre, or to different people involved in the genre, how do we know what counts as a "masculine" or a "feminine" or a "gender neutral" visual representation?

You have a sense that the visual representation of male techno artists is particularly "gender neutral": where does this come from if not through a comparison to the visual representation of male artists in other genres?

what is a "masculine" visual representation in techno? what does it look like? is it only ever there when a male producer is trying to make his masculinity a selling point? why would that be? have you ever listened to a techno artist who felt faceless and assumed they were female and been surprised to discover they were male?

you won't allow reference outside the genre, or to different people involved in the genre, how do we know what counts as a "masculine" or a "feminine" or a "gender neutral" visual representation?

I'm not saying I'm not allowing comparisons, I was just saying that it's kind of a pointless excercise to bring images from other genres where overtly gendered and/or sexualized depictions of artists are more common to this discussion, because of course you're gonna find more glaring examples there. I just thought it was interesting to discuss the aesthetic choices and limitations within this particular genre of music.

xpost ^ ding ding ding

males' gender is discursively "neutral" (their gender is a "negative" attribute; it clears the way for other attributes to flood in, cf "wimpy" "tough" "funny" "heroic" "dull"); females' gender is discursively "positive" - it sticks out, is something to notice - "The Top 10 Female DJs in the World!! Pg 23" etc; it doesn't get out of the way, makes it harder for other attributes to find purchase

why this should be any different in the case of techno album covers i have no idea

http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG8112545/DJ-fashion.html

The difference is, as I've tried to explain, that techno's conventions of pseudonyms and imagery would allow female artists to embrace this "neutrality" (instead of "positivity" (which can be a burden too)) far more easily than in, say, pop.

maybe the thing that you think is neutrality is masculinity

I dunno, are cosmic visiona or Nature scenery or abstract shapes that typically feature on these Record covers masculine?

what gender are the artists they represent?

Is it really? Just look at the cover of the 2003 Dinky album I linked to in the first post, and compare it to Anemik: don't you think there's a big difference in degrees of conventional feminity there?

― Tuomas, Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:55 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

One thing that's being overlooked here is that Dinky's album covers seem intimately tied up with the sound of each record - Anemik is by far her prettiest album (leaving aside the ambient debut under the Miss Dinky moniker which was pretty in a v. different way) and certainly her warmest, and I think the cover is really a play on that. Whereas likewise the cover of Black Cabaret makes perfect sense given the music. This is not to say that there's nothing to discuss here, but I think it's a bridge too far to attribute the shift in her appearance to some straightforward desire to make herself more conventionally appealing. It's more a case that the visuals are picking up on some pre-existing idea that the music is already more sensual than before (whether this is really or true or not; see below).

It's a common feature of basically all the artists discussed in this thread that, when they do invoke their own appearance, it can seem quite deliberate vis a vis the sound of the music being put forward. This is separate but linked to (in fact may form a subset of) the phenomenon discussed above of audiences/critics over-investing in the idea of the gender of (particular) female producers expressing itself as a point of difference in the music itself.

The preponderance of examples of female artists appearing along the lines of Anemik doesn't strike me as notable (esp. given women can still get away with not doing this more successfully in house/techno than just about anywhere else) so much as the relative absence of men doing likewise. I recall that Steve Bug appeared with his shirt open and his six pack showing on one of his albums (appropriately enough titled Sensual, though the music could have stood to be more so, from memory), but that kind of thing is the obv. the exception rather than the rule.

The discourse and environment that leads to all dudes appearing stern in black and white has already been discussed above. However my own theory is that visual representations of men in (a male centric) dance music culture tend to distinguish between the creative-leader (the producer or DJ) and the receptive-crowd: the dj/producer generates emotions whereas the dancer feels and expresses them. I think a lot of the "rules" around how male producers and DJs are depicted is a reflection of this desire to elevate them above the feeling/receptive/expressive crowd. There is an irony to this in that you'd think that dance music producers and DJs should ideally be exemplary dancers first and foremost, with an unparalleled understanding of how the music works on the body, rather than blind painters.

Arguably women are considered to fall outside this dynamic almost entirely - certainly they are categorised as neither the leaders nor the followers in proper dance music - and I think this means their visuals can seem to tread the line between creative and receptive, acting and appearing, persons who create sensations and persons to whom sensations happen. Their bodies and their visual appearance are therefore more commonly used as visual depictions of the effect of their own music: in Dinky's case, it's as if she's being physically transformed by the music she's been making.

Not surprisingly, this practice of female producers using their bodies as a canvas can sometimes lead to these ultra-refined image of image of image of woman depictions - the way that Cassy and Nina Kraviz appear on their album covers it's like it's not even them, but a kind of hyper-abstracted depiction of the feeling-woman that just happens to use their own body (in other senses of course these two photos are very different from one another). But (in contrast to the effect when men use photos of women in this way) I think it's often expressive of this kind of double-role that female producers can inhabit, and actually works to create a sense of commonality with the audience; that sense that they already dancing beside us. This is probably also at least part of the motivation for some of the more mystical/spiritual fetishes that some people have for female producers; the imagined warmth of their work (vis a vis comparable male artists) grounded in the notion that their bodies are intricately connected in with the brain/machine loop of the creative process.

There is an irony to this in that you'd think that dance music producers and DJs should ideally be exemplary dancers first and foremost, with an unparalleled understanding of how the music works on the body, rather than blind painters.

isn't it more just that this restraint is seen as cool? there some good bits in Feiern about this, think it's Carsten Klemann who describes always having an ideal of the DJ as the guy who only gives a little smile now and again, even if he's really enjoying it.

Coming back to a thread when it's come to a different place, then.

LG: As far as the comment upthread about podcasts or downloaded "unofficial" mixes never having the artist's picture, nearly every RA mix has the artist image attached! I think they're pretty atypical as far as that goes, but it does seem like a notable exception.

Tim: Thanks for that post. In both form and content, that's giving me something to think about.

I never listen to RA mixes, for whatever reason. Nothing against them per se, it just somehow stopped being a habit for me sometime ago, I now realise.

One thing that's being overlooked here is that Dinky's album covers seem intimately tied up with the sound of each record - Anemik is by far her prettiest album (leaving aside the ambient debut under the Miss Dinky moniker which was pretty in a v. different way) and certainly her warmest, and I think the cover is really a play on that. Whereas likewise the cover of Black Cabaret makes perfect sense given the music.

I agree that Anemik is her prettiest album, but to me Blackcabaret has a rather smooth and pretty sound too; loads of warm and melodic synth lines there. And still you can see why she chose that pic for that album... Meaning: there are always alternatives, if you do a pretty, warm-sounding album, you don't necessarily have to represent the sound with stereotypical feminine images of warmth and prettiness.

But (in contrast to the effect when men use photos of women in this way) I think it's often expressive of this kind of double-role that female producers can inhabit, and actually works to create a sense of commonality with the audience; that sense that they already dancing beside us.

I sorta agree with this, and it bring to mind one of my favourite electronic album covers of all time:

http://dynamitmusic.ru/uploads/posts/2011-12/1324998750_marusha-raveland.jpg

Even though this is another body-shot of a female artist, it's not a passive image at all... Marusha's pose, expression, the way her body is framed signals agency and self-assuredness, even if she's also lost in the "female" expressiveness of her body. Though, admittedly, the more passive nature of images like the Nina Kraviz album cover can be used to signify a more introspective nature of the music within; I'm not saying you should always view these sort of images critically, I'm just critical of their prevalence when compared to covers of male artists doing similar music.

And, taking into your account your theory, it's interesting to compare the Marusha cover to another similar cover from the same era:

http://www.freakenergy.ru/uploads/posts/2009-11/1257775278_sven_vath_accident_in_paradise_1993_retail_cd.jpg

Sven Väth is moving his body, and he is among the dancers, but he's not one of them; rather, hes a leader, a shaman leading the other (female) bodies to dance.

I think the thrust of this thread is Tuomas wanting to just be all "WS Dinky" but he has to jump through 30 or 40 socio-political hoops to get there

Also, unlike the women around him, he doesn't appear be enjoying his bodily movement at all.

(xpost)

So this Nina Kraviz video on Resident Advisor has ruffled a few feathers. The "bathtub scene" is almost self-parody.

http://www.residentadvisor.net/feature.aspx?1765

loved what lauren martin tweeted about it last night, pretty much says it all

Lauren Martin ‏@codeinedrums 12h
The very fact that people feel compelled to lecture Kraviz in pieces that limply apologise for their own sexist sentiments is AAAGGGHHHH.

Lauren Martin ‏@codeinedrums 12h
Could you imagine, say, a ghettotech DJ being warned from afar about how his "exaggerated masculinity" could be "misconstrued"?

Lauren Martin ‏@codeinedrums 12h
"She's a great DJ & producer & travels all over the world being paid to do so & to acclaim but SHE TOOK A BUBBLE BATH ON CAMERA *EYE ROLL*"

Lauren Martin ‏@codeinedrums 12h
The idea that in being a woman she is sly/manipulative for selfish benefit is bullshit & feeds into a male-centric fear of female sexuality.

Lauren Martin ‏@codeinedrums 12h
"Listen Nina, hen, you seem okay with being attractive, mind toning it down a bit? It makes our dicks tingle and we can't concentrate."

I'm sure there are endless moronic and nasty viewpoints, it is techno afterall, but if this was a guy, this type of video, it would definitely be ripped to pieces too, perhaps not in a way that reflects wider societal sexism but the criticisms would still be highly restrictive about what they can/can't do with their art.

To me the criticism is mostly coming from the side of techno that hates anyone showing identity or doing anything besides releasing XGH0001 followed by XGH0002.

That said, the video itself is pretty 90s and vapid imo, regardless of Nina herself or her music (I've no real opinion on her, no ill will) it's like "omg airports are lonely, the life of a travelling DJ" - it's all really old ground and the kind of thing that I've seen parodied a few times.

Could you imagine, say, a ghettotech DJ being warned from afar about how his "exaggerated masculinity" could be "misconstrued"?

I absolutely could, yes. I'm fairly sure I've read (or made) this kind of criticism about hard techno even minus sexist lyrics.

just hoping the net result is that Seth Troxler stops taking his shirt off

XGH0001 >>>> nina kraviz

To me the criticism is mostly coming from the side of techno that hates anyone showing identity or doing anything besides releasing XGH0001 followed by XGH0002. this X 1000. i've seen this painted as 'sexism vs puritanism' but really it's the old 'no more stars/personalities/names' hangup.

anonymous techno is the best techno

The boiler suited XGH001 type aesthetic is a bit contrived for me - I do actually want to know what things are but ultimately, beyond that i don't really care or pay much attention to cowboy hats or whatever

anonymous techno is the best techno

― the late great, Tuesday, April 9, 2013 10:05 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

anonymous techno is the best techno

doesn't she make house?

the distinction is worth making for once, here

tbh the shot of her back in slow-mo was hotter than the bath one

hmm no one bothered posting how she responded to it all herself then

http://www.factmag.com/2013/04/09/russian-dj-nina-kraviz-addresses-that-bath-scene-after-greg-wilson-and-maceo-plex-have-their-say/

nina otm, obviously

She comes off really well in that post, much better than in the video. Really, all the sex-stuff is sort of a red herring, for me it's mainly about her seeming really dumb and lazy in that video. She complains about how busy she is, but most of the time she is on the beach or in a bath or being driven around somewhere. And it's weird, since obviously she must work a hell of a lot, also between gigs, making music and dealing with the logistics of all the turing. And judging from her written response - and from the fact that she speaks a lot of languages, I think - she is probably really, really smart. It's not really the sex, as it is that the video seems to focus on that to the exclusion of everything else she does.

As a techno fan I was in a sort of tizzy about this last week...

she addresses that in the post, too

the thing with the video is why should anyone care to this extent? it's a PR video, it's not her actual work, it's pure promo, i don't necessarily expect her to come across as anything particular.

doesn't she make house?

― Tioc Norris (LocalGarda), Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:42 AM Bookmark

When I saw her, all she played was super banging minimal (not cap-M Minimal) techno with no buildups or breakdowns or melodies and nothing that sounded remotely like her album. It was all kind of "this must be what techno sounds like to people who hate techno". :(

lex otm

yeah

i figured the sex & glamour angle had to be delivered with an awareness of prevailing genre/gender expectations. like that lingering shot of her crouching down, carefully applying and checking her makeup while someone else works the decks. something almost challenging about it: "yes, this is what i do. why, do you have a problem with it?"

http://www.factmag.com/2013/04/11/bathgate-what-the-nina-kraviz-furore-tells-us-about-sexism-in-dance-music/

That was a bad response. This is especially offtm:

If Nina Kraviz wants to dance during her DJ sets, take bubble baths on camera and discuss her appearance and sexuality in an open and honest way, then no one has the right to look down on her for doing so.

This is just libertarianism. Everyone can do everything, no one has the right to critisize.

eh, it's hardly presenting it as a universal principle. If it had said "If Nina Kraviz wants to dance during her DJ sets, take bubble baths on camera and promote the core principles of fascism, then no one has the right to look down on her for doing so", then okay, but it's about a wholesale dismissal of traditionally feminine traits.

lol frederik b, just no

yours is a terrible fucking response

i have had enough of MEN ON THE INTERNET WHO WILL NOT STFU ABOUT THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO COMMENT ON ISSUES OF PRIVILEGE AND SEXISM today

sit down all of you

just sit the fuck down and learn something

every word of lauren's article = bang on

I had only heard heard music in passing and had never seen a picture of her and now I am interested in checking out more music, so there's something positive coming out of this

that article downplays the fact that nina herself talked about the myth/illusion she purposely creates, djing as performance and all that. also nina approved of wilson's article and linked to it on facebook.

i have had enough of MEN ON THE INTERNET WHO WILL NOT STFU ABOUT THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO COMMENT ON ISSUES OF PRIVILEGE AND SEXISM today

have a look in the mirror.

thanks for linking the factmag piece, lex. good read.

Lol my phone is not allowing me to read any of the text at that most recent FACT link

I am having a hard time phrasing this, and I want to preface it by saying that I have no criticism of Nina Kraviz for doing this or anything else she wants in a video.

I think, however, that we live in a time when sexuality is more on display in media than ever, and yet men are also becoming increasingly aware of (or at least people are trying to make them increasingly aware of) the inapprorpriateness of certain kinds of comments about women, their sexuality, their bodies, etc. So I think a lot of men are confused by, on one hand, seeing videos where the camera lingers sensually on a female artist's body in a way that very obviously contains an element of objectification, and where that video gives the impression that it is exactly how the artist wants to present herself (which is a complicated and not necessarily correct assumption of course), and on the other hand are given the message "you shouldn't focus on women's bodies, you shouldn't comment on women's bodies, etc." Open to anyone pointing out how this post is in itself wrongheaded and oblivious to privilege, etc.

no, that's a very good point. it can be hard to square the idea that the sexual exploitation of women is a problem with the idea that women should be entirely free to present themselves in any manner they wish, even when it comes to what might resemble sexual exploitation. my solution is to simply leave the policing of women's self-presentation to somebody else.

It's only hard if you treat "women" as a monolithic group who all think the same thing.

sure, but my point was that even in trying to be feminist, progressive sorts sometimes get trapped in overly simplistic and proscriptive analyses like "sexualized image of woman = exploitative & sexist". this causes cognitive dissonance when they try to make room for self-determination.

who is "they"

"progressive sorts"

not to appropriate it, but I feel like Tim's thoughts from before are still pretty great (and he mentioned Nina Kraviz, particularly):

Not surprisingly, this practice of female producers using their bodies as a canvas can sometimes lead to these ultra-refined image of image of image of woman depictions - the way that Cassy and Nina Kraviz appear on their album covers it's like it's not even them, but a kind of hyper-abstracted depiction of the feeling-woman that just happens to use their own body (in other senses of course these two photos are very different from one another). But (in contrast to the effect when men use photos of women in this way) I think it's often expressive of this kind of double-role that female producers can inhabit, and actually works to create a sense of commonality with the audience; that sense that they already dancing beside us. This is probably also at least part of the motivation for some of the more mystical/spiritual fetishes that some people have for female producers; the imagined warmth of their work (vis a vis comparable male artists) grounded in the notion that their bodies are intricately connected in with the brain/machine loop of the creative process.

"progressive sorts"

eh, maybe i'm expressing too much sympathy for the enemy in saying i can say why the integration of these ideas gives some people trouble. i dunno, it reminds me of the turmoil that accompanied the shift between second and third wave feminism, but maybe it's just dorks being dorks.

"progressive sorts" "they" "some people"

jesus christ we are discussing this issue. "some people" is _us_

stop trying to weed yourself out of a well-meaning group

uh, i was responding to something hurting said:

so I think a lot of men are confused by, on one hand, seeing videos where the camera lingers sensually on a female artist's body in a way that very obviously contains an element of objectification, and where that video gives the impression that it is exactly how the artist wants to present herself (which is a complicated and not necessarily correct assumption of course), and on the other hand are given the message "you shouldn't focus on women's bodies, you shouldn't comment on women's bodies, etc."

and i thought, "yeah, otm, i suspect that does confuse a lot of people." hell, i've known otherwise generally well-meaning guys complain about the seeming paradox. so i agreed, and elaborated a bit (perhaps clumsily, and if so, i apologize).

tbf there are plenty of things that are not confusing, like "don't talk at work with your co-workers about how hot your female co-worker is" "don't make comments to a woman about her looks in really any setting other than one where it's normal to make an overture to someone for a number/date/whatever, and even there tread carefully," "don't be the president and say in a speech that an Attorney General is "good-looking." These things are or should be no-brainers. What is less clear is when a female artist presents herself in a very sexual way how you're supposed to talk about it and what lines you shouldn't cross. And again, some of these lines are obvious too, like you don't "call a woman out" for the fact that she presents her sexuality in a video, as though that were somehow corrupt. But there's still this attractive woman in front of you making her physical attractiveness a big part of her performance, and it's hard to know how to talk about it, like I feel super hemmy and hawy even writing this.

just be a bit embarrassed all the time

eh, it's hardly presenting it as a universal principle. If it had said "If Nina Kraviz wants to dance during her DJ sets, take bubble baths on camera and promote the core principles of fascism, then no one has the right to look down on her for doing so", then okay, but it's about a wholesale dismissal of traditionally feminine traits.

― a similar stunt failed to work with a cow (Merdeyeux), 11. april 2013 15:28 (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So if I claimed that talking shit about women was a typically masciline trait - and there are loads of empirical evidence to back this up - then it would be okay?

Look, I'm all for Nina Kraviz, I think she seems like a cool, intelligent person, all in all. And I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to do what she wants to do. But I think she comes off as shallow and vapid in that video - and I assume it's mainly due to the editing, as she seemed much more intelligent in her own response - and I don't think I'm a misogynist for saying that, even though it might seem like I'm 'looking down on her'

i think she mostly looks like she's having a good time

Yeah, but she is also constantly complaining about how tough her life is...

So if I claimed that talking shit about women was a typically masciline trait - and there are loads of empirical evidence to back this up - then it would be okay?

sounds pretty reasonable tbh. but that aside, i don't see why you honed in on that sentence, why you would think that its message - that dancing, having a bath, and talking about your sexuality aren't negative things - is a disastrous step into moral relativism. i suppose i don't know what point you were making?

I feel that she has created a sexually-charged persona and while I haven't evaluated her music on this, I kind of find that enticing

^^ don't think this is particularly sexist but implies I find her attractive?

I mean, there is a wide range of commentary that is pretty ok before you get into really messed up comments like "whoa I'd hit it"

had to stop myself earlier from making a monolith joke

for the record, though, I was having a pretty silly conversation with a friend where he was talking about wanting to get all over some male musician (which was mostly ok), and we were watching an all woman-band (cool), and this somehow translated (several beers later) into me sticking my foot way down my throat in some color commentary about my own impulses I cannot fucking believe I made via text message, so I am most definitely prone to stating stupid ideas re: artists and sexual attractiveness

artists: some of them are hott

ok, I am actually watching this RA video and giggling because it really does have all the DJ flying around cliches and it's silly as hell

I mean, I love going to the types of events and clubs shown but outside of that context the little dance moves or talking about how uplifting it is just always seems so awkward or silly. Like British movies of the 90s/early 00s with characters delivering monologues to the camera about how intense the experience of raving or clubbing is.

Also, we almost need a thread on how fucking nice that hotel room looked and how sweet that bathtub was. designerspotter me is trying to figure out what kind of fixtures those were

i don't see why you honed in on that sentence, why you would think that its message - that dancing, having a bath, and talking about your sexuality aren't negative things - is a disastrous step into moral relativism. i suppose i don't know what point you were making?

― a similar stunt failed to work with a cow (Merdeyeux), 12. april 2013 02:36 (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, I should probably have said that there are two things wrong with the sentence. First, it's misrepresenting what is in the video. Specifically, saying that Nina Kraviz speaks in an 'open and honest way' about herself is quite... In the scene in the bathtub she is spouting platitudes about male djs and their one night stands. It's honestly quite dumb. And there are loads of other things about the video: The way she is never shown to work, the way she is always being taken around to where she is supposed to be, that she talks about listening a lot to her father. So I think the sentence is distorting the thing people complain about. And then, after having made that distortion, she is trying to shot down the discussion by saying that 'no one has the right to look down on her.' Like, if she wrote that her opponents were idiots, that would be okay, that would be a discussion. But she is saying that we aren't allowed to discuss it, right after she made several wrong statements. It's just bad.

Fundamentally, I don't think it's good to say that she can't be critisized because she is just 'being woman'. I mean, in dubstep 'fratboy' is used as a pejorative all the time, and fratboys are quite clearly a typical way of 'being man', right? It's quite close to that old thing, where women are natural while men are reflective. Which is probably one of the main factors behind the idea that men are better at thoughtful pursuits, such as being artists...

just be a bit embarrassed all the time

― ogmor, Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:35 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

don't worry, got that covered

women act all fratty to dubstep, too. or sorority-ish, I have no idea

I mean, it doesn't take a penis to drink from a beer bong

And it doesn't take a vagina to take a bubble bath...

no one ever said it did!

ugh, all of you

i don't really understand this conversation. i think it's obvious to everyone that nina kraviz is a fox and she is also a talented musician, and one thing shouldn't be seen to take away from the other. if she comes across as not very articulate in that video, or something, than that can be expressed, but never in terms of her being "too feminine" or something because that is a really bad and offensive way of stating whatever issue it is people have with her.

exactly

frederik b is not reading any of these arguments particularly well

also it's not actually hard to talk about sexual attractiveness - eg what tim wrote! - so it's not the fault of nina kraviz, or women generally, if str8 men seem unable to do it without being creepy or confused. that problem is yours, not hers.

Well, I pretty much made Pat Finn's argument at the beginning of this discussion, so perhaps is you who don't read really well? But anyway, having problems reading arguments is a typical trait of the non-native english speaker, so no one has the right to look down on me for that.

I love bubble baths!

I mean this thread.I love this thread.

Nina Kraviz is hot, I wanna do her, ok?

sweet. i think we just have to be honest about these kinds of things.

that's not cool hurting

http://www.mixmag.net/words/features/seth-troxler-nina-kraviz-and-getting-naked