Achja, zur Illustration meiner letzten Story hier ein paar Cover von Heavy Metal bzw. Schwermetall. Ich glaube nicht, dass man Kunst oder Literaturwissenschaft studiert haben muss, um den sexistischen Gehalt dieser Bilder zu entschlüsseln. /:)

Schwermetall 24 Schwermetall 29 Schwermetall 38

Heavy Metal Magazine 1/03 Heavy Metal Magazine 5/03 Heavy Metal Magazine 11/99

Heavy Metal Magazin 11/97 Heavy Metal Magazine 12/84 Heavy Metal Magazine 2/81

Das einzige Cover mit einem Bilal-Motiv fällt da sichtbar aus dem Rahmen, allein schon dadurch, dass die dargestellte Frau nicht nur Sexualobjekt ist, sondern allen Ernstes die Chuzpe besitzt, über ein eigenes Innenleben zu verfügen! —

Heavy Metal Magazine Fall 1986

5 Antworten auf „Nachtrag“

  1. Gravatar Icon 1 maledei 24. Januar 2006 um 17:55 Uhr

    hm, die scheinen hotlink-blocker zu benutzen…

  2. Gravatar Icon 2 lysis 24. Januar 2006 um 18:02 Uhr

    Mmh, dann werd ich die mal selber uploaden müssen! :((

  3. Gravatar Icon 3 Doughnut Boy Andy 30. Januar 2006 um 19:23 Uhr

    I dont see the fuss to be honest. Not my cup of tea either but that isnt a political judgement, is it? But perhaps I should study „Literaturwissenschaft“ a bit more.:-w

    These magazines were from the 1970s or not? If so then they were probably quite challenging at the time, playing a small role in the wider collapse of traditional attitudes towards sex and sexuality. Perhaps things were different in Germany but this was a major movement in the UK and the USA and defines the way we think about life today. I cant believe Germany was much different, although Germany was very advanced in the preNazi time. Even if they werent from the 1970s then I dont see what is so objectionable about them apart from their tacky crapness.

    Using tags such as: art, feminism, comic and sexism without any explaination is a bit off. The only category of the 4 that applies is perhaps comic. Perhaps I was simply brought up in a much pruder society?

  4. Gravatar Icon 4 Doughnut Boy Andy 30. Januar 2006 um 19:25 Uhr

    That should be a ;) and not a :-w ….

    …unless you really meant that as arrogantly as it sounded ;)

  5. Gravatar Icon 5 lysis 30. Januar 2006 um 23:21 Uhr

    First of all: The oldest cover is from 1981, the latest one from 2003. The style hasn‘t changed in decades. There is only one year when the magazine tried to do without such imagery. It really wanted to, but couldn‘t afford it financially.

    The magazine was not as primitive as the covers insinuate. There was real comic art within. Political comics mixed with Science Fiction and Phantasy. But to sell it you had to put a bit of pornography on the cover. And some of the comics were indeed heavily sexist.

    But the point is not about sex. You can depict sexuality in an emancipatory way. But to de-personalize women as a mere object of male phantasy is not about emancipation.

    Of course, large parts of the (male) left considered this to be revolutionary in the 1970’s. For they reduced their analysis of sexuality on a binaric view that only asked if sexual needs are suppressed or not. They didn‘t ask whose needs (the images, as is quite obvious, only serve the needs of males who think of themselves as exclusively heterosexual) and they didn‘t ask how these needs are formed by society and could possibly be re-formulated by artists.

    Instead those pictures are observant to a certain gender ideology: the male is the subject of desire, the woman is its object. Man is strong, woman is weak. Man is protector, woman is to be protected. Man is aggressor, woman is victimized. Man is ugly (or, at least, not very handsome), woman is beautiful. Man keeps clothes on, woman is naked. Man is defined by gender (heroism, aggressiveness, etc.), woman by sex (breasts, big bottom, etc.).

    You really have to consider that this was not a pornographic magazine, but an art magazine. It contained some very sophisticated and even highly politicized comics. The editors were formerly part of hippie culture and revered Timothy Leary as kind of a psychedelic guru. But they never, not once, questioned dominant gender ideology.

    By the way, you have the same phenomenon in Germany. During the 70’s, the leading left-wing magazine KONKRET tried to sell itself by showing off female breasts (but not once depicting male nudeness). It regularly published special issues on sexuality that really tried to be educatory and sincerely aimed at „sexual emancipation“, but friends who looked into them told me that they are heavily sexist and almost exclusively address male interests.

    Personally I think that the taboo to depict male nudeness during the „sexual revolution“ of the 1970’s not only had sexist reasons, but coincided with the loathing of homosexuality as well. Men feared to be aroused by males and therefore didn‘t want to be confronted with non-female nakedeness. You had highly obscene covers depicting female bottoms and breasts. But if there was a man present (which was rarely the case), he naturally had to keep his clothes on.

    This kind of analysis escapes your view, if you relapse on the 70’s binaric view that only asks if sexuality is „suppressed“ or not. There are some questions to be asked going further than that.

Die Kommentarfunktion wurde für diesen Beitrag deaktiviert.