Hacker News Reader

Comment by PierceJoy | Hacker News Reader

> The literal act of gazing is what "the gaze" in the context of art is referring to, whether it's in media form or performed in real life.

No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective.

> In modern contexts, it's clear criticism of "the gaze" is criticism of the objectification of women. It's argued that it's "harmful" in art, as it represents objectification of women.

Again, no. The male gaze is a specific term that refers to how women are portrayed in visual media.

Let's also keep in mind your example of the Sex Live of College Girls is 2 years old. The art used by this project is much much older. These time periods are not comparable.

View on HN

> No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective.

You're clearly the one having an issue interpreting the project. The project is to interpret art pieces without the male gaze. You're trying to decouple the criticism of male objectification from the art piece which is completely laughable when the About section clearly criticizes male objectifcaiton.

> Again, no. The male gaze is a specific term that refers to how women are portrayed in visual media.

> Let's also keep in mind your example of the Sex Live of College Girls is 2 years old. The art used by this project is much much older. These time periods are not comparable.

Just because you say the male gaze is a specific term, and choose to ignore any sources that disagree with your definition that I linked, doesn't make it true. And now, suddenly the time period matters to your argument about the male gaze and the art project?

You're arguing because you can't accept the fact the project is 100% critiquing the male gaze . You're clearly biased, and that's fine, but you're running in circles and playing games of semantics because you can't accept when you're clearly wrong.

You already replied to this comment here: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34070812)

Now you’ve left another reply to the same comment, just more emotional this time.

The reason you aren’t seeing a reply link is because you’re trying to reply too fast and are getting rate limited. Instead of trying to get around it and post emotional responses, just patiently wait until the reply link shows up and then reply to my post directly. Please calm down, there’s no reason to get this upset.

Again, please don’t reply to this comment and start yet another thread. Reply to our existing thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34071819

This is what you stated:

"You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term."

Yet you claim I'm the one being emotional? Lol. Hypocrite much?

There's absolutely no logical connection between those two things. This is just another example of you being emotional. Please keep your replies to the other thread. You can comment on this, but do it in the other thread.

Sigh, how can anyone hold a conversation with you when you keep going in circles, completely ignoring the specifics of an argument, stringently hold to your narrow definitions and when counteracted with a different argument, resort to "you are wrong, I am right", and the consistent other logical fallacies used.

I guess somewhat's got to combat the egos and crackpots :-)

Classic projection. Drop the short guy energy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com