In Depth: Sluts and Studs

Nava Atlas, Sluts and Studs, 2008, Clothbound flag book
with pigmented inkjet pages, Edition of five, 14" x 32" (open)

It seems that the subversive spirit of the book mushrooms has taken root here at Artistic Novelty. Or, at the very least, it has spread to other books in The Book: A Contemporary View. In contrast to the broad spectrum of subversion to which the book mushrooms are relevant, however, Nava Atlas's flag book Sluts and Studs specifically confronts its readers with the markedly different words and dialogues that have come to define men's sexuality and women's sexuality in western culture. This confrontation causes us to question the validity of each group of terms and the extent to which they are a balanced representation of sex among the sexes. It becomes clear, and rather quickly, that said discourses aren't very balanced or fair at all. While this point will not be new to anyone who has ever been a part of any social scene, Atlas's presentation of the subject gives her viewers the opportunity to examine just how much--or how little--progress has been made in closing the ideological gap between discussions about male and female sexuality since it first appeared.

The book unfolds to reveal a pop-up grid of words in blue, words in hot pink, pictures in hot pink, and pictures in blue. Give yourself ten points if you can guess which color goes with the men and which color goes with the women. The pictures themselves are from the early-to-middle twentieth century, the times of screen idols and planes decorated with pin-up girls. While it isn't clear where the pictures of the men originally appeared, it's a fair bet that the women's pictures were originally used as pin-ups. On the inside of the front and back covers the words on the grid, still in their representative colors, are accompanied by their dictionary definitions. Words relating to women alternate with words relating to men. Troublingly, words with negative connotations alternate with words with positive connotations. Can you guess which words are positive and which are negative? I thought so. Give yourself ten more points.

The pictures, after you've read the words and definitions, are troubling. Each of the men is shown from somewhere in the vicinity of the collar bone and up. There isn't anything particularly sexual about these depictions unless one counts a glint in an eye here and there. If anything, the expression of these mens' faces is self-assured and confident. Despite the lack of sexuality in the pictures, they are paired with words that identify them as sexual beings. The women, in contrast, are shown from the waist or the breasts up, sport elaborate coiffures that are in just enough disarray, and wear, well, very little. These images are meant to be alluring and, though the women in them are often confident and self-assured, their confidence isn't really the point of these pictures.


Atlas's decision to combine the latter group of images with predominantly derogatory words related to female sexuality is particularly interesting. I don't know about you, dear reader, but try as I might, I couldn't quite come up with words to describe sexually active women that didn't have negative connotations. The most positive term I could come up with was "sex symbol," but that a) is two words, not one; and b) a term that can apply equally to men and women. A close look at some of the words that Atlas has included further reveals the english language's difficulty addressing a woman's sexuality in a mature fashion. According to the definitions on Atlas's book, a woman either has sex for the sole purpose of making money or has sex because she is completely consumed with desire and cannot control herself. See "tart: n. a prostitute or promiscuous woman" and "nymphomaniac: n. (used of women) affected with excessive sexual desire; a woman with abnormal sexual desires." None of the words that Atlas listed refer to a woman who has decided to engage in sex for pleasure or who has chosen to identify herself as a sexual being.

The words Atlas has paired with images of men present a very different picture. Among them are "Romeo," "lothario," "playboy," and "stud." Many of the definitions listed suggest that the men are conquistadors or huntsmen whose ability to have sex with women is part of their social stature. In short: these words celebrate men for having sex while women are branded as immoral for participating in the process. Naturally, women aren't the only losers in this system. Any man who lives in the world of the conquistadors and isn't particularly good with women is going to endure a certain measure  of mockery. The difference, however, is that this mockery subsides the more said socially impaired man has sex. The more the women of Sluts and Studs have sex, the more their social stigma grows. In such a world, anything but passive sexuality on a woman's part becomes a justification for labels such as "slut," ""harlot," and "hussy."

It's a mark of the sophisticated thought behind Sluts and Studs that it's possible to discuss the troubling system outlined above without directly maligning modern Western culture. The men and women on the page exist in a temporal space that is far enough removed from the present that it's safe to discuss the gender politics they embody without accidently offending anyone. The 1930's-1950's are, moreover, different enough from our own time and paradigm that its easier to look at the sexual politics of the period objectively and identify the problematic elements that were at work.

It would be much more difficult to identify the problematic sexual politics of our own time; we lack the necessary distance to do so in an effective way. Fortunately enough, Atlas has given us a starting point. Though Sluts and Studs  can be read strictly as a period piece, there's reason to believe that Atlas had more in mind for the work. The definitions of the words appear three times, helpfully providing readers with a glossary of terms that were dreamed up centuries ago. Your average, English-speaking viewer would not, however, have any need of the definitions. Each of the words that have been used is familiar and, though quite old (tart, for example, has been used to describe "promiscuous" women since the 1880s), is still in use today.

Though the pictures evoke a specific time in history that many have accepted to be flawed, the words seem fresh and new. A brief search on dictionary.com, however, shows that each one has been around for at least fifty years. The thoughts and prejudices that contributed to the creation and meaning of these words still shape how we view sexuality in men and women. The familiarity of these words reveals Atlas's hidden message: the sexual politics of decades and centuries past are still alive and well in modern society.


Edit: I have a sneaking suspicion that 9 out of 10 visitors to this blog entry were not looking for ah... *ahem* this kind of art. I honestly can't think of any other reason why I'd suddenly have an audience in Russia. To my Russian readers: *Are* any of you actually interested in art and feminist theory?

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

"In Depth" is a series of posts dedicated to taking a closer look at (and maybe completely misinterpreting) individual pieces exhibited by the DCCA. If you would like to nominate a piece at the DCCA for an "In Depth" feature, feel free to write a comment and let me know!