Framed: In Con-versation

Allen Jones’s Chair (1969), a hyper-sexualised female mannequin used as furniture, sparked feminist outrage in the 1970s for objectifying women. Though initially condemned as exploitative, it was later re-evaluated as a pop art commentary on consumerism and sexuality. By 2014, public perception had shifted, with some women and feminists viewing it as empowering within a BDSM context, reflecting broader societal exposure to sexual imagery. Similarly, Édouard Manet’s Olympia (1865), depicting a nude woman gazing confidently at the viewer, was scandalous in its time for its portrayal of a sex worker and its challenge to traditional female representation. Initially seen as indecent, it has since been reinterpreted—especially through feminist critique—as a powerful assertion of female autonomy and is now celebrated as a modernist masterpiece.

At this point, it’s safe to say that different experiences shape one's perception of artworks – which reminds me of a quote from John Berger’s 1972 study Ways of Seeing in which he observed that:

“the way we see things is affected by

what we know or what we believe.” 

He emphasised that the meaning of a visual image is constructed through a process of exchange between the image and the viewer, whose beliefs and experiences influence the way they interpret the work. Berger’s argument underscores the shifting nature of art interpretation and highlights that the way we interpret images is never static but is continually reshaped by the beliefs and experiences of the viewer within a given time and place.

Continuing from Ways of Seeing, Berger also articulates how, in Western art and culture, women are often depicted as objects of male desire. Men in paintings are typically portrayed as active, women are presented as passive. This idea aligns with the concept of the male gaze, a crucial theory developed by Laura Mulvey in 1975, which reveals how portrayals of women have been constructed in an objectifying and limited way, designed to satisfy the psychological needs of men, and more broadly, of patriarchal society.

As she states:

“In a world ordered by sexual imbalance,

pleasure in looking has been split

between active male and passive female.”

Mulvey's critique of women's objectification and power dynamics paved the way for female artists to explore their own agency and visibility, challenging passive objectification by reimagining the female body with self-representation and empowerment. One such example is Cindy Sherman, who deliberately appropriated stereotypical female roles found in cinema and subverted traditional representations of women. Through her Untitled Film Stills series from the late 1970s, Sherman reveals the constructed nature of these images, challenging the viewer to question the authenticity of the female archetypes she portrays.

The relationship between performativity and the gaze has also been central to Jemima Stehli’s artistic practice. Her photographic works from the late 1990s and early 2000s often reference iconic imagery by established male artists, from Allen Jones to Helmut Newton, which she re-stages using her own body. At the time, Stehli was criticised by the audience for allegedly participating in her own objectification. Today, however, her works are understood as a complex statement of self-empowerment and are regularly exhibited in galleries. They offer a clear example of how the gaze and perceptions of artwork have shifted over time, reflecting broader changes in societal views on gender, power, and agency. By choosing to re-stage these works using her own body, Stehli takes control of her own image, reacting to that objectification that has been central to the male gaze. In doing so, her works reshape the way we understand the relationship between performer/subject and viewer, challenging the notion of the passive female subject and emphasising her ability to reclaim power and agency within the gaze.

The reshaping of the gaze is deeply intertwined with our beliefs and experiences. John Berger’s assertion that “the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” suggests that perception is not fixed—it evolves as societal norms, personal experiences, and cultural conversations change. While Mulvey’s concept of the male gaze dominated in the 1970s, shifts in feminist thought, the rise of digital media, and changes in representation have diversified and complicated how we engage with images today. My works explore the female figure and its gaze, questioning whether objectification is solely a product of male perception or part of an ongoing evolution. Much like Jemima Stehli and Cindy Sherman, I often use self-portraiture to position myself as both the subject and object of my works - actively shaping how my own body is seen.
.
.
.
In a discussion about Allen Jones’ Chair, feminist fashion personality Grace Woodward shared her experience of posing nude for Jemima Stehli in a setup inspired by Helmut Newton’s works. Newton has been widely criticised—both in the past and today—for objectifying women and their nude bodies. In contrast, by being photographed by another woman, Woodward felt a sense of agency and control over how her body was represented, even though the poses themselves were drawn from traditionally male viewpoints.

Is there a difference between being objectified by a man or a woman?

I cannot help but wonder if my practice and ongoing project speak to the politics of nudity today. Most of the subjects I photograph express feeling empowered by the process and willing to share these images in academic settings for discussion, yet hesitant about them being exhibited publicly. This, perhaps, suggests that nudity remains a complex and, for some, even taboo subject in 2025. In many ways, this tension mirrors the themes explored in today’s conversation and raises broader questions about vulnerability, identity, and control:

who holds the power in these interactions?
what does it mean to reclaim one’s own image on one’s own terms?
and does the discomfort surrounding nudity today reflect a lingering unease with the shifting dynamics of the gaze?

I want to leave you with one final thought.

As artists, as women, and as individuals, it’s up to us to continue questioning and redefining the gaze. To challenge what it means to be ‘looked at’—to reclaim agency, and ultimately, to shift the power back to where it belongs: with the person being seen. Of course, this dialogue is just the beginning of a much larger discussion about representation, identity, and the ever-evolving nature of how we perceive each other, but let’s keep asking questions, keep creating work, and keep redefining what it means to be seen.