Skin = Liberation?

erinhurt — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:36:37 +0000

Recently on Muslim Media Watch , a blog post discussed what the author termed "Veil Fetish Art" (full disclosure: I found a link to this article while I was reading Feministing.com ).

The author writes: "I’ll term it 'veil fetish art,' because every featured woman has most or all of her face and her hair covered. Although the woman herself is the main focus, the veil acts as a sexual catalyst: it brands the woman as forbidden, despite the fact that you may be able to see most of her naked body. So even though she’s exposed, the veil reminds you that she’s “forbidden fruit,” and pushes the viewer to want her even more. [...] The type of liberation these images imply is a sexual one: erotic poses and come-hither eyes imply that this veiled woman just wants the freedom to be the dirty, dirty girl that she is. This simultaneously reinforces Orientalist ideas that Muslim women are oppressed (sexually as well as socially or religiously) and hypersexual. It also supports the idea that covering oneself is oppressive, and that the only way to be a liberated woman is to show some skin."

For myself, this image has a distinctly American bent to it (the Marilyn Monroe-esque pose over the grate of blowing air?). Which makes me wonder, does the author envision the audience to be an American one? This makes sense in light of the painting's "skin equals liberation" move, which is in opposition to some Muslim feminists' portrayal of the veil as a means of freedom from sexual objectification.

viz. - Veil Fetish art

Skin = Liberation?