The Guardian, again

[AnnaMagnani]

DH drew my attention to this bonkers article in the Guardian about a man who had a collection of polaroids he had taken of women on his TV, usually undressing.

These are currently in an art exhibition, not incinerated as the stuff left by a dead weirdo, as the person who found the photos then found another of the man himself wearing a bra.

I quote:

Girard believes this single self-portrait changes how we should view the My TV Girls collection. “This is the absolute key to deciphering the mystery enveloping the work,” says Girard. “Tom Wilkins was not a pervert. This archive was a documentation of what he wanted to become.” By taking the pictures, Girard believes, Wilkins appropriated a female body. “That’s the mystery and genius of it. This shows how, in photography, you dive into your subject – you become the subject.

Can I propose another more obvious solution, that he was a pervert, this is how you generate porn in the era before VHS and the internet, and it takes a bit more than putting on a bra to have a female body?

Honestly. Although I was impressed how I've radicalised DH.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/nov/27/creepy-weird-mystery-my-tv-girls-fetish-archive-tom-wilkins

Fucksake

Tom Wilkins was not a pervert. This archive was a documentation of what he wanted to become.

That's a fascinating pair of sentences, with it's elided logical link. Which is that "wanting to become a woman" is normal, therefore we assume that must be the perfectly normal reason for what he's doing.

You could just as easily write:

Tom Wilkins was a pervert. This archive was a documentation of what he wanted to become.

If you take the view that "wanting to become a woman" is perverted in itself, or you acknowledge that it tends to occur along with a whole bunch of other male paraphilia.

Or even if you don't take a perverted-or-not view on "wanting to become a woman", doing that doesn't automatically give you a free pass on all the other stuff you do.

This Girard guy is the Family Guy bartender. "Oh, you're transgender? I had no idea. Do whatever you want, all the time."

Or maybe he just knows what buttons to press to get zero-effort "art" exhibition and newspaper space in 2023...

I notice more husbands are ‘getting it’ when it comes to this issue
Keep going folks - common sense will prevail….. eventually

Initially they thought he was just some bloke compiling wank material from the telly but on discovering he was wearing a bra and knickers they have declared him the Leonardo de nos jours.

Is he alive? We must find this genius who walks among us

@Restinggoddess DH's rant was a wonder!

'This very minute there are thousands of teenage boys wanting to appropriate a woman's body, doesn't make them women, makes them teens wanking' was said, amongst other things.

"The shots convey a fascination with women’s bodies, and in particular a fetish for nightgowns, bras and breasts. Although they are images of images, the way the photographer appears to view women in the notes is reductive and degrading. It makes viewing them an uncomfortable experience, as if looking through the eyes of an obsessive, misogynistic stalker."

It is an uncomfortable experience, not "as if" looking through the eyes of an obsessive misogynist stalker, it is because you exactly are looking through the eyes of an obsessive misogynist stalker. The possible motivation being in doubt because of the single photo of this man in women's underwear doesn't change anything.

I am unsurprised by the fact that a second man has managed to use the women in these photos for his own aims/profit once he discovered them.

-common sense will prevail- Or. . .
We will do the right thing after exhausting all other possibilities!

Are there really throngs of visitors craning their necks to get a glimpse of grainy old photos of Mrs Cunningham from Happy Days in nightie?

“This is the absolute key to deciphering the mystery enveloping the work,” says Girard. “Tom Wilkins was not a pervert.”

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

oh god though, this is terrible. I’m almost glad this idiot made the principle explicit. All men have to do is put on women’s underwear and they automatically get designated Not A Pervert and people can’t see obvious, OBVIOUS, 🚩🚩🚩OBVIOUS!🚩🚩🚩pervert behaviour for what it is. How the fuck do we fix this?

not only are they declared not a pervert but they launched into the category of artistic genius

How would you rate this compared to the grubby Unmade Bed which was declared to be art? And Tate Modern paid a lot of money for?

I like the cut of Anna's DH's jib.

Polaroid Guy is clearly a pervert. Because he was being a pervert while wearing a skirt doesn't make him any less of a pervert. Certainly doesn't make him a genius. And if all it took to become an artistic genius was wearing a skirt then the National Gallery would be full of female artists. But it's not, is it.

Absolute fucking sicko.

It is an uncomfortable experience* because you exactly are looking through the eyes of an obsessive misogynist stalker.*

This. He's merely piggybacking on the objectification of women in films and tv by creepy directors anyway.

That journalist is on glue.

So open minded their brains fell out.

In the spirit of the season

"Tom Wilkins was not a pervert"

Oh yes he was 😒

“Tom Wilkins was not a pervert”

Well, many right thinking people would vehemently disagree with that sentence.

It's not remotely like the Unmade Bed.

These are a bunch of creepy polaroids made for wanking, which someone has discovered and declared to be art.

Tracy Emin creates work that is often autobiographical. She had a period of depressive crisis and her bed became increasingly dishevelled. As she got better she turned the bed into an artwork complete with surrounding detritus as a commentary on her life.

You may not like the bed, but it was created specifically as a work of art and the only person involved in it's creation was Tracy Emin who was happy for you to think what you like of it. Unlike the actresses snapped undressing by a man so he could perve over it.

I mean, talk about hiding in plain sight NOW IN A PUBLIC GALLERY.

'Nothing to see here..." 👀

🚩 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

So much male art is simpy about appropiating women by re-creating them as not-subjects, as objects of the male gaze. This man (like other cross dressers) just went one step further by re-creating the object of the male gaze on his own body instead of just in his 'art'. The exhibition doesn't (just) show that he was a sexual obsessive; it draws attention to the fact that the male artist's gaze is by its nature a sexually obsessive appropriation.
To paraphrase Girard, "“That’s the mystery and genius of it. This shows how, as a man, you dive into the object of your desire – you become that object (in order to possess it more fully).

his gender remain shrouded in mystery
Why do you constantly call him "he" then, Guardian? Tut tut!

"We thought this man was a pervert, until he put on a bra" is an absolutely A+ summary of the handmaidens right now.

Charles Saatchi purchased My Bed by Tracey Emin for £150, 000. It was sold at auction by Christie’s in July 2014 for £2,546,500.

Personally, I would not have paid that much. There is a lot about the art world I do not understand but I suspect the likes of Saatchi are very good at promoting young artists and making a bloody fortune from gullible idiots.

There is a lot of twaddle in art galleries, a lot of money made. I could not care but do take exception at the promotion of this absurd ideology wherever it occurs.

Ah so if he has made Polaroids to wank too whilst wearing a rugby shirt he’d have been a pervert but as he made Polaroids to wank too whilst wearing a bra he is clearly an artistic Jaynius

Actually the more I think about it, the more I am sorry for Mr Wilkins and raging at Mr Girard.

Wilkins is an odd man, with no family or friends, and absolutely no-one knows about his polaroid collection until after his death. It's clear he has taken care that absolutely no-one should know what he gets up to alone and in the privacy of his own home.

The Mr Girard comes along, buys his possessions at random and reveals that Mr Wilkins took creepy photographs and dressed in bras to the world. Completely destroying his privacy and making a big play on 'we can't know Mr Wilkins gender'

I know who I think the less of, and it's definitely Mr Girard. Fucking grifter.

How about going all Carol Ann Duffy and viewing it through the female lens?

Imagine you are an actress and you get a part. You auditioned and beat hundreds to it. It’s a good story and pays well but one scene involves stripping down to your underwear. You’re uncomfortable but it’s part of the script and you tell yourself it matters. Cameramen and production crew are there fully clothed whilst you take your clothes off and try and not feel self conscious. It’s over and you have a drink and tell yourself it’s ok and everyone around you pretends it’s a normal day. Now it’s 10 years later and they are showing re-runs of tv. Everyone has recording devices and you realise people can make stills of these recordings so it chips away that your image in your underwear can be used and copied. Still - out of sight out of mind. Then twenty years later you read The Guardian and you find out a man used to take photos of actresses when they were in their underwear and catalogue them - a twisted serial voyeur. He also liked wearing women’s underwear. He died and it could have finished. But no. Some other man got hold of the photos and thought I could make some fame/money out of this. It’s art! Especially with the man dressing up too. You think of the liberal high-brow audience at the exhibition imagining him taking the photos and what he must have felt as he photographed these women. And now your reading an interview in The Guardian with the man who bought the photos and pretends its high art. And is lauded by The Guardian. You scan the photos- can you see you? While you feel the waves of vulnerability all over again.

——————-

To the editor of The Guardian - what are you thinking?? I grew up reading The Guardian and their women section. Ffs.