Power and the Panopticon

        

             In his essay “Panopticism,” Foucault explains the Panopticon as a machine of power. The model of the Panopticon represents power, according to Foucault, because the supervisor in the center can control all of the inmates around him, even without doing much. The person who exercises the power holds the ability to watch and punish the inmates, who are under constant surveillance. The idea that someone is watching you at all times makes a person more aware and careful of their surrounds and their actions, and the person of power is responsible for this. Foucault really believes that the Panopticon is a model for power all around the world, and he states that “it does not matter who exercises power” and “it does not matter what motive animates him.” I agree that the Panopticon is representative of power because it is really about who we as a society think possesses it that matters. Most people would agree that in America, the government has the power. They are watching us, making sure that we don’t break the laws, etc. and they are the ones who can punish us. Even if they aren’t watching us at all times, we think they are, causing us to obey rules and regulations. If we believed someone else had all of the power, then we would do the same thing to them. This is the way that I interpret what Foucault is trying to say about the Panopticon, but even though I have pulled this concept from his text, I still do not quite understand everything that Foucault is trying to say. If the whole world worked like a Panopticon, then why do so many people still deviate? This may be an unanswerable question that maybe even Foucault himself could not answer.

            Foucault is not the only author to write about the principle of power. Berger, Bordo, and Nochlin wrote about power, but each applied in different ways. Berger presents the agency of power as it relates to art, and how the political nature of art could change the way people view history. Bordo presents power as a sort of struggle between genders, and how women used to have the power when it came to being sexualized, but in recent years, men have acquired power in the industry by being sexualized. Also, Bordo’s argument could be seen as a power struggle between the media/marketing and society in general. Nochlin’s argument of the Bathers shows that the power lies within the paintings. These paintings have shaped society’s expectations on how men and women present themselves. I believe that by reading each of these essays, it has helped me understand how power is a common theme among writers, and that the argument of power and who should have it can present itself in many situations, often unknown. I definitely think that any person who has read these essays, including myself, will be much more willing to question the world and the things that our parents, teachers, and superiors have taught us in the past. 

The Magic of Sex Appeal

                     
             Nochlin and Bordo both wrote essays pertaining to a similar subject, but they are both extremely different as well, and have many different meanings. Bordo’s “Beauty (Re)discovers the Male Body” discusses the fact that males appear much more in ads and commercials to provide sex appeal than they ever did before, and that people are just starting to realize these sexually charged ads now that men are being shown. Nochlin’s “Renoir’s Great Bathers” studies art of the bathers and tries to neutralize the sexuality of the women shown in the paintings. Both writers believe that sexuality is extremely common in everything today such as commercials, ads and art. But even though these two speak to each other in that sense, they have many interesting differences. Bordo is annoyed at the fact that women have been exploited for so long throughout history and no one minded, but when men started becoming the sex symbols, people started complaining. Bordo basically says that sexually charging men and women are equally as unnecessary, and if it is not okay that men are sexually appealing in ads and commercials, then it is not for women to be either. Nochlin, on the other hand, believes that the sexuality of women is natural, but it is not so natural for men. She really cannot come up with a solution or argument in her essay. I believe she is trying to make the paintings of naked women a normal thing. When a normal person would see one of Renoir’s paintings of the bathers, they would likely not look at it for too long. For most people, seeing a naked person in anything is awkward. Nochlin thinks that it should not be this way. Why can’t nudeness be accepted and normal, it is in fact a natural thing.

            Both women wrote on a similar subject, but they have very different opinions on the matter. I think that out of the two, Nochlin and Bordo, Bordo speaks more powerfully to my generation. Bordo believes now that men are sexually charged in magazines and movies, people are finally starting to have a “problem” with sex being a dominant factor in the marketing and advertising business. It was normal that women were before, but when men start being exploited, then there is a real issue. I think that my generation would agree with this argument more than they would with Nochlin’s idea of neutralizing sex. People have a common reaction to these sorts of paintings and ads. It would take a lot of essays and ideas presented from Nochlin and people with her same viewpoint to make the public believe that nude bathers, for example, were a common sight. Bordo effectively addressed sex appeal and how it is found everywhere, and most people can notice and relate to that. Although I enjoyed both pieces by both authors, I really do believe that Bordo speaks more effectively to me and the generation that I am living in today.