Monday 28 September 2009

Woman as Design - Stephen Bayley

Putting aside the fact that I am in fact female, Stephen Bayley's account of 'Woman as Design' is expressed in such a patronising and flawed manner. The back cover blurb states, "Stephen Bayley discusses how the female body works as a sign, a symbol...as a designed object." Anyone else find that a tad offensive?

Bayley explores the female body and its relationship to design by addressing feminine curves, proportions, fissures and orifices and insisting that they have acted as inspiration over centuries for designers, architects and even car-makers.

BBC Radio 4 - Stephen Bayley and Vicky Richardson (the editor of the architecture and design magazine Blueprint) join Jenni Murray to discuss the arguments.

My favourite quote from this interview asks as the opening line of debate: "has he reclaimed images of the female body, or produced a coffee table playground for perverts?".

Bayley insists that his intention for the book did not diffuse from a sexist gorilla point of view but in fact a 'romantic appreciation as a robust heterosexual'
Vicky Richardson in turn addresses the uneasy first response that a book of this calibre stands to break the rules of political correction and that the feminsts amongst us will no doubt hold serious issues with the content.

The language is a confusing mixture of medical literal description with pornographic insinuations, even though he appreciates Andrea Dworkin's stance as a radical feminist, the imagery used could be described, out of art circles, as semi-pornographic.

How influential is the female form in ever day...?
Bayley seems to see sex everywhere and in everything, somewhere in the literature he refers to the number 3 rotated 90 degrees as a reflection of the female form. As he discusses, female symbolism is in architecture, and uses Vitruvius as an example, even pointing out the theory of antiquarians in that the initial plans of the Christian church revolve around the diagram of the female reproductive system; the porch as the entrance, the nave as the birth channel and the apse as the womb.

The human form is of course central to design as design is essentially created for humans and the argument that artists have long used the female form as a basis is a little narrow minded in my opinion as La Corbusier, Leonardo Da Vinci used humans as starting points but not necessarily and specifically the female form.
The overall theme is that the female form is perfection and modern product design cannot replicate the magnificence of it, he even questions: 'Could a modern day designer handle the complex area between a woman's legs...?' The innuendo is of course intentional.
This is a strong movement in design biomimicry, as human beings we can never come close to the perfection of nature which is becoming a huge issue as we try to improve on nature itself.

The female form isn't flawless and perfect so I find it tricky to comprehend Bayley's arguement that the childbirth, sex, urination and varying amount of wobbly bits is perfect design.

Post feminist awareness allows the once perceived wickedness of men objectifying the human form to be dull and Bayley arrogantly states that as a society we are now sophisticated in our interpretation of women and so not a bad thing in this day and age. Generously he devotes 10 lines at the front of the book to significant female artists such as Frida Kahlo and Paula Rego.

The image that provoked the most reaction (the shock image) was the juxtaposition between the Ford Edsel motor car (see right) and the vagina which pretty much sums up the basis of this argument.
Although the images are lavish and the high production finish of the book is quite sublime, the juxtaposition between the images and female form undermines the humanity of great art and just sees sex.

To close this review and sum up the general reaction I received from this book I'll leave it up to Stephen Bayley to articulate this:
'It was
Simone De Beauvoir (reputation as key figure in feminist awareness) who pointed out that Brigitte Bardot has had as much positive influence on the French economy as the Renault cars.'

6 comments:

  1. I think you're confusing objectifying women and womanifying objects. All Bayley's saying is that there's been many (probably male) designers that have been inspired, either consciously or subconsciously, by the female form which is not sexist, just Freudian.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perhaps all the other individuals who have found the book a tad offensive are confused also...?
    I still retain that this book is smutty, pretentious and predictable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You should be the last person to say something is right because many people believe in it :)

    Can I borrow this book from you? Sounds quite interesting and it would also get my feminist flatmate fuming.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the contrary Andrey, it's you who initially told me that I was confused and mistaken with my opinion - as it turns out you haven't even read the book!

    I borrowed the book myself as it costs way over £30 so unfortunately can't lend it out. I'll see if I can get it back and photocopy a few pages if you like...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like how the '3' has been used to create a pair of dangling tatty bojangles - but that's just my impish sense of humour

    ReplyDelete
  6. ...your impish sense of humour has led you up on the wrong path I'm afraid, the '3' is supposed to depict a ladies bum! (I don't have a 'mock the week' slang for 'bum'..aw)

    ReplyDelete