Absolutely. I’m always reading about how the “female gaze” doesn’t “sexualize” women. First, I don’t believe that. It completely erases queer women from the equation. Second, why should that be the goal? In the introduction to my PARIS book, Professor John Wood wrote that sexual desire is omnivorous and—above all—personal. Plenty of women want to be “sexualized”—everyone is entitled to manifest that in their own way. Or not. Think of the wide range of male photographers that have shot the female nude—Araki, Newton, Weston, Gibson, Clergue, the list is really endless. Why are women photographers of the female nude supposed to adhere to a narrow emotional and sexual (or non-sexual) parameter?
If you expect the “female gaze” to be non-sexual, then who defines the sexuality of women? There’s a song in “Hamilton” that talks about “who tells our story.” I’m a big believer in inclusion and representation. For the most part, women’s sexuality in general and lesbian sexuality, in particular, is either erased or exploited. It’s rarely empowered. For the most part, we’re invisible—at least in telling our own stories. If you remove us from visually commenting and defining our sexuality, you create a cultural vacuum that is only filled by others. As a result, you end up with hideous photos like the “faux lesbian” Melania Trump images that do tremendous harm to us. I’d rather have a hand in shaping the dialogue.
I began a little investigation to see what kind of references there are for “lesbians” (or “lesbiennes” here in France where I live) in major photo collections. Many collections have no reference at all. One major French photo institution has only a single reference—that of a “lesbian dream” of a male photographer. No. Non.