The following text includes references to the books: The Velvet Hammer Burlesque By Michelle Carr (ISBN: 978-3-89955-202-7), Berlin, 2008 and Dolce Vita Style By Jean-Pierre Dufreigne (ISBN: 2843237319), Coverart: 1958
The Price of Beauty plus Perception
The Velvet Hammer Burlesque: (image 1)
This picture below really stood about among the rest of the images in the burlesque book. This is because a lot of the images were very provocative and showed a lot of skin. Mainly highlighting the nipple area a lot. The image below shows a different side of burlesque as it shows 2 individuals taking their profession very seriously, treating it as a piece of art. The reason i’m perceiving this particular image in this way is because the photo is unusually tamed. Thus stands out amongst the rest. Especially as it’s not pleasing the viewer/reader (mainly males) in a fetishistic way, like the other images are (most of them). The picture is even more unique in the way that the models are looking away from the camera. This is even more unusual as burlesque dancers are very fierce and loud. Thus like to be the centre of attention in their photos, showing off their upper body and their costumes too.
The link below explores the velvet hammer burlesque world:
Laura Mulvey’s Male Gaze Theory fits into this particular book. The reason for this being that the burlesque world is quite pleasing for males. Thus in a way many of the images are very voyeuristic, not to mention fetishistic as they portray women as objects of sexual desire and nothing else. However the image above in a way subverts this. The reason I feel it does is because it’s not a typical burlesque photo. For example the images below (also in the book) showcase the male gaze instantly. This is because all the images are entirely fetishistic. considering the poses are very sexual and explicit, thus are instantly engaging to the male eye. Therefore make a clear example of images which are not only provocative but also ones which fit into Mulvey’s theory. Through the body language of the individuals (females) and also their sultry looks too, as everything about them is sexually objectified in one shot and one shot entirely.
In contrast Dolce Vita Style showcases the glamour of the 1960’s.However upon showcasing the glamour, it relies heavily on the male gaze. Now although this theory was not around then, some of the images are very voyeuristic and deeply sexual. They also showcase dominance, especially from the male figures. The picture below emulates this well. It showcases the woman pleasing the males by putting on a strip tease, knowing all eyes are on her. Thus showcases Mulveys theory in one take as the female is using her body to gain attention , with her being objectified sexually instantly.
I believe that the price of beauty comes into scope here. Mainly because many may perceive burlesque dancers and females who put themselves into the limelight as “male pleasers”. When in actual fact they may love what they do, thus may feel empowered to do it. Therefore feel that they are not doing it to please males sexually, but instead doing it for themselves. Thus the price of beauty may be the idea of perception. In the way that burlesque dancers may be looked at very sexually. Due to what they do, but they may just find what they are doing is art, thus may overlook the sexual gratification men receive from them. Whereas the second book glamourises the glamour of the 1960’s which includes males dominating the females. However some females may have been Independent in the way they represented themselves. Thus almost move past how they were portrayed in photographs as being lower in authority than the males, when they may even have earned more. Thus its important to ask the question : Does beauty come at a price? Can it only be used to “please” males?
Namaste Media Minions! 
You must be logged in to post a comment.