It’s downright barbaric how small and low-res the online pics were in 1999. SI needs to remaster these old photos.
 |
| Photo: Dominique Issermann |
This photo of Yamila appeared in the margins of the introduction to the ’99 issue. You might see it as a “genie in a bottle” image, which is what the magazine’s caption writer went with: “There’s no getting this bikini back in the bottle.”
But to me it seems more like she’s spilling out of the jar. Like, in this world, beautiful women come in giant clay jars, and I’ve just opened this one, and I’ve poured Yamila out on the beach, and she’s lounging, sun-kissed, on the sand, smiling expectantly at me, ready for whatever I might have in mind.
I suppose those two “What is it you wish?” scenarios aren’t that different.
“Objectification” is a charged word in this realm. It’s a word that’s hurled at the swimsuit issue, and similar sexy-lady endeavors, as an accusation of sexism. And I don’t think that’s entirely unfair. These are flesh-and-blood human beings, not toys or decorations.
The way I rationalized it way back in my adolescence was: The woman is not an object, but the photograph is.
For better or worse, the image triggers a false sense of connection with the woman. We’re looking at her, but she’s looking at a camera lens.
And for that matter, we’re not really looking at her, but at a flat surface simulating her via a series of photons reflected off of —
Anyway.
But even the feminist author of this highly critical book about the swimsuit issue states that objectification isn’t inherently bad, in the right conditions. I’d say there’s a playful, consensual objectification that happens in relationships and flirting. Imagine the rush of having a woman smile at you and say, “So what do you wanna do to me?”
And I think that’s what’s at play in swimsuit photography. It doesn’t seem cruel or dehumanizing to me. Just some sexy women enjoying being sexy for an audience they know is appreciative. They’re presenting themselves to us, of their own volition, fully aware of where our eyes will wander.
And maybe it’s just my perverted mind at work, but Yamila’s pose up there seems to tap into the playful objectification angle a little extra. It joins the ranks of photos like Rebecca on a banquet table. Kathy in a cage.* Paulina in a (literal) fishnet.
This is tangentially related, maybe, but this video comes to mind of Sara Sampaio and Gigi Hadid, as rookies, quizzing people — male and female — at some resort. Two of their questions, “Which butt is whose?” and “Who’s hotter, blondes or brunettes?” are certainly cases of the models objectifying themselves.
(Are you a butt man?” Sara asks a gentleman early in the video.)
They compete for attention, stumping for votes in the Battle of the Hair Colors.
Gigi, upon hearing a woman declare that brunettes are hotter: “I need all boys to please report to here!”
Sara, on her knees, after a man says he prefers blondes: “Why? We’re hotter!”
I don’t think you’d see this video made now, a mere six years later. It’s a little too on-the-nose for SI’s current brand, in which they try to blend the blatant T&A into more of a general “Celebration of Beauty!” attitude.
Anyway. Yamila’s super hot. This is a great photo of her.
*I don’t think this "caged Kathy" photo was ever in the magazine, but I found it on Robert Huntzinger’s site surrounded by other SI pics.
A picture like this makes me wonder why I never think more about Yamila as one of the all-time SI girls. Eight years, a solo and shared cover. Actually same can be said of Veronica, with an SI career that spanned the exact same years. Must be just the era - post-Tyra, pre-Brooklyn, Chrissy, Kate. That said I think Yamila's cover is one of the sexiest that SI produced, and it all comes out of her eyes. I don't know if someone can be objectified when they're the one that's clearly in control of the situation.
ReplyDelete