What would the late, great feminist activist Betty Friedan think of Vanity Fair's "Hollywood Issue" March cover, featuring Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson naked, alongside a fully clothed Tom Ford, the former Gucci creative director. Without a shred of irony, the cover photograph suggests what Edouard Manet's famous painting "Le déjeuner sur l'herbe" indicated over 100 years ago: women are supposed to be looked at; men are supposed to look.
I realize Vanity Fair wants to sell magazines, but if they really wanted to be controversial -- and belong to the 21st century -- they should have reversed genders: In a year when "Brokback Mountain" is the leading Oscar contender, why isn't Ford and some other male model naked, alongside a fully clothed dominant female figure? Instead, we get 100-year-old aesthetics and 100-year-old ideologies.
An article in The Guardian suggests that the starlets are not naked - "they are nude." the writer states. "They have the gorgeous unreality of Botticelli's Venus, or Lorenzo Ghiberti's Eve, or the 18th-century paintings by Boucher and Fragonard that are its more direct models. These stars' bodies are Art."
Maybe so, but there is nothing particularly subversive or shocking about this "art." In an age when female bodies are plastered everywhere, from magazines to billboards to TV commercials, these idealized nudes -- gazing seductively at the viewer -- display nothing particularly unique or new, just art-porn for the masses.
Friedan, who died last week, once said, "When she stopped conforming to the conventional picture of femininity she finally began to enjoy being a woman."
You'd think in the year 2006, this conventional picture would start to fall by the way side. What did Friedan spend all those years working for? On the NOW website, you can read about all the other ways the Bush Administration is backtracking on women's rights around the world. I realize Vanity Fair is the least on people's minds right now, but it's just one more indication that so little has changed.