Visual representations of female techno/house producers

Coming back to a thread when it's come to a different place, then.

LG: As far as the comment upthread about podcasts or downloaded "unofficial" mixes never having the artist's picture, nearly every RA mix has the artist image attached! I think they're pretty atypical as far as that goes, but it does seem like a notable exception.

Tim: Thanks for that post. In both form and content, that's giving me something to think about.

I never listen to RA mixes, for whatever reason. Nothing against them per se, it just somehow stopped being a habit for me sometime ago, I now realise.

One thing that's being overlooked here is that Dinky's album covers seem intimately tied up with the sound of each record - Anemik is by far her prettiest album (leaving aside the ambient debut under the Miss Dinky moniker which was pretty in a v. different way) and certainly her warmest, and I think the cover is really a play on that. Whereas likewise the cover of Black Cabaret makes perfect sense given the music.

I agree that Anemik is her prettiest album, but to me Blackcabaret has a rather smooth and pretty sound too; loads of warm and melodic synth lines there. And still you can see why she chose that pic for that album... Meaning: there are always alternatives, if you do a pretty, warm-sounding album, you don't necessarily have to represent the sound with stereotypical feminine images of warmth and prettiness.

But (in contrast to the effect when men use photos of women in this way) I think it's often expressive of this kind of double-role that female producers can inhabit, and actually works to create a sense of commonality with the audience; that sense that they already dancing beside us.

I sorta agree with this, and it bring to mind one of my favourite electronic album covers of all time:

http://dynamitmusic.ru/uploads/posts/2011-12/1324998750_marusha-raveland.jpg

Even though this is another body-shot of a female artist, it's not a passive image at all... Marusha's pose, expression, the way her body is framed signals agency and self-assuredness, even if she's also lost in the "female" expressiveness of her body. Though, admittedly, the more passive nature of images like the Nina Kraviz album cover can be used to signify a more introspective nature of the music within; I'm not saying you should always view these sort of images critically, I'm just critical of their prevalence when compared to covers of male artists doing similar music.

And, taking into your account your theory, it's interesting to compare the Marusha cover to another similar cover from the same era:

http://www.freakenergy.ru/uploads/posts/2009-11/1257775278_sven_vath_accident_in_paradise_1993_retail_cd.jpg

Sven Väth is moving his body, and he is among the dancers, but he's not one of them; rather, hes a leader, a shaman leading the other (female) bodies to dance.

I think the thrust of this thread is Tuomas wanting to just be all "WS Dinky" but he has to jump through 30 or 40 socio-political hoops to get there

Also, unlike the women around him, he doesn't appear be enjoying his bodily movement at all.

(xpost)

So this Nina Kraviz video on Resident Advisor has ruffled a few feathers. The "bathtub scene" is almost self-parody.

http://www.residentadvisor.net/feature.aspx?1765

loved what lauren martin tweeted about it last night, pretty much says it all

Lauren Martin ‏@codeinedrums 12h
The very fact that people feel compelled to lecture Kraviz in pieces that limply apologise for their own sexist sentiments is AAAGGGHHHH.

Lauren Martin ‏@codeinedrums 12h
Could you imagine, say, a ghettotech DJ being warned from afar about how his "exaggerated masculinity" could be "misconstrued"?

Lauren Martin ‏@codeinedrums 12h
"She's a great DJ & producer & travels all over the world being paid to do so & to acclaim but SHE TOOK A BUBBLE BATH ON CAMERA *EYE ROLL*"

Lauren Martin ‏@codeinedrums 12h
The idea that in being a woman she is sly/manipulative for selfish benefit is bullshit & feeds into a male-centric fear of female sexuality.

Lauren Martin ‏@codeinedrums 12h
"Listen Nina, hen, you seem okay with being attractive, mind toning it down a bit? It makes our dicks tingle and we can't concentrate."

I'm sure there are endless moronic and nasty viewpoints, it is techno afterall, but if this was a guy, this type of video, it would definitely be ripped to pieces too, perhaps not in a way that reflects wider societal sexism but the criticisms would still be highly restrictive about what they can/can't do with their art.

To me the criticism is mostly coming from the side of techno that hates anyone showing identity or doing anything besides releasing XGH0001 followed by XGH0002.

That said, the video itself is pretty 90s and vapid imo, regardless of Nina herself or her music (I've no real opinion on her, no ill will) it's like "omg airports are lonely, the life of a travelling DJ" - it's all really old ground and the kind of thing that I've seen parodied a few times.

Could you imagine, say, a ghettotech DJ being warned from afar about how his "exaggerated masculinity" could be "misconstrued"?

I absolutely could, yes. I'm fairly sure I've read (or made) this kind of criticism about hard techno even minus sexist lyrics.

just hoping the net result is that Seth Troxler stops taking his shirt off

XGH0001 >>>> nina kraviz

To me the criticism is mostly coming from the side of techno that hates anyone showing identity or doing anything besides releasing XGH0001 followed by XGH0002. this X 1000. i've seen this painted as 'sexism vs puritanism' but really it's the old 'no more stars/personalities/names' hangup.

anonymous techno is the best techno

The boiler suited XGH001 type aesthetic is a bit contrived for me - I do actually want to know what things are but ultimately, beyond that i don't really care or pay much attention to cowboy hats or whatever

anonymous techno is the best techno

― the late great, Tuesday, April 9, 2013 10:05 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

anonymous techno is the best techno

doesn't she make house?

the distinction is worth making for once, here

tbh the shot of her back in slow-mo was hotter than the bath one

hmm no one bothered posting how she responded to it all herself then

http://www.factmag.com/2013/04/09/russian-dj-nina-kraviz-addresses-that-bath-scene-after-greg-wilson-and-maceo-plex-have-their-say/

nina otm, obviously

She comes off really well in that post, much better than in the video. Really, all the sex-stuff is sort of a red herring, for me it's mainly about her seeming really dumb and lazy in that video. She complains about how busy she is, but most of the time she is on the beach or in a bath or being driven around somewhere. And it's weird, since obviously she must work a hell of a lot, also between gigs, making music and dealing with the logistics of all the turing. And judging from her written response - and from the fact that she speaks a lot of languages, I think - she is probably really, really smart. It's not really the sex, as it is that the video seems to focus on that to the exclusion of everything else she does.

As a techno fan I was in a sort of tizzy about this last week...

she addresses that in the post, too

the thing with the video is why should anyone care to this extent? it's a PR video, it's not her actual work, it's pure promo, i don't necessarily expect her to come across as anything particular.

doesn't she make house?

― Tioc Norris (LocalGarda), Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:42 AM Bookmark

When I saw her, all she played was super banging minimal (not cap-M Minimal) techno with no buildups or breakdowns or melodies and nothing that sounded remotely like her album. It was all kind of "this must be what techno sounds like to people who hate techno". :(

lex otm

yeah

i figured the sex & glamour angle had to be delivered with an awareness of prevailing genre/gender expectations. like that lingering shot of her crouching down, carefully applying and checking her makeup while someone else works the decks. something almost challenging about it: "yes, this is what i do. why, do you have a problem with it?"

http://www.factmag.com/2013/04/11/bathgate-what-the-nina-kraviz-furore-tells-us-about-sexism-in-dance-music/

That was a bad response. This is especially offtm:

If Nina Kraviz wants to dance during her DJ sets, take bubble baths on camera and discuss her appearance and sexuality in an open and honest way, then no one has the right to look down on her for doing so.

This is just libertarianism. Everyone can do everything, no one has the right to critisize.

eh, it's hardly presenting it as a universal principle. If it had said "If Nina Kraviz wants to dance during her DJ sets, take bubble baths on camera and promote the core principles of fascism, then no one has the right to look down on her for doing so", then okay, but it's about a wholesale dismissal of traditionally feminine traits.

lol frederik b, just no

yours is a terrible fucking response

i have had enough of MEN ON THE INTERNET WHO WILL NOT STFU ABOUT THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO COMMENT ON ISSUES OF PRIVILEGE AND SEXISM today

sit down all of you

just sit the fuck down and learn something

every word of lauren's article = bang on

I had only heard heard music in passing and had never seen a picture of her and now I am interested in checking out more music, so there's something positive coming out of this

that article downplays the fact that nina herself talked about the myth/illusion she purposely creates, djing as performance and all that. also nina approved of wilson's article and linked to it on facebook.

i have had enough of MEN ON THE INTERNET WHO WILL NOT STFU ABOUT THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO COMMENT ON ISSUES OF PRIVILEGE AND SEXISM today

have a look in the mirror.

thanks for linking the factmag piece, lex. good read.

Lol my phone is not allowing me to read any of the text at that most recent FACT link

I am having a hard time phrasing this, and I want to preface it by saying that I have no criticism of Nina Kraviz for doing this or anything else she wants in a video.

I think, however, that we live in a time when sexuality is more on display in media than ever, and yet men are also becoming increasingly aware of (or at least people are trying to make them increasingly aware of) the inapprorpriateness of certain kinds of comments about women, their sexuality, their bodies, etc. So I think a lot of men are confused by, on one hand, seeing videos where the camera lingers sensually on a female artist's body in a way that very obviously contains an element of objectification, and where that video gives the impression that it is exactly how the artist wants to present herself (which is a complicated and not necessarily correct assumption of course), and on the other hand are given the message "you shouldn't focus on women's bodies, you shouldn't comment on women's bodies, etc." Open to anyone pointing out how this post is in itself wrongheaded and oblivious to privilege, etc.

no, that's a very good point. it can be hard to square the idea that the sexual exploitation of women is a problem with the idea that women should be entirely free to present themselves in any manner they wish, even when it comes to what might resemble sexual exploitation. my solution is to simply leave the policing of women's self-presentation to somebody else.

It's only hard if you treat "women" as a monolithic group who all think the same thing.

sure, but my point was that even in trying to be feminist, progressive sorts sometimes get trapped in overly simplistic and proscriptive analyses like "sexualized image of woman = exploitative & sexist". this causes cognitive dissonance when they try to make room for self-determination.

who is "they"

"progressive sorts"

not to appropriate it, but I feel like Tim's thoughts from before are still pretty great (and he mentioned Nina Kraviz, particularly):

Not surprisingly, this practice of female producers using their bodies as a canvas can sometimes lead to these ultra-refined image of image of image of woman depictions - the way that Cassy and Nina Kraviz appear on their album covers it's like it's not even them, but a kind of hyper-abstracted depiction of the feeling-woman that just happens to use their own body (in other senses of course these two photos are very different from one another). But (in contrast to the effect when men use photos of women in this way) I think it's often expressive of this kind of double-role that female producers can inhabit, and actually works to create a sense of commonality with the audience; that sense that they already dancing beside us. This is probably also at least part of the motivation for some of the more mystical/spiritual fetishes that some people have for female producers; the imagined warmth of their work (vis a vis comparable male artists) grounded in the notion that their bodies are intricately connected in with the brain/machine loop of the creative process.

"progressive sorts"

eh, maybe i'm expressing too much sympathy for the enemy in saying i can say why the integration of these ideas gives some people trouble. i dunno, it reminds me of the turmoil that accompanied the shift between second and third wave feminism, but maybe it's just dorks being dorks.

"progressive sorts" "they" "some people"

jesus christ we are discussing this issue. "some people" is _us_

stop trying to weed yourself out of a well-meaning group

uh, i was responding to something hurting said:

so I think a lot of men are confused by, on one hand, seeing videos where the camera lingers sensually on a female artist's body in a way that very obviously contains an element of objectification, and where that video gives the impression that it is exactly how the artist wants to present herself (which is a complicated and not necessarily correct assumption of course), and on the other hand are given the message "you shouldn't focus on women's bodies, you shouldn't comment on women's bodies, etc."

and i thought, "yeah, otm, i suspect that does confuse a lot of people." hell, i've known otherwise generally well-meaning guys complain about the seeming paradox. so i agreed, and elaborated a bit (perhaps clumsily, and if so, i apologize).

tbf there are plenty of things that are not confusing, like "don't talk at work with your co-workers about how hot your female co-worker is" "don't make comments to a woman about her looks in really any setting other than one where it's normal to make an overture to someone for a number/date/whatever, and even there tread carefully," "don't be the president and say in a speech that an Attorney General is "good-looking." These things are or should be no-brainers. What is less clear is when a female artist presents herself in a very sexual way how you're supposed to talk about it and what lines you shouldn't cross. And again, some of these lines are obvious too, like you don't "call a woman out" for the fact that she presents her sexuality in a video, as though that were somehow corrupt. But there's still this attractive woman in front of you making her physical attractiveness a big part of her performance, and it's hard to know how to talk about it, like I feel super hemmy and hawy even writing this.