Friday, September 7, 2012

Split Britches

The image I’ve chosen is called “Split Britches Cabaret.” It is a photograph taken in the early 80s during a performance of Beauty and the Beast by the Split Britches theatre company. The Split Britches theatre company is a lesbian theatre company; accordingly, both people in this photo are women. Peggy Shaw plays Beast (pictured in the white shirt) and Lois Weaver plays Beauty.

I chose this image because it intrigues me on several levels. First, it is not automatically clear that both people in the photo are women (at least it wasn’t to me, at first). As I continued looking at the image and reading about it, however, I realized that it is in fact two women and the gender/sexuality narrative I had instinctively relied upon was questioned. Second, I like this image because it brings up issues of gender performance. Although both Shaw and Weaver are women, their gender performances are markedly different. Weaver’s performance (the woman with the blonde hair) falls more closely in line with societal expectations of the feminine woman while Shaw’s performance subverts these expectations. Third, I like this image because it was taken during the enactment of a child’s story. Children’s narratives such as Beauty and the Beast are considered predictable, perhaps even safe, with their expected character styles and happy endings. Yet, this performance of the story offers unexpected changes and surprises (although, perhaps not unexpected if you are an audience member at a performance by the Split Britches theatre company). Still, it diverges from our cultural norm. This image, therefore, draws from traditions of gender/sexuality and narrative while at the same time questioning these traditions and destabilizing them.

The image raises several questions for me…
1) As Berger tells us, photos cannot lie, but, at the same time, they can only tell partial truths. What partial truths are revealed by this image? Is the truth we see dependent upon our vantage point as viewers? Our previous experiences and history? At the same time, what truths does this image conceal?

2) Would I be as interested in this photo if it were a picture of a man and a woman embracing? In other words, are we drawn to images that show scenes unlike our daily lives because we can stare at images without feeling inappropriate?

3) What is the role of reality in this photo? (Obviously lesbian relationships are part of reality…but the photo here is a posed one taken of two actors during a scene of Beauty and the Beast.)

14 comments:

  1. Christine,

    Wow, this definitely has some interesting implications in regard to vantage points. Like you, upon first seeing the image, I wasn't aware that both individuals were female, and along with the consideration of gender performance, I think my interpretation definitely drew upon previous experiences. Without external knowledge, I find myself realizing that simply due to the body language of the image, I attributed a male role to one and a female role to the other. Thus, I think vantage point and societal expectations would have a pronounced effect on the simple act of seeing a photograph such as this one.

    Your second question is also really interesting, as it brings into play some kind of voyeurism. Interpreted at a glance, it seems like a fairly stereotypical pose. I initially thought it might have been excerpted from an advertisement of some sort, as it displays a commonly depicted kind of romance. Knowing that each of the figures is a female, however, disrupts that stereotypical presentation and lends itself more attention. Yet, without words or a title or something describing this image, what kind of factual reality would this image represent?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Christine,
    I'm wondering about the purpose vs. function debate again in considering this photo. If I wasn't informed by you that both people in the image were female, I would be thinking about totally different things in regards to analyzing this photo. Of course, knowing that both are female changes alot of the questions and implications that arise,but as far as purpose vs. function go, I wonder how the actresses would feel (and the theater company as a whole) if they joined our discussion and we were discussing the photo based on the assumption that one of the actresses was female and one was male. What I mean, is, it would seem that one of the main purposes of a lesbian theater company's work, this play included, would be to cause "gender trouble" as Judith Butler talks about in her book, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. If they are wanting to instigate discussions about gender, gender trouble, gender performance, and/or perhaps provide a critique of our society's constructs of male and female gender roles and relationships, if that is their purpose, then have they been unsuccessful in that purpose if their performance of the roles is so convincing that we totally miss the point? If I went on believing one of these actors was a male and went ahead with a "benign" analysis that had nothing to do with gender, have I missed the point, or, were they actually spot on with their purpose of causing "gender trouble" by performing our society's constructs of gender so well as to make the point that it IS all just about performance and has nothing to do with the biological sex of the person? This kind of thinking makes my brain tired, because I tend to go in circles with it; it would seem to be more ideal that this photo function so that the sex of the participants doesn't matter (at least in Butler's lines of thinking), but, then, it seems that it would have functioned so well so that we (as "uninformed" viewers, not really knowing we were looking at 2 females) would have missed the point altogether, and the gender trouble would have been "for nothing". That is, unless the overall point is to cause so much gender trouble that the questions of gender/sex when looking at performances, photographs,and, most importantly, people, cease to arise altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm glad that you like my photo. There is a lack of photo credit however. It should read photo credit EVA WEISS. also while it is true that the photo was taken in the 80s , it was not for the show BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. it was an aside photo that I did that has later been called THE KISS or BUTCH / FEMME. IT has been my most published photographs. Including the cover of the anthology entitled BUTCH FEMME. There is a great deal of misinformation in this blog. But my main concer is the lack of photo credit. Since it is a post about a particular photograph it seem to me there should be some interest in who shot this.
    Sincerely
    Eva Weiss

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello Christine can you please contact me privately. My email is on my google account.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This photo is by Eva Weiss. Please credit her, and correct the mistakes in your information, as this photo is not from Beauty and the Beast, or any particular show. I know, because I was there. Please respect the photographer's wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This photo is by Eva Weiss..you need to credit her. Also this photo is not from Beauty and the beast or any show.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would suggest you contact Mrs Weiss as soon as you possibly can regarding the use of her image. She truly does have many friends who will simply not stand for this kind of understandable mistake go uncorrected.
    Thank you :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree that you should contact Ms. Weiss and not only give her photo credit but obtain her permission for using the photo on your blog. I am a great admirer of Ms. Weiss's work and should also let you know that I am a witch. Do the right thing!

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is a photo of my dear friends Peggy and Lois taken by my dear friend Eva Weiss. It is a priceless photo and deserves to be given credit.. It also deserves correct representation. It is not from Beauty and the Beast and not from any other play..Respect your source please....and the herstory, yes, herstory behind this photo.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why are you removing the comments from Eva May? I believe that's Eva Weiss, the author of the photo. Just give her credits for her photo, and make the necessary corrections. Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eva Weiss! Not Eva May! sorry. I guess you noticed by now that she has many friends who know that photo, the show and that she's the author of the photo. Just do the right thing!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Seriously negligent unprofessional and RUDE. & years later still no response from you fools

    ReplyDelete