Friday 15th August 2025
Blog Page 658

The Anatomy of Portioning

0

For a population facing serious challenges from weight-related health problems, the issue of portion sizing is particularly important. It is estimated that we overeat by 200-300 calories a day, and part of this is due to the fact that portion sizes are often overestimated.

For anyone who has ever read portion sizing information, it is obvious that the lack of clarity present in packaging is problematic. From im- perial measurements to multi-portion packets, it is hard, especially in such a fast-paced society, to ensure that we are not over-eating.

Recently, the BBC released an instructive video based on the new guidelines from the British Nutrition Foundation which aims to tackle the problems associated with portion sizing. The video shows how to use your hands to perfectly portion out a meal, with measure- ments such as two cupped hands for green vegetables, and half a thumb for a portion of peanut butter.

This instructional guide is an easy and accessible method for people to work out how much they should be eating, and is an important step in helping people to take control of their diet in a time when nutrition in the UK is so poor. Instead of necessitating the use of scales or measuring cups for foods, the use of the hand system makes it much easier to work out what exactly is an appropriate amount of each food group.

Nations such as the US, plagued too by their own health issues, already have far clearer packaging. Information on packets of sweets, for example, will specify exactly how many make up a portion, and some companies in the UK have started to adopt these guidelines.

However, more needs to be done and food producers need to take responsibility for problems which their portion recommendations are creating. The new nutrition guidance offered this week is useful for helping people to take control of their portion sizing; nevertheless, it is not solely the responsibility of people to ensure that they, and anyone else they are cooking for, are eating appropriately every meal. The availability of pre-packaged meals also reduces the ability of the population to control their portion sizes all the time. Instead, responsibility is passed over to the companies that produce them.

Portion control advice can only go so far in helping to tackle the current health crisis, and more can be done to ensure that people have options which allow for healthy choices. Socioeconomic factors also play a significant role in dietary options, and this is a factor that needs to be considered and tackled on a larger scale and over a longer period of time.

That said, raising awareness may be most important, and if guides such as the BBC’s are released more frequently, people will be guided towards healthier choices in an accessible way.

Review: Frog’s Legs – ‘light-hearted façade with a dark core’

0

As the great Oscar Wilde once said: “My own business always bores me to death; I prefer other people’s”.  This nosey sentiment pretty much sums up Frog’s Legs, in which drink buddies, Martin and Duncan, take it upon themselves to ruin the life of the local pub owner, Franc. All because they suspect his wife is French. Thrice they try, thrice they fail. Their only ‘success’ is in enabling him to live lavishly in the Ritz for the rest of his life.

“It is quite unlike anything else you’ve seen in Oxford”, says Hugh Shepherd-Cross (Teddy Hall), the writer and director of the play, who aimed to “tread the fine line between offensiveness and good taste”. Offensiveness there is no shortage of: the eyebrow raising amount of ‘cocaine’ (substituted with icing sugar) snorted on stage is certainly not for the faint-hearted. As for good taste, well, the fact that tickets were sold out a week in advance is perhaps the best evidence of its good artistic sensibilities.

With his glassy grin and lovable mannerisms, Sam Scruton (St John’s) proves to be a real comic presence on stage. His portrayal of Martin strikes the right balance of chumminess and idiocy, making even the absurdities of his circumstances believable for, and relatable to, the audience. While we know that his swift demise will come in the form of a wood chipper at the hands of an angry loan shark, the character himself never achieves that anagnorisis. He lives out his life with a simple joie de vivre, and who is to say that it isn’t a noble life to lead?

Rory Wilson (New College) was equally fine as Duncan, Martin’s partner in crime. Mercurial, lurid and surprisingly erudite regarding Oscar Wilde’s sayings, he remains by Martin’s side no matter how dire their situation is. A particularly moving scene finds the duo penniless and homeless on the street: cuddling together for warmth, Duncan still jests at Martin as usual only, unbeknownst to him, it is in fact their final moments together. This, in my humble opinion, is what true friendship looks like: not to part with gaudy praises in times of glory, but to remain true to each other till the end.

Franc, portrayed by Nathan Brown (Teddy Hall), the hapless pub owner, also impresses in his unique way. With astonishing gullibility, he manages to fund his cocaine habit, receive a life-long membership at the Ritz, win a major cooking competition, and buy Blenheim Palace! His innocence conveys a certain adorable quality, such that he almost resembles a walking teddy bear on stage. Furthermore, the rendition of his original music added a lyrical touch to an otherwise very cleverly written play.

There are only a few gripes with the play, which can be mentioned briefly: looking past its light-hearted façade, the core narrative occasionally ventures into territory perhaps too dark and sinister. Not only does Franc’s wife suffer a horrible death by lorry, but the all-male cast are also alcoholic and drug-stricken does the production glorify a certain public school type bravado in young men? Or, perhaps, the political should have no place in the theatrical: in this age of heated debate and divisive opinions, a jovial yet dark play like this may be becoming something of a rarity.

The Pitchfork Disney Preview – ‘a play of delight and disgust’

0

The Pitchfork Disney: the name itself betrays something of the twisting dreamscape fairytale Philip Ridley’s 1991 play offers up for our delight – and equal disgust.

As Presley, Alex Fleming-Brown’s face shifts constantly between sweet charm and threatening, even malicious glee, twisting in and out through his maze-like monologues much like the snake-filled narratives he describes. In fact, all the actors carry their dialogue brilliantly. It is easy to get lost in the twists and turns of the many narrative monologues which seem to tumble inevitably out of these volatile characters, but they manage their audience expertly in their switches between emotion and horror, edging into humour and then back again just as quickly. We lose ourselves in each character’s troubled imagination – Lou Lou Curry’s Hayley raising the emotional stakes in the first scene I saw, with both twins alerting us to the psychological discomfort just on the edge of the explosive, surreal imagery.

This all unravels within a disconcerting contrast of threatening monologues and a sickly-sweet set design, dominated by the shiny foil of empty chocolate wrappers, while the chocolate itself drips and churns in an unceasing projection behind the actors, masterminded by filmmaker Immy Done. Designer and assistant director Felix Morrison explains: “We went for a minimal set, interspersed with pieces of colour. We wanted to create a decaying run-down environment which also has elements which externalise the childlike magical nature of the twins’ psyche. The tinsel curtain and the projected window act as portals, from which the ghost-like characters such as Cosmo appear.”

This is a play situated constantly on the brink of imagination and reality, which revels in the discomfort when one inevitably forces its way into the other. The actors push up into one another’s’ faces and then slide away again, and indeed it seems we are never not either recovering from a moment of dramatic climax, or building steadily and ominously toward the next. We feel the shock when Alasdair Linn’s Cosmo’s commanding bombast suddenly concentrates into tight, raw, devilish reality as he approaches the audience. These actors have to work hard, constantly working up the fervour and emotional complexity these moments demand and controlling the uncertain come-downs.

Something Ridley himself has emphasised is this play’s ability to “mean something different” with each new production, and in the current political climate it would certainly be easy to hash out a trite warning from its ominous imagery. “We actually decided to move away from some specific contemporary angle,” comments director Bertie Harrison-Broninski, however: “it felt a bit superficial to just make it about Brexit or something, it doesn’t accommodate the diverse themes of the play. So we made a play where it is very difficult to pin down any specific identity; it’s detached and lost, like the children.”

‘Ancient children with chocolate, ancient children with no vocation.’ So Cosmo taunts a terrified and enthralled Presley, but his recurring engagement with his audience makes it almost impossible not to feel that somehow he is taunting us too. Two scenes are perhaps not quite enough, in such a twisting, testing, and truly surreal play, to see for sure what the focal point is around which this dreamscape drama spins. Nevertheless, this careful handling of an incredibly demanding play promises to be a thrilling and exciting piece of theatre. Not to be missed.

Confusion and internal division: Why Brexit won’t feature in today’s three-party debate

2

Students may be surprised to see Brexit overlooked at today’s Three-Party Debate, hosted by the Oxford Forum.

The debate will allow each student political part to debate the other two individually, and will focus on the current government, inheritance tax, and the fate of the Liberal Democrats. 

Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) vetoed Brexit-related motions proposed by Oxford University Liberal Democrats (OULD) including “This House believes a People’s Vote is preferable to any Brexit Labour could offer” and “This House believes a general election is a better resolution to Brexit than a People’s Vote”. 

OULC told Cherwell they submitted a counter-proposal “THB that Brexit is the most pressing issue facing this country” which OULD rejected, however OULD deny the claims they had vetoed the motion.

The Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) were also reluctant to debate Brexit, believing that students are “just very bored with talking about it”.

President of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats, Damayanti Chatterjee, expressed her disappointment that there would not be debate on the “biggest issue in British politics since the Second World War”. 

Chatterjee told Cherwell: “My committee and I were in strong agreement that the best debate topic for our debate with OULC would be a motion on Brexit and a People’s Vote. 

“However, I was informed that OULC would not debate any motion about a People’s Vote and then told by OULC Co-Chairs that the society would not debate a motion on Brexit at all. We are disappointed that OULC will not take a stance or defend their party policy and are concerned that they have cited any debate of Brexit between us as unfair. 

“The Liberal Democrat and Labour policy on Brexit differ just as significantly as the Liberal Democrat and Conservative policy on Brexit, with the former supporting a second referendum wholeheartedly and the latter arguing to rule out no deal and for an incrementally closer union with Europe than May’s deal, delivered through a general election if Labour wins a majority in it.

“We still welcome the chance to debate with them at the Three Party Debate and will gladly take their suggestion of an allegedly fairer motion “This House Believes the Liberal Democrats are irrelevant” as an opportunity to do just that and as a better alternative to having no debate at all.” 

Speaking to Cherwell Winter said: “It is not the case that OULC were reluctant to debate Brexit and although we rejected some Brexit based motions, we also proposed Brexit-related motions which were rejected by the other parties.

“The reason a motion on Brexit could not be agreed is that OUCA were reluctant to debate Brexit on the basis that they did not think students were interested in the topic. We offered a motion on ruling out a no-deal Brexit which OUCA rejected, and related motions on immigration which OUCA also rejected.

“The motions suggested by OULD, relating to Brexit, were not practical for this debate. They included a motion on the People’s Vote, a policy which is part of Labour’s current plan and supported by many OULC members, which it would not be appropriate to take a collective stance against as a club.” 

“All in all, the event has been poorly organised, with parties expected to agree motions amongst themselves at the last moment, with little input from the Oxford Forum.”

Speaking to Cherwell Tristan Wang said“There has been a reluctance on the part of the OULC on certain proposed motions relating to Brexit.
“As I understand it, the reason is because there is disagreement within Labour on the topic of Brexit.
“However, I am unable to understand how it can be claimed that discussion on Brexit was avoided. Anyone with reasonable knowledge of current affairs would know that it would be difficult to debate confidence in the government (OULC vs OUCA: “TH has no confidence in the Government”) or the relevance in the Liberal Democrats (OULC vs OULD: “THB that the Liberal Democrats are irrelevant”) without addressing Brexit. Those who attended the event can vouch that Brexit and the EU featured extensively in argument.”

Winter also alleged that the two other parties had rejected topics including fracking, tax, and education. 

President of OUCA, James Beaumont told Cherwell: “While we were reluctant for a debate on fracking or the public sector pay gap, largely due to internal division on the issues, that is not the case for immigration. We discussed several wordings with OULC, but could not agree on an exact wording for the motion.

“We also proposed several others, including a broad debate about capitalism, and another about welfare reform, which were rejected. I believe that we have now agreed on ‘This House has no confidence in the Government’, which will of course cover many of the topics mentioned above.”

Right-wing dark money comes to Oxford student politics

8

A reactionary American group with millions of dollars from undisclosed donors is branching out to the UK. Cherwell can reveal it claims to already have chapters at eight universities including Oxford.

Turning Point USA aims to shift student politics to the right; its tactics have included intimidating academics and covertly funnelling thousands of dollars into student political campaigns.

The chairman of Turning Point UK, former Oxford student and Bullingdon Club member George Farmer, told Cherwell that the group’s main objective would be to “reverse the direction of travel in a lot of these universities, where left-wing academics are broadly filling young minds with cultural Marxism.”

Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory popular with the radical right, which states that multiculturalism, feminism and LGBTQ+ rights are part of a conspiracy by Marxist intellectuals that aims to undermine Western society.

Turning Point UK employs several paid full-time staff and is currently soliciting donations. Farmer refused to elaborate on the identity of donors and told Cherwell that they would remain anonymous for the foreseeable future.

Farmer, son of former Conservative party treasurer Lord Farmer, is a former social secretary of the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA). In 2012, OUCA was forced to disaffiliate from the University after it was revealed that Farmer and the club’s treasurer had failed to pay a £1,200 restaurant bill.

Turning Point UK plans to officially launch with a series of controversy-generating debates at the universities of London (10th March), Cambridge (11th March), Sheffield (12th March) and Sussex (13th March).

Farmer told Cherwell that the group currently has chapters at the universities of Sussex, Oxford, St Andrews, York, Warwick and Nottingham as well as King’s College London, University College London, the London School of Economics and University of the Arts London.

The group was launched last month by Turning Point USA leaders Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens at the Royal Automobile Club, a prestigious London private members’ club.

The launch event was attended by a number of figures from high society as well as right-wing pro-Brexit figures. Andy Wigmore, who ran the Leave.EU campaign alongside Nigel Farage and Arron Banks, attended the launch event, as well as Steven Edginton, chief digital strategist for Leave Means Leave and digital campaign manager for the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

Also present at the launch was alt-right social media personality Paul Joseph Watson, editor-at-large of conspiracy website InfoWars, whose anti-Islam writing was cited by prosecutors as an inspiration for the Finsbury Park Mosque attack.

Breitbart London editor James Dellingpole was also in attendance, along with pick-up artist and anti-feminist Peter Lloyd. Oxford student Daniel Mcilhiney, who studies theology at Wycliffe Hall, was present but declined to confirm his role in the organisation.

Farmer told Cherwell: “You can see [cultural Marxism] in institutions across the United Kingdom. There’s a whole variety of institutions which are being filled with left-wing academics, with left-wing thinkers who basically are telling people the only way they can think is along the lines of the left.”

Turning Point UK’s emphasis on combatting what it sees as left-wing propaganda in universities echoes the focus of its parent organisation. Turning Point USA has attracted notoriety for its website Professor Watchlist, which carries profiles of left-wing academics. Professor Watchlist accuses those on its website of attempting to “advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”

A number of professors have received death threats after being listed on the website, but Turning Point USA denied any responsibility. Founder Charlie Kirk has said of the threats: “We do not call for any of that sort of harassment. We don’t condone it, we don’t try to facilitate any sort of cyberbullying or harassment, and just because you put up the words, or another article that’s been written about a professor in an aggregated format, does not mean we should be held responsible for what other people do.”

When asked whether the UK organisation would attempt to create its own Professor Watchlist, Farmer said: “That’s not really been on my agenda yet. It might well be down the line but not at the moment, no.”

Turning Point USA attracted fresh controversy in 2017 when it was revealed to be covertly funnelling thousands of dollars into the student election campaigns of conservative candidates. A leaked phone call recorded TPUSA’s Heartland Regional Director saying: “A huge part of what Turning Point does — that’s really important to donors — is student government races.”

Turning Point UK was also asked whether it would be involved in funding student union election campaigns, Farmer laughed and told Cherwell: “I don’t think we have the money to do that, so that would be a no.”

Parent organisation Turning Point USA claims to have raised $5 million in 2016. Major donors include the Lyne and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation, who also fund anti-Muslim hate groups such as the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the Middle East Forum.

Raf Simons: short-lived brilliance

0

In recent years, Raf Simons has shown both his versatility and transience.

It was announced in December 2018 that Calvin Klein and Simons were ‘amicably parting ways,’ after almost two years working with the brand as Chief Creative Officer.

The Belgian designer had another successful but short-lived career as creative director at Dior between 2012-2015. The iconic 2014 documentary Dior & I follows his process during his first collections as the creative director. Yet his parting from the LVMH family was somewhat more amicable than what has occurred at Calvin Klein, with Simons offering no further comment upon leaving the brand.

His appointment at Calvin Klein brought much excitement as Simons’ European influences entered the classic American brand. His first collection seamlessly mixed chic, tailored blazers with bold colours for a smart-casual American vitality. He captures the essence of the brands he works with, whilst updating the collections to suit modern trends. Overall, Simons was remarkably successful with the brand – dressing Saoirse Ronan at the Academy Awards, winning three CFDA Fashion awards and bringing new energy to the New York Fashion Week. Yet PVH, the company that owns Calvin Klein, showed disappointment in the current sales.

Working with both Dior and CK and Jil Sander before that, as well as releasing his own label, are indicators of Simons being a kind of ‘chameleon designer.’ He easily utilises a variety aesthetics and visions – but such a repertoire eventually begs the question, why so many fashion divorces?

His predecessor at Dior, John Galliano, was creative director for 14 years, devouring Simons’ three-year span with the company. Now with this departure from Calvin Klein in under two years, one has to wonder if there are more creative differences than meets the eye. With creative successes at both brands, and some saying he’s even reinvented the tired classics, why such short-term love affairs?

There is, of course, huge amount of pressure on new creative directors and chief designers on where they intend on taking the brand. With many fashion houses no longer being run by their original creators: take Valentino’s retirement in 2008 and Yves Saint Laurent’s death that same year for instance, budding designers take on a huge amount of responsibility. They are expected to uphold the brands classic themes and quality, the same levels of popularity and genius without copying previous work and making their own mark on the brand, and answering to the die-hard fans of the brand and their executive employers. The pressure must be enormous.

Simons’ journey into fashion was a slow one, his interests in techno music and furniture design holding precedence in his early 20s. In an interview with Jan Kedves, Simons commented: “The whole idea of the individual performing towards his own image and performing towards other people. I find this question eternally fascinating: how will another person perceive me and how do I want to perform towards another person?”

Perhaps, Simons is keen to test a variety of brands and therefore a variety of images, proving his capability in each new challenge. He’s certainly up for it, but maybe not for very long…

 

Create and destroy

0

What do we think when a child destroys the block tower they have just created? Does this opinion change when the creation is someone else’s? What if – instead – the tower was a 2000-year-old vas? Would we call this art? The boundary at which our negative connotations of destruction turn into admiration of conceptual art is being pushed and toyed by artists such as Banksy, Rauschenberg and Weiwei.

Banksy self-destructed his piece, Girl With Balloon, posting the video under the caption “the urge to destroy is also a creative urge’. Art becomes performative when pushed into this destructive dimension; it no longer remains just a picture, but instead transforms into an event. The piece is no longer able to be seen in the flesh by the private bidder or gallery visitors, but is now only accessible through the video of the event – just like any social media post – everyone sees it in the same way. There are no special privileges or excludable access. This relates to the whole purpose of Banksy’s work the accessibility of art, whether it be on the street or online. At one auction for Banksy work, just as soon as the million-dollar bid was secured, the painting itself plunged through the bottom of the frame, being shredded to pieces in the process. To be bought at such prices and celebrated by art critics is the dream of many, yet Banksy robs the elite of claiming ownership to his art. Instead his work becomes a performance, it becomes the shock on the faces of the bidders and the rumours circulating over how someone could do such a thing to their own creation.

In the case of Rauschenberg, the erasure of the drawing by the celebrated artist de Kooning antagonises the viewer. In Erased de Kooning, we are left with a blank page with faint traces of what once was. The detail which we normally use for formal analysis has been stripped from the viewer. Yet when faced with these faint outlines, we are forced to consider what had been – not what could’ve been – in effect a reversal of the creative process that the artist faced. But plunged into this process we are forced to analyse what isn’t there. The urge to destroy isn’t just a creative urge on the part of the artist, but also for the viewer, who is placed in the artist’s shoes and becomes a part of the process. Unlike Banksy, this work hasn’t been completely destroyed – the blank page is left as an indication that this work isn’t just destruction but devotion to the wider creative process.

Banksy self-destructed, and Rauschenberg destroyed the work of a fellow artist, but what about the destruction of a 2000-year-old culturally significant antique? When Leo Steinberg asked Rauschenberg whether he would erase a Rembrandt painting, Rauschenberg replied no. This was interpreted by Steinberg as due to the fact that to do so would be to vandalise the creation by one of the greatest – instead of destroying the work of a living artist who consented to the process. Yet Ai Weiwei took a different stance in his Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn (1995). After having paid several thousand dollars for the ceremonial urn, from a period often considered as quintessential in Chinese history, Weiwei made a three-part photo series documenting him dropping the urn. Whereas with Rauschenberg and Banksy people were simply shocked, in this case people were genuinely offended and outraged at the destruction of a cultural heirloom. However, instead of being simply a reckless act, this destruction reflected the cultural revolution within China under Chairman Mao where the Four Olds (si jiu) – customs, culture, ideas, habits – were instructed to be destroyed. Instead of destruction being merely a creative urge, it was necessary in which to build a new creation. As the artist himself states “Chairman Mao used to tell us that we can only build a new world if we destroy the old one”. This piece leads us to question how we attach significance and value to inanimate objects and ultimately question the meaning of value itself.

Through examining these artists, we see that destruction is in fact a creative urge, changing art from a picture to an event and toying’s with the viewer’s imagination in ground-breaking ways. By destroying the picture, we no longer need to see the art work in order to analyse it, instead it is in our minds and stays with us to be accessible anytime we wish.

The Human Impulse

0

The earliest expression of human art can be traced back to cave painting such as those discovered in the Spanish Monte Castillo cave complex dating back to over 65,000 years ago. The mysterious painting depicts a series of red lines organized into a geometric pattern. A crimson animal-like figure features with an unnatural amount of legs and a fainted red humanoid to the right of him. Studies into our initial ventures into art as a species are widespread alongside what it really means to create art. Are we driven by biological or social imperatives in this urge to create?

Taking the perspective of evolutionary anthropology, a pattern of art as a mechanism of social cohesion becomes apparent. In the case of hunter gatherer communities this was especially the case as survival depended even more heavily on group social bonding. Art thus became a powerful tool to create and shape values, ideas, and cultural identity. Take, for example, an earlier piece of art like the Lascaux cave paintings from over 19,000 years ago. This impressive cave art illustrates with fluid lines a series of animals running along the walls of the cave. The vividness and richness of this scenes might suggest that this drawing had a highly symbolic value. One could imagine that these cave paintings served as a sort of gathering point in which a community of early humans listened to stories of their ancestors, shared common mythologies, and perhaps even participated in adding drawings of their own to the cave wall. In this way, these cave paintings as noted reinforced a necessary shared identity. A more modern example of this social bonding effect of art can be found in national monuments like Michelangelo’s David. The sculpture reminded the Florentines that they shared the common biblical story of David and since it. was placed in the governing centre of Florence it also served as a fantastic manifestation of Florentine power – united under the aegis of their city state. Thus David, similar to the Lascaux cave paintings, can be said to have had a similar functional purpose to unite their population. In other words, whether it be the hunter-gatherers of stone age Lascaux or the 16th century Florentines, works of art and the urge to maintain and create them could have arisen out of the desire to unite humans under common systems of belief or tradition.

Yet while the explanation thus far reveals perhaps a conscious reason behind our urge to create art, there are also reason hidden inside the brain itself – the thing that drives us to create in the first place. Neuroscience posits that there are two main brain systems (“neural networks”) that are triggered whenever we engage in creativity. The first system is known as the default network (the area that is active whenever we zone out) in charge of consolidating memories, creating fantasies, and imagination among others. The other brain region is known as the attention network (the area of the brain that allows us to focus) interestingly however, these two areas do not activate simultaneously, expect in creative endeavours. This peculiarity could explain why artists are urged into making art. The urge to create art stems from an affinity towards entering fantasy-like states in which individuals twist, bend, or exaggerate reality. However, rather than forget their daydream, artists take the next step to record these experiences into their work. This mechanisms behind the urge to create, while strange, is seen frequently. For example, in the dreamlike landscape of De Chirico or Dali that often depict a hyper and bizarre version of reality. These painters are characterized by their ability to create strange and imaginative works, but also to record them with profound precision and accuracy on their canvases. Even on a subtler level, an artist’s interpretation and recreation of the world around them illustrates this process. These explanations ultimately offer intriguing explanations behind why we are gifted with the urge to make art.

Sexualisation in music: liberation or objectification?

0

Many have argued that it is the nature of music, as a form of artistic expression, to be related to human emotions and sexualities. Art and creative expression have always made up our social and sensitive nature, from telling stories, to performing primal dances, to painting scenes of human experience on cave walls. Pablo Picasso claimed that ‘sex and art are the same thing’ while Sigmund Freud’s Sublimation theory suggested that ‘true’ artists made artwork out of an excess of sexual energy.

Charles Darwin highlighted the link between music and sex, arguing in The Descent of Man, that ‘musical notes and rhythm were first acquired by the male and female progenitors of mankind for the sake of charming the opposite sex’. Along the same lines as the male peacock’s colourful feather tail, the male songbird develops a large repertoire of (technically useless but attention-catching) songs in order to best attract a mate.

Interestingly, Benjamin D. Charlton released a study in 2014 with evidence which suggested that women’s sexual preferences for composers changed during their menstrual cycle, depending on the complexity of the music; when the women were at their most fertile, they were attracted to the composers of more complex music.

Historically, music has not always been explicitly sexual, in fact most Western music in the Middle Ages was practiced by monks. However, as a natural part of being human, it can and very often is, especially in modern times, associated with sex and sexuality. Brian McNair’s essay ‘Striptease Culture’ highlights the paradox between the intimate and private nature of sex and how it has increasingly become part of the public domain, and this is largely due to mass and social medias, such as music videos.

At the same time, music alongside other mediums such as film and visual art have huge cultural and psychological effects on society. Elizabeth Wollman illuminates that in the 1970s, adult musicals portrayed the “country’s rapidly changing, often contradictory, attitudes about gender and sexuality at a time when the sexual revolution had given way to the gay and women’s liberation movements”. Music and performance are a space where gender and sexuality have been debated. As such it is important that the music industry is constantly aware of how they present sexuality, especially since music videos are so accessible to those who are young and easily influenced.

In 2011, Jennifer Stevens Aubrey and Cynthia M. Frisby published a study analysing sexual objectification in music videos, which they defined as the process of valuing a body, or body parts, primarily for its use and consumption by others. Looking at 147 music videos, they found that female artists revealed significantly more body parts on average and played primarily decorative (rather than instrumental, or useful) roles.

Laura Mulvey’s 1975 concept of the ‘gazer’ and the ‘gazed’ is important here as it shifts the power dynamics of the sexual situation. In music videos, as in TV and film, the viewer is in the position of ‘gazer’ while those performing are being ‘gazed’ at, but within the videos, characters can take on these ‘gazer’ and ‘gazed’ roles as well.

While Aubrey and Frisby proved there was no significant difference in the amount of times male and female singers were subjected to the gaze, they did reveal that men were much more likely to be the perpetrator of it than females. This means that men generally take on more voyeuristic roles where women take on more performative ones.

The study went on to discuss the negative implications of female over-sexualisation, including self-sexualisation which can lead to lower body confidence and even mental illness such as depression and eating disorders.

Music videos generally tend to sexually objectify women more explicitly and to depict them as objects to be consumed. When female artists, however, decide to sexualize themselves they have more autonomy over their role as the ‘gazed’ or the ‘gazer’. While sexual objectification can be harmful whether it be orchestrated by men or women, when a woman is performing, and is in the ‘instrumental’ role, explicitly controlling her own sexual image, it sends a more positive image to young girls than the sight of women as adding to a purely male hareem or ‘collection’.

Take the two most watched music videos on YouTube by a male artist and a female artist respectively. Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee’s Despacito comes first with over 5 billion views and features two men explicitly watching and appreciating the body of one woman in particular. She is objectified most directly by the cinematic division of her body into parts with the camera focusing at intervals on her legs, bum and chest, next to the men who mainly have their faces videoed.

Taylor Swift’s Shake It Off is the ninth most viewed and while it does feature sexual dancing and objectification, it incorporates more varied forms of performance and more often displays women dancing alongside men on the same level.

Sexuality is inextricably linked to music and performance, especially in our consumeristic and commercial society. With the ever-increasing sexualisation of these mass forms of media, it becomes imperative that we pay attention to the way all genders are portrayed and call out when the power dynamic is unbalanced and could fuel the fire, or be even more damaging, to cultural and social perceptions of gender roles. As a dynamic and evolving art-form, music has the great opportunity to spark debates about sexuality, relationships and gender dynamics; while sexuality in mainstream music is presently one-sided, it is not the sexual nature of music that is damaging but the way this is often manipulated and made to reinforce male-female stereotypes.

 

 

Why do we write?

0

As I sit down to write this article, I am struck by the realisation that I have never properly examined my own motivations behind wanting to write – why, in the face of reading lists, deadlines and various other commitments I have volunteered to write 1000 words on a subject that is unrelated to my degree. Usually in this sort of situation – that is, where I am unsure of my own thoughts on a subject – I tend to just start writing and trust that the writing process will reveal them to me.  If I am lucky, my thoughts will organise themselves into some semblance of order that will convey an element of insight or understanding.

I believe that this is true of writing in general. At the outset, we do not know exactly what the finished product will look like. We may have some idea of what we want to say – the more practical among us may have sketched out a structure, the main points and the central argument – but we don’t know what nuances we may discover, the links we might make, and how the thread of the argument will wind its way through the prose.  In that sense, a piece of writing is a route to understanding.

This applies to fiction, too. Often novelists will claim that their characters took on a life of their own, and that they just had to follow them through the pages to find out what happens in the book. Obviously, the novelist is aware that the character comes from her own imagination, but this implies that writing is a process of discovery – whether it is how a story will unfold, what we think about something, or how we feel at a particular moment in time.

As such, it is easy to see why an individual can personally benefit from the process of writing. Much of our writing, however, is not kept to ourselves – it is released into the world, to be read by others. Despite the technological ease with which we can converse remotely using dialogue and images, writing remains a key method of communication between individuals. Even though letters are no longer the only means of communication between separated lovers, friends or family, card shops are still a booming business; somehow our sentiments are made more meaningful in written form.

Writing is also a powerful way of conveying a message to a wider audience.  People have always been moved to write on issues that they feel passionately about. The adage ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’ has persisted due to its empirical truth, and has been used to great effect by writers over time, from the New Testament to contemporary writers such as Margaret Atwood, whose dystopian fiction has made an important contribution to the feminist movement, showing us that (in her own words) “a word after a word after a word is power.

George Orwell once claimed that “no book is genuinely free from political bias”, citing a “desire to push the world in a certain direction” in every person. Writing has always responded to what is happening in the world. It can initiate discussion, create solidarity and provoke social movements. We have never been more interconnected and aware of the problems facing humanity.  The current political, social and environmental climate has instilled in us a sense of urgency that change needs to be made. With the advent of blogging and social media, many people have taken to writing as a means of joining the conversation.

In that sense, writing can imbue the writer with a sense of purpose. We find it hard to accept the idea that our lives are largely dictated by chance, luck (or lack of), and a variety of externalities. Philosophers throughout the ages have used writing to give meaning to our existence, from Aristotle to Alain de Botton.  This is of particular importance in today’s increasingly secular society, where we can no longer rely on religion to give our lives significance. Large cities remove the sense of community that we once took for granted, and our jobs often do not give us an outlet to express a personal identity. The memoir is probably the most obvious contemporary example of the human need to impose a sense of narrative on our lives, though this practice has existed in one form or another for thousands of years.

We also have a tendency to apply this self-deceptive rationalization to current events, even those that seem to defy sense or logic. Journalists are quick to provide an analysis of the causes, contributing factors and the lessons that can be learnt. By participating in this process, we both seek to understand and to protect our pre-conceived notions of humanity. Writing gives us back some power; we have total control of the words that we write onto the page, and how we shape our thoughts.

Words can also provide a refuge. Fiction writing in particular allows us to enter a world of our own making, where we have control over the outcomes. It is no coincidence that the fantasy genre increases in popularity in times of economic and political struggle.

After the gloom of the previous paragraphs, it seems appropriate to mention one of the most important reasons we write: for the joy of it. I am writing this article because I love the process of getting words onto a page, and the way it allows me to delve into topics that I am interested in. And I am not alone: many people dream of writing a novel or having a career as a writer. It is certainly not for money – writers are notably poorly paid – so it must be providing some other sense of fulfilment.

Writing is as important now as it has ever been. While forms and styles of writing have evolved over the centuries, they all stem from a human desire to express our feelings, seek understanding, and give meaning to our lives. We are driven to write about the same subjects that we have always have – love and hate, life and death, good and evil and everything in between, from the macro to the minutiae, the serious to the trivial. We write for ourselves, for the reader, and for wider society.  And I think that’s probably a good enough reason to write an article for Cherwell.