Spring Issue, 2022
1
The Journal of Matters Relating to Felines is a society producing a magazine, affiliated with the University of Aberdeen. It is composed by students from different degrees, with diverse interests and opinions. Cats are the ribbon tying it all together. It features written pieces of various genres. From professional articles to short stories, our writers have the freedom to express themselves through any shape or form
Table of Content
Page 1- Introductory Page
Pages 2-4- Signatory Paw Prints by Deborah Lazreug: Can there be an Art History without names?
Page 5-6- Women, Power and Fantasy –a feminist examination of power in fantasy genre by Fi Hennicken: From witches and their black cats to shapeshifting leopard-women, this article is an exploration of the relationship between power and gender, particularly in fantasy stories.
Page 7-9- The Spectacle of War by Luke Litvinov: An investigation of spectacle, what it appeals to, how it is used and abused.
Pages 9-10- Made it by Rosie Guy: A poem about growing up, independence and, of course, cats.
Pages 11-13– From Kittens to Cats by Chloe Cuadrado: A collection of poem that follows the story of M. and C. and the evolution of their relationship.
Pages 14-15– Whiskers Mightier than the Tail by Cecile Fardoux: An article demonstrating the differences between the ‘male gaze’ and the ‘female gaze’ and their uses in cinema.
Page 16-17- IMAGO by Deborah Lazreug: The Latin word for ‘image’, a recurrent column analysing paintings, photographs, sculptures or movie stills depicting cats. In Latin, the word ‘imago’ was used for anything frozen in representation, from artistic representations to ghost and memories of one’s head. For the Spring Issue, I chose to talk about TV series BoJack Horseman, in which a cat is fearless agent to a difficult actor. In another part, we are looking at a cat knocking over a houseplant, as depicted on a beautiful Japanese print.
Page 18- Conclusion
Signatory Paw Prints
2
Cats have been continuously represented in Art, from Antiquity onwards, as our recurrent piece IMAGO tries to reveal. There are various ways to approach History, just like there are many different ways to tell one story. Surely a mere focus on the representation of cats in art would provide a guiding thread to go through the entirety of Art History – but can the history of Art be told without names? This question bears the issue of authorship. Sometimes, the absence of name is as revealing as a name itself. In Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Holly Golightly, played by Audrey Hepburn, does not give a name to her pet cat, she refers to it as ‘Cat’. ‘However, Cat is more than charming set décor; he's an externalization of Holly's unrooted identity, a no-name slob she took up with by the river.’ (Laura Ivins). In The Death of the Author, Roland Barthes states the simple truth that once a text is published, its author dies, loses control and the reader is born, powerful in interpretation. For Barthes, the death of the author is justified: to the psychological, producing and explaining author, Barthes substitutes the language. There is no author with a life and experience of their own but a neutral scripter: the author’s person, being, is not speaking but language is, and language ‘knows a subject, not a person’ – in the act of writing, the being abandons themselves to writing to the creative language. ‘To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing’; subsequently, the death of the author frees the text, allows the search for endless meanings. What would be, in the field of art, the equivalent to language? The definition of language being ‘a system of signs, enabling expression or communication’: what are the signs in an artwork? The only possible answer seems to be form. Formalism is the critical approach for which the most important aspect of an artwork lies in its form, rather than in its narrative content or relationship to the visible world. Regarding painting, a formalist critic would exclusively stress the significance of the formal properties created through colour, brushwork, shape, line and composition. Therefore, a formalist view on art history would allow the death of the artist. In fact, the very first time art history was approached as a distinct discipline, the modern art history that we know, it was through the formalist lens, without names. Indeed, in the 18th century, Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s History of Ancient Art was the first book ever published to present art history as an independent subject and broke with the tradition of biographies of artists – true tribute to names established with Giorgio Vasari’s Lives c.1550. Heinrich Wolfflin, who continued Winckelmann’s ideas, said in a lecture at the University of Munich, 1927: ‘To Winckelmann (…) art history is not a mere succession of biographies of artists, not history of artists that is, but art history in the proper sense of the word, as an organically-growing entity’. Winckelmann chose to focus strictly on form in order to see a clear evolution of style – this evolution being the dynamic of art history. For instance, his field of study being ancient art, Winckelmann detailed four stylistic stages in Greek Sculpture: the straight and hard, the grand and angular, the beautiful and flowing and the style of imitators. By observing and describing objects with formalist characteristics, Winckelmann identifies styles. He applies to art the method of natural science: he observes art as an independent living-being that has the potential to grow, made of form, in order to describe it and then hypothesises on an avoidable logic, an intrinsic purpose which would influence the way style changes throughout history. Winckelmann speculates on a logic without being able to know this logic yet. However, it defines art by excluding geography, culture and historical settings for which the artist is only the irrelevant representant and looks at artworks as completely independent from any external factors. Form, the only internal factor, is a life of its own, obeying to its own laws. A strict, scientific focus on form created the version of nameless art history, engendering the death of the artist. A legitimate motivation behind a formalist version of art history is that, if one looks only at the forms of a work of art, many artworks could be included in the history that would not have been looked at otherwise. The traditional criterion of art history such as iconography, patronage and context, the more or less famous name of the artist…all of which add value to an object, would leave space for the object itself and what is inherent to all objects, their forms. There is an
3
egalitarian aspect to be found in formalist theories. In his ‘History of Things’, in 1962 George Kubler redefines formalism and subsequently art by changing its language. Against a biological metaphor – seen as too linear – Kubler argues for using the language of electrodynamics which underscores a model of art history based on influence and imitation. By giving to objects the power of ‘transmission of some kind of energy’, a reproductive power that emanates from them and does so in unpredictable ways throughout history, Kubler destroys the idea of chronological development and extracts the artist – stripped off their creative will - from their artworks. Kubler’s field of study is this of MesoAmerican art: a biological, linear approach simply does not include his own art history in the broader picture. There is a personal motivation behind such thesis; seeing art history as made of objects that send signals wherever and whenever helps Kubler’s attempt to include non-Wester-art in the broader picture. Formalism has tried to erase the artists’ names - alongside other elements - by giving power to the internal factors of objects or objects themselves. This effort of justification, transferring relevance and power from one aspect to another – which is seen in all formalist works, is completely undermined by the lack of specificity as to what really is the nature of the forms’ force. Formalism seems to be only reacting, contradicting, opposed but unable to provide a clear other option. Perhaps there is no justification to formalism because it is not justified to remove every other aspect from artworks but form – including the artists’ names. For instance, in response to Kubler’s thesis precisely, one could argue that removing names is not the solution to create a broader spectrum within the discipline of art history. From a white, western male perspective – which does not need inclusion - it is easy to argue in favour of the disappearance of names. Such perspective has seen centuries of their relatives being praised, creating the frieze of art history. However, there actually is the potential of acculturation in removing names and context. For the existing, mainstream, white, western, male art, there still is a subconscious knowledge due to centuries of considering its contexts. Whereas for other art, it is only disregarding cultures which need and have been asking for visibility, which are already disregarded if not discriminated against. Nowadays, western societies are aiming at balance through inclusion. T.J. Clark, in 1995, declared that formalism contributed to a crisis in art history, leaving social and historical contexts aside as backgrounds, but he does not necessarily advocate for the significance of names. Are names not what carry, not only these contexts, but the meaning of what these contexts are? Names have the potential to create lasting balance because they do not only bring to light the context of minorities in theory, but represent an individual human experience of a context, with therefore more potential for empathy and understanding. Nowadays, history of art is full of white, western, male names; it is not the time to erase names but to search for and give light to new ones. Perhaps the solution is not to create a non-linear art history and simply, impulsively destroy the existing patterns. Alfred H. Barr’s Cubism and Modern Art diagram (1936) should be revised, added with more lines, detailing the non-western components beyond generic and euro-centric terms such as ‘Negro sculpture’. Furthermore, our institutions should change so that the continuation of such diagram, the more contemporary part of it, can englobe more than western art and ensure that the minorities of western societies find their place. It is hard to be convinced about the inclusion of other names if one does not believe in authorship at all but thinks that the artists’ input is totally overestimated…but how can there be an art history without names if there simply cannot be art without names? History of art can be theorised infinitely, like any other discipline. The reality is that there is no art without names, without an artist, and art is the subject of the discipline. It might sound simplistic but perhaps it is the way; art historians should concentrate on what they are looking at. Barthes’ idea of the death of the author can also be the disguised murder perpetuated by art historians and critics, stealing the art from their creator to make it theirs, give themselves more freedom and legitimacy. The average reader or viewer has the right to exempt a work from everything
4
they choose to exempt it from. However, art historians are on a mission, they have a responsibility to create exhaustive knowledge. The individual behind a name undeniably influences an artwork. The artist is not a neutral medium for social context to express itself or for some mystic force to be transferred onto an object. The artist’s hand is where the mediation happens: it is more or less traditionally, institutionally trained and translates what is in their mind into forms. Perhaps they look for perfect imitation of nature, abstraction, concepts, expression of feelings, political statements, looking at history, and they will not be alone in such quests. As for style, in fact, it is either the individual styles that create the broader, general one in a retroactive manner or a manifesto’s rules are being followed by different hands. At the heart of style is the hand of the artist, always unique. Lee Rubin reveals, in Giorgio Vasari: Art and History (1995), that Giotto’s inputs in the works that he led among an entire participating workshop, were recognized and thus attributed by the trained eye of connoisseurs. How would such thing be possible if the artist was irrelevant to an artwork? Behind the name is the artist’s hand, translator of the mind, which only can produce the artwork. Nevertheless, nuance has to be brought to the notion of the artist. It is not only his own mind that makes an artwork; influences from other artists, context…the expectations of patronage, artistic institutions or even the public are also to be focused on. Around 1915, the Dada state of mind appeared among a bunch of artists between Zurich, Paris and New York. Dada tried to undermine art as a concept; it stressed the non-superiority of the artist as creator, focused on gesture or choice. Duchamp’s readymades in particular, says a lot about the idea of choice. His Fountain (Tate, London, porcelain, 1917), is nothing but an alteration of an ordinary object. A urinal was placed a certain way, Duchamp signed it - under a pseudonym at first – and gave it a title: it became art and Duchamp submitted his work to an exhibition in New York. Duchamp explained that whether or not the Fountain was made by the artist with his own hands had no importance, because he chose it. Art is a matter of choice. Andy Warhol’s Green Coca-Cola Bottles (Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, 210.2x145.1cm, 1962) and all his other prints are a removal of the artist’s hand, the process of making art becomes mechanical and the prints can be produced over and over again. In the continuation of the Dada state of mind, Warhol provides a paradox: he voluntarily removes himself, but the choice of removing himself is his. Behind a name there is a choice; the most individual, original, personal possibility in human experience. Choices make art and their only source is the artist, the person behind the name. Formalism is an existing version of an art history without names. However, there are limits to the approach such as the potential of acculturation and the failure to provide a legitimate reason in the attempts to assign intrinsic power to forms. It is simply factual that art is born into the world, always from the artists’ minds, through the hand and, or the choice – two essentially personal features. If the attempts to remove names can provide metatextual questions and nuances, an art history without names would ignore the most relevant factor, the source of art, without which there would be nothing to look at. Perhaps there is no nameless art history but an approach to the content that the discipline provides that decides to ignore a factor. By Déborah Lazreug
5
Women, Power and Fantasy – a Feminist Examination of Power in the Fantasy Genre
Content warning: r*pe, SA “Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality.” - The Cheshire Cat The portrayal of women in fantasy stories, a genre that was and still is largely dominated by male writers and fans, is one of much complexity. Often, it is precisely this sexist portrayal of female characters, either as powerless or as powerful but in an unsatisfying way, which ostracises non-male readers from engaging with the genre. In spite of that, can imagination and female representation in the fantasy genre be used as a feminist tool instead? In recent years, there has been a trend of introducing more fantasy heroines. While in theory a great development, oftentimes these women will be women only in name (and overly sexualised body). They will be powerful in the same way that men are. Physically strong, good with a sword, showing no emotions. However, because the character is a woman, she will also be snarky and sexy, yet empathetic and kind, have no feelings and be all-feeling. She will at once take up exactly the male archetype hero role and must be better at it. While I am not saying that women cannot be as physically strong as men are or cannot have stereotypically masculine traits (or that portraying women as such cannot have positive effects or be enjoyable), I do not believe that this type of characterisation should be the only one out there. Sometimes it can be much more satisfying, in fact, to see women with powers that men cannot obtain. A prime example of this is witches. The villainous witch and her familiar, an evil spirit in the form of a black cat or a toad, has often been appropriated as a feminist figure. Historically, a symbol of the fear of powerful women, witches who are mostly if not mainly women are a very popular motif in fantasy stories. For example, the witches in American Horror Story Coven (although it is later revealed there are male witches) or the Aes Sedai in The Wheel of Time where men go mad if they are in touch with the one power and the witches in the Throne of Glass series who only bear female children. At first glance, this can be very empowering to read or watch, however, we get into murky waters when looking at how these powers are tied to gender. For example, in The Power by Naomi Alderman, all the women in the world suddenly have the power to cause people pain or even death. But which women get these powers? Are the powers tied to your genes that have nothing to do with gender identity, thus excluding trans women? And what about nonbinary people, ought they not receive powers to defend themselves as well, being a part of a group that experiences violence because of their gender identity? Even though it is certainly satisfying to see women being powerful in a way men cannot, this kind of representation can easily be outright transphobic. In some ways, the idea itself of women having some kind of special power reinforces a non-existent binary that feminism seeks to abolish. Especially, if said power falls into the trap of being gender-essentialist, that is expressive of some sort of trait that is supposedly inherent (essential to) women.
6
Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly an intrigue to the consumption of media which shows women and other oppressed gender groups such as nonbinary and trans people being in power. But why is that? Why is it that there is an entire genre dedicated to women committing violent acts of revenge against the people that hurt them, usually men, and why do we get such vindication from consuming so-called “good for her” media? Firstly, I believe that these types of stories are a natural response to rape culture and living under conditions in which sexual violence is a very real threat. We create power fantasies, fantasy worlds where we would feel safe because for once we have the physical (or magical) advantage. For example, in the Throne of Glass series, one of the female characters is a shapeshifter who turns into all sorts of powerful beasts, such as a ghost leopard, or in her own words anything with claws and fangs and rips apart her enemies. However, in this case, one could again accuse the representation of being essentially appealing to male stereotypes. After all, violence is a man’s domain. It’s primitive. This accusation does not take into account the complexity of the situation, in my opinion. I believe another reason why we enjoy consuming “good for her” stories is that they are an expression of the rage that a lot of us carry within us. A kind of rage that is impotent because there is no outlet for it and if we do let it out, we are deemed overly emotional. An aggressive man is just what he should be, but an aggressive woman is crude and hysterical. This is exacerbated if the woman or nonbinary person is racialised or queer or both. So what if we enjoy reading about female characters killing off men who are not otherwise prosecuted for the crimes they committed against women? Well, some people would say that this attitude is misandrist, which is, of course, not true. There is no harm done and no implication for one’s attitude towards real men in enjoying women being powerful in fantasy stories, even in a “good for her” way. However, the implied criticism, namely that women being powerful and using their powers against men is not straightforward feminist, is not to be entirely dismissed. After all, we don’t want to advocate for power over others for the sake of power. As Simone de Beauvoir wrote, the point of feminism is “not for women simply to take power out of men's hands, since that wouldn't change anything about the world”, it is rather “a question precisely of destroying that notion of power”. Power corrupts people and no one should have it (in real life). And since art imitates life, maybe no one in fiction should have it either. I believe that in an ideal world that might be true, although maybe in an ideal world we would not have to think about how best to portray powerful women in a feminist way in fiction at all. However, we do not live in an ideal world. Therefore, as long as we still live under patriarchy, and as long as the representation is not transphobic, powerful women in fantasy stories do not harm anyone. I believe, in fact, that by creating more representation like this, we can carve out a place for ourselves in fantasy and if art really imitates life, in the world. Finja Hennicken
7
The Spectacle of War
During my time as a writer for this magazine I have largely been engaged in a project of mapping this strange age we call our own. By illustrating and discussing the specific thing or issue that occupies the common zeitgeist at the time of writing, I have tried to gain a better understanding of the West as it stands today. It is also a personal matter as I try to understand the part my generation will play in the grand trajectory of Western history. Who am I and how am I contributing to the current state of society? Therefore I suggest that we, you and I, employ great caution in what follows. But first a cat. A cat will chase after a toy, a piece of string, a red dot. If not immediately chasing it, they will at least swat after it. They don’t seem too picky with what it is they chase, easily switching from one target to another. Do they know what it is they chase? Do they understand that we are involved? Could they even begin to comprehend why we are doing it? Maybe they do at a certain level. They surely understand that it’s a game and not real prey that they hunt. But isn’t it the same instinct? The same need to hunt is active both in nature and in the home. I like to think that they are fully aware that it is a game and that they play with us just as much as we play with them. It’s a simple allegory of course, but how different are we humans really? We like to deny it, we like to hold ourselves to a higher standard, calling ourselves masters and possessors of nature. But as much as the hippies of the 60’s and 70’s shouted for peace, as much as the contemporary young, urban left preach tolerance and understanding, there is no escaping this one profound truth: humans love conflict. We wallow in it. Whether it be between family or friends, neighbors, coworkers, peers or against a whole nation, a people, a religion. It doesn’t really matter to us, as long as there is an enemy, an ‘us’ and a ‘them’. As Aristotle famously claimed “man is by nature a political animal”. We want allies and we want to destroy the enemy together with those allies. We define ourselves equally as much by what we are as what we take ourselves not to be. I am an American, I am a liberal, I am a Trump voter. But I am also not a leftist or a Mexican or French or a nazi and so on. Just like that classic Hegelian joke about coffee without milk or coffee without cream, in order to understand our own place in this world we must also identify that which we are not. Perhaps it stems from our tribal past. Trusting the “in-group” was essential for survival. Vicious animals, dangerous environments and of course other tribes constantly threatened our existence. Perhaps it only arose - or perhaps did so in a new form - once complex societies began to form. The threat was no longer out there but potentially from within. Perhaps it is all part of the same instinct. Many times this instinct has inspired deeds of great bravery and heroism as well as charity and good will. It is this effect that William James meant to investigate in his Moral Equivalent to War. But it has also been easily tamed and appropriated for various other, less noble reasons throughout history. Whether it is to sell products or ideas, or to promote war or new laws, it is one of the most potent and simple base passions to manipulate. For a little more than two years, the one issue that primarily occupied the minds of the world was of course COVID19. We saw a shift and an unraveling unlike anything we had seen before. Thousands lost their lives, more still lost their jobs and livelihoods. Savings were flushed down the drain, toilet paper ran out of stock in grocery stores, blood rained from the sky, cats and dogs laid together. Trust between people eroded down further, if you can believe it, than it had been before. If you didn’t conform to the new program, if you didn’t get the thing they told you to get, you would be
punished, ostracized, made a pariah. It was “us-vs.-them” blood sports. The healthy people that trusted the
8
science against the crazy conspiracy theorists, all sponsored by Pfizer. But then, during the very worst of it, when a convoy of Canadian truckers had occupied the capital and Justin Trudeu instituted martial law, when riots erupted on the streets of Australia, Austria, Italy, France and elsewhere, it all changed. As if someone had switched off the movie during its climax just as it was getting interesting. A storm that had been brewing in the East for many years had finally boiled over. War in Europe for the first time in nearly a century. Russia had invaded Ukraine. And not only the small eastern “Russian enclaves” of Luhansk and Donetsk or in Crimea - if this was the case, then perhaps I would not be writing this article at all - but the whole country. Suddenly, COVID19 was no longer so interesting. Stopping the spread, mask mandates, vaccines, social distancing. All of it dropped for the fresh new thing. Seriously ask yourself, when was the last time something COVID related made itself known to you? Sure, you might need to wear a mask when entering a specific place, perhaps you’re even just a little more conscious about the surfaces you touch or maybe you make sure to sneeze into your arm. But how often do you actually think about it like you used to? Daily? Weekly? Ever? What happened? Well, our minds got occupied with other things. The new thing that we could use to define ourselves. Now we are supporters of the brave heroes of Ukraine. Defenders of Western liberty and democracy. We are pro- peace but by no means anti- war. The Russians are all warmongering savages, in fact Putin must be stopped, killed, his regime destroyed. Right? In the early days of the fighting a story had been spreading around the Internet about the enigmatic “Ghost of Kiev”. This was a story that garnered a huge amount of attention alongside a few others that had emerged from Ukraine at this time. The idea was that there was this pilot that had become the first Ace of the 21st century by shooting down upwards of six(!) Russian fighter jets in the skies above Kiev. In a war in which a clear underdog was going up against a power many magnitudes greater than itself, this story was quickly picked up and swallowed by many. It was only a few days later that it turned out not to be true. A carefully fabricated lie in order to serve a specific agenda, even if that is an agenda that we sympathize with. What I found interesting is that in pointing out the falsehood of this story, people were met with pure anger and vitriol. There they were, in their impudence, daring to question the methods by which we were being fed information about this war. They became Russian assets, collaborators, and were met with the same kind of hate as those that were deemed conspiracy theorists one year earlier. This form of propaganda - or as we call it in the West “morale boost” - was clearly imperative for the war effort. This is “the Spectacle” of Marxist philosopher Guy Debord. The spread of an idea, a belief, a product, through mass media, whips up a frenzy in the population not unlike religious fetishism. Reason is thrown out the window and the passions take charge. And the best thing is that just like with cats, we are not very picky with what we play with. One day it’s COVID or BLM, the next day it’s Ukraine. This idea that the West is a force for good in the world, that we are paragons of truth, liberty and virtue is unfortunately not true. But this is what you better believe, and you best believe that it is in the interest of Ukraine to join us unless you want to be branded a traitor. This anger that you might feel towards me as you read this, this resentment, this is that instinct I mentioned earlier at work. You might now perceive me as an enemy, because that is what the Spectacle is telling you. Am I really saying that the Ukrainian people are not justified in their fight? Am I really saying that liberty and democracy, dear reader, are not important or that you don’t genuinely care about them? No, of course not. The situation in Ukraine is very, very
9
real, but the Spectacle isn’t. For most Westerners it seems that their opinions on this are nothing more than commodities. Just as with COVID before that and BLM before that, these are little trinkets that we can attach to our egos so that we can LARP and feel good about ourselves. The lie isn’t the war, the lie isn’t your opinions, the lie is the idea that we are the protagonist of a movie and that we can do no wrong. There is actual realpolitik at work in Ukraine right now, and this I think we should genuinely talk about, but we need to drop this performance. This idea that we are better. The alternative is what happened when a brigade of Western combat volunteers went to Ukraine only to brag about it on social media, giving away their position, leading to the death of over 100 people. The State Department, the leaders of most Western nations, big corporations and NGO’s do not care about liberty or truth or virtue. I think this is something we all know intuitively. They have other interests in mind and to deny this is either naive or to willingly buy into a lie. It makes me wonder what the next spectacle will be. I have heard whispers of a famine starting in Africa as a direct result of the War, hindering imports of important bread and cereals from Ukraine and Russia. I guess all we can do is wait and see. Luke Litvinov
Made It I feel like I will have made it Once I own a cat, alone In a flat I can call home. Not my parent’s cat, Passed down to me second hand, But one that I picked out A pound coin amongst pennies For myself.
Once I get a stable job, Or once I get lonely enough, (Whichever comes first) I will buy a miniature version of my favourite bowl For my cat to eat from A miniature version of my favourite cup For my cat to drink from
Toys for it to play with
10
Like I play with words.
Once I am as independent as the cat, Free to go where I please, when I please Content being alone and Unafraid To socialise Unlike how I used to be.
I want to flow back into my childhood, A brief period surrounded by animals, Every type you can think of Except cats. A lonely only child, But I was happy I was free I was me.
Thrust into living again from September last year, And now it snows in April, and I feel again The same loneliness that I used to but My landlord doesn’t allow pets, So, I must wait a few more years but
Now I know how to live in between the years Of wanting a cat And owning a cat. By Rosie Guy
11
‘From Kittens to Cats’ Chapter 1 -M
-C
Stolen looks in the hallway,
Continuously fidgeting,
sweaty palms and heart racing.
playing this recurring character,
You were my most sacred oath. The touch of your amber eyes,
partly me and partly stranger.
kept me forever hidden. I was so stupid at eighteen, I offered you everything…
what they thought, it imprisoned me
My heart on a golden plate,
in a box: I lived in the dark.
my heart, fragile as crystal, my heat, ready to be burnt.
You gave yourself whole, just for me…
Lost all of myself in you.
I really wish I did the same thing. But they always picked you apart…
Too preoccupied by her, you discarded my offer,
Weak, I didn’t want that for me…
hoped to forget our passion.
Overpowering opinions,
In vain, you felt the love too.
loved you in secrets, in shadows.
Oh, poor enamoured sparrow. Weak, I let your heart be shattered. So cruel of me but too late, pieces of crystal on the ground,
they cut my hands and made them bleed. You were right, I felt the love too. This poor sparrow is left wingless.
Chapter 2 -C Unsure about what mask to put on, in this world, I didn’t fit in, you had friends with whom you shared wine.
You debated on politics, on philosophy and morals. You shined and they loved you for it.
You smoked now and wore red lipstick. You were mesmerizing, sublime, like a divine apparition.
I let you bring me to the light, I became a part of your world, with your kind hand leading me in.
I saw you in all your glory. You were my missing puzzle piece. I thought I found a home with you.
I was yours to consume but, you left me in the sink next to your unfinished red-wine stained glass.
This time you dropped my heart and soul and had nothing left but bloody Hands to show for it…Love me, please
12
13
Chapter 3 With a summer of friendship and freedom from train to train and city to city until he found his way back to her, M… Sunbathed Tuscan villa, fresh white linens, at peace, in the terracotta kitchen. To be together again, M and C…
Those two kittens learned to be on their own, grew from miscommunicated love. A short idyll filled with champagne bubbles. Warmth and sweat cooled off in lagoon waters, running around like children who grew too fast, endless bike rides through lavender fields.
Summer nights spent at the patio table, with lullabies chanted on the guitar, holding hands, for the memories of it and the flashing gentle light of fireflies.
Summer nights like this felt like destiny. Stolen kisses that finally made sense, an impression of serendipity. Shooting starts with the same trajectory. By Chloe Cuadrado
Whiskers Mightier Than The Tail
14
From the Ancient Egypt to the middle Ages and the 20th
prefer. As an example, although Thor is well-liked and
century to today, cats have been associated with women
perceived as attractive by a female audience, numerous
and femininity in the public imagination. In opposition,
viewers are very adamant about their love for the
dogs are more likely to be associated with masculinity.
character Loki who is less physically impressive and
This brings out the question of why certain things are
muscular but find more charming as his personality is
associated with femininity or masculinity and more
more developed and complex. The "male gaze" in
particularly the opposition between the male and the
cinema pushes the stereotype of an "attractive, muscular
female gaze in cinema.
body" to female viewers for them to be attracted to the
The terms “male gaze” and “female gaze” that are widely used in the media were first introduced in the cinema world. The said “gaze” corresponds to how the audiences will connect with the visual material like movies or shows. The "male gaze" is more widely represented as men are in majority in the film industry, which includes writers, producers and directors. Thus, films and shows are created to have a male viewer as a default in most cases. The "male gaze" refers to how characters are portrayed through the eyes of a man, what men find to be attractive and what men think women act like or find desirable in other men. In comparison to the "male gaze", we find the "female gaze" which is how female writers, producers and directors portray their characters differently from men: how women perceive themselves, what they find desirable and how ideal male characters would act.
character. This is because they apply the same technique to female audiences as they would for male audiences by showing a woman's body to get them interested. As an example of this, we can take the representation of Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad (2016), written and directed by David Ayer. Her character is sexualised and portrayed in a way that would be found attractive for a male audience with short shorts, fishnets, and a cropped tight shirt with a sexual reference. Harley Quinn’s depiction in Suicide Squad is in direct correlation with the “male gaze” and how men perceive women and what is perceived as attractive in women by men for other men. This depiction is in opposition to how she is portrayed in Birds of Prey (2020), written by Christina Hodson and Cathy Yan. Harley Quinn is not only depicted to appeal to a male audience and so the representation of her character is quite different to what we can see in Suicide Squad.
The opposition between the “male gaze” and “female gaze” is a concept that can be applied to other areas but it is particularly relevant in cinema.
In 1975, film critic Laura Mulvey shows that in most films, women appear as objects watched by men. They are three perceptions: the one of the camera, the one
As an example for the "male gaze," we could movies
from the characters and the one from the audience, and
from the MCU and DC. Male film writers and directors
she demonstrates that every time the subjective vision
will write desirable male characters and cast actors with
of the men is privileged. In opposition to this, she
very muscular physics and have them shirtless in several
developed the concept of the “female gaze”. It is not
scenes to entice female audiences, as they believe that
based on an opposition to the “male gaze” as an
this is what women find desirable. This is an application
objectification of the male body but it is a way to bring
of the "male gaze". In reality, although the muscular
a new perspective to the representation of men, a new
character will be perceived as attractive, he might not be
vision of the subject. It uses the same three perceptions
the character that the female audience will root for and
followed by Mr Darcy's famous hand-flex. This reveals
15
of the said subject: the camera, the characters and the audience. The critic Iris Brey develops a technique to recognize the “female gaze” on screen. In the narrative, the main character has to be a woman or identify as such, the story has to be from their point of view and the story has
Mr Darcy's interest in Elizabeth and lets the audience see the growing intimacy and desire between the characters. It can be perceived as an erotic scene for that type of genre without sexualising the characters, offering the audience a visual enjoyment without objectifying the characters in any way.
to question in some way the patriarchal order of society. Moreover, from a formal point of view, through the mise en scene, the audience has to feel the feminine experience exposed. If bodies are used erotically or sexualised, the act has to have a meaning, raise awareness about something or the character. Finally, the enjoyment from the audience should not come from a visual pleasure, the audience should not take pleasure in objectifying the character or in a voyeuristic manner. A good example of the “female gaze” in cinema would be Pride and Prejudice (2005). It follows every point that Iris Brey has developed. The narrative is from the point of view of Elizabeth Bennett and tackles the different issues relating to marriage, class and gender prejudices in the 19th century. The audience is
The “female gaze” is something that is found in a lot of different forms, in film and literature. This concept
transported into the experience of women during that
seeps into other areas, like the TikTok trend of “men
time and the pressures that they experienced to find the
written by women”, showcasing men’s actions or
right husband for them but also the implications that it
speeches that cater to this “female gaze”, instead of the
had for their family. In this particular movie, bodies are
“male gaze” which is what men think that women find
not sexualised in any but there is still a build-up in
attractive.
romantic tension coming from the enemies to lover trope and codes of conduct of the time. We could use as an example the scene where the Bennets leave Netherfield after Jane Bennet was ill and had to stay over. Mr Darcy offers his hand to help Elizabeth go in the carriage. He touches her hand while neither of them is wearing gloves, which was improper as they are not married or from the same family. They exchange a look for a few seconds and the scene is
Cecile Fardoux
IMAGO
16
BoJack Horseman, Raphael Bob-Waksberg, 2014-2020 You might have seen it pop up on your Netflix. Set in sunny L.A, where summer seems endless, the show is about the eponymous BoJack Horseman, a humanoid horse who gave his name to a cartoon show. He is a depressed, cynical, narcissistic addict whose peak in life was back in the 80s when he was the star of a popular sitcom. As the show moves forward, we understand how BoJack turned out so despicable by looking at his past, by being given hints at the trauma he carries from his childhood as well as hints at the faults he committed in his adult past, from which he carries guilt. From the character of BoJack, a horse, the viewers receive an incredible range and amount of human emotions, especially through what could be qualified as his battle to be a decent person. He fails and wins at this battle, and the viewers’ sense of hope goes on a rollercoaster that brings them through laughter, excitement, sympathy, deception, frustration and relief. The genius of BoJack Horseman resides in mixing together the provocation of such strong emotions with a light and absurd humour. It really is a tragi-comedy, in the purest sense. As our eyes are stimulated by bubble-gum colours and as we laugh at this crazy world in which humanoid animals conserved some of their animalistic characteristics, as we know them, we truly witness the ups and downs of human life. Through the other main characters, serious issues are addressed too. In the world of the show, humans and other animals co-exist on an equal footing. However, among the five main characters, who are all a connected to BoJack, the animals portrayed are from the golden trio of domesticised animals – probably to ensure our sympathy and identification with them. BoJack, of course, is a horse. His stereotypical pendant is a dog, a good dog: a Labrador named Mr. Peanutbutter. Mr. Peanutbutter is almost-stupidly optimistic, naïve, and always enthusiastic, and he is the husband of Diane, a human woman, a writer, who is the closest thing BoJack has around him to call friend. He has a friend in another human too, Todd, but it is sort of by accident. Aaron Paul gives his voice to the character of Todd, and I need to mention how his vocal contribution to the character, his acting, is absolutely intrinsic to Todd and how the viewer can only be sympathetic towards him. His voice really does fit the character and adds to the depiction. Finally, BoJack has a workaholic of an agent who always has his back, Princess Carolyn, a cat. Her character is rather far away from the stereotypical depiction of cats, especially compared to Mr. Peanutbutter being the stereotype of a dog. She is far from sleeping all day, in fact, she quite literally never sleeps. She is more loyal than your average cat, perhaps even more than a dog! The main stereotypical trait that she embodies is her independence. She is a hard-working woman who depends on no one, especially no man. She is not afraid of climbing the ladder of her career, even if it means taking risks. On the more personal level, we witness her struggle of seeing the clock ticking,
17
and still not having had the child she dreams about. The outcome of this personal struggle, and I will not give details, resonates once more with her independence. The show BoJack Horseman is, I would argue, one of the best shows that came out from the last decades. One particular aspect that justifies such qualification is the show’s visual poetry. There is so much beauty and meaning in every image, in the foregrounds, in the backgrounds. Some episodes are more evidently poetic, I am thinking, for instance, of episode 4 of season 3, ‘Fish Out of Water’. There is humour in the title already, which refers to a common expression of language but portrays BoJack going to a film festival underwater, where some ‘fish city’ exists. This episode is completely silent, without dialogues, and all the terrestrial animals wear oxygen-filled bubbles to be able to breathe. It is an episode which relies a lot on metaphor to display meaning, due to the lack of dialogue, and it is one of the many poetic climaxes of the entire show. Black Cat and Tomato Plant, Takahashi Hiroaki, 1931 For our Spring edition, I picked this woodblock print depicting a cat knocking another house plant over. A seasonal plant for that matter! The ‘cursed curiosity’ of our feline friends is beautifully captured in this print: look at the cat’s expression and position, its ears, its pupils. We can almost see its little nose move as it discovers this curious plant through its privileged sense: smell. In a review of the exhibition ‘Life of Cats’ from the Japan Society in Manhattan, 2015, Ken Johnson writes for the New York Times magazine: ‘Cats arrived in Japan from China in the mid-sixth century, supposedly via a ship carrying sacred Buddhist scriptures. Adopted as pets and valued for their ratkilling skills, they naturally infiltrated Japanese art, literature and folklore.’ Indeed, Hiroaki’s artwork is inscribed in the continuity of a centuries-long tradition of Japanese prints, and especially in the tradition of fascinatedly depicting cats. The exhibition was presenting ‘86 drawings, paintings, woodblock prints and decorative objects dating from the 17th to the early 20th century’ portraying cats, including Hiroaki’s print. It was divided into five sections, and most interestingly three of these sections were titled: ‘Cats and People’, ‘Cats as people’ and ‘Cats versus People’. The exhibition reveals that, even when depicting big cats, such as tigers, Japanese artists had to rely on small and cute domestic cats as models, for big cats were not native to Japan. Johnson funnily mentions in his article how all the cats depicted in the exhibition are ancestors to the globally famous, Japanese ‘Hello Kitty’, created in 1974. The Japanese fascination with our feline friends continues to be fruitful artistically. By Déborah Lazreug
The Journal of Matters Relating to Felines… …Thanks everyone that made the publication of this issue possible and thank you to our dedicated readers.
Committee
Editors
Cecile Fardoux, President
Rosie Guy
Déborah Lazreug, Secretary
Cecile Fardoux
Thomas Meiehofer, Treasurer
Writers Luke Litvinov, Philosophy student Rosie Guy, English Literature student Déborah Lazreug, English Literature and Art History student Cecile Fardoux, English Literature with Creative Writing student Fi Hennicken, English and Philosophy student Chloe Cuadrado, English with Creative Writing student
Where to find us and get involved… journalofmattersrelatingtofelines@outlook.com or felines@ausa.org.uk
Journal of Matters Relating to Felines
@journalofmatters
@journalofmatter
18