Sunday, June 20, 2010

Rodak's Doodles: The Eve of Destruction?

X
I haven’t posted any of my doodles or sketches for some time now, but I woke up this morning in the mood to post this one – a study in blue Bic pen on yellow legal pad, dating from sometime in the 1970s:

My associative analysis of this work is that it shows my anima to be arrested at the Eve stage; I like ‘em a little hairy, and a bit more funky than not. She should bite with her teeth, rather than with her tongue. She should run only in order to be caught. She should be the half that completes a whole.

X

11 comments:

SINVILLE said...

I was looking for your other sketches but couldn't find them. Interesting that the subject (looks) so pregnant, yet your analysis is sexually dominant. The mind of a man in his late twenties?

Rodak said...

If you click on the tags "Doodles" and "Drawings" at the bottom of the post, that will take you to some others (that's what those tags are for.)

Rodak said...

I don't find the analysis to be sexually dominant, really. It is expressive of gender roles, in the context of Jungian terminology. I take the sketch to have been an anima projection at the time it was made.

Rodak said...

One could also contemplate this drawing in terms of this.

SINVILLE said...

Robert, does Jung refer to a man's feministic nature? How he perceives himself, if female? Or rather, how he views women? I don't think most men are capable of a conscious acknowledgement of that aspect. I am not sure, It would even exist in all men. I was looking at the drawing itself. She is vulnerable, pregnant, naked, shoulders stooped, eyes wide and neck hidden suggesting fear. The "bite with her teeth, rather than with her tongue", and "[s]he should run only in order to be caught" doesn't exactly suggest equality. I read the Lady Power story, and I think It is interesting that young girls are unsure of the difference between power and sexuality. I had a twitter conversation with an actor who was fed up with girls dressing in 'slutty' Halloween costumes and would tell them so. My response was, he was inadvertently complimenting their choice. The Paris Hilton/Kardashian effect has changed the way females perceive their image. The path to adoration, or love is somehow equivalent with fame, and outrageousness. I think women see the visual nature of men, and lack appreciation for their emotional nature (breast implants is the most à propos example). Young girls don't understand why they are successful on a physical level but lose out on intimacy.

Rodak said...

Jung believed that all men have a female component (anima), psychically, and that all women have a male component (animus). Each has four developmental stages. The stages of the anima he symbolizes from myth/religion as: Eve, Helen (as in Troy), Mary (as in the Virgin), and Sophia; with Sophia (wisdom) being the highest state.
The "slutty" dress of girls today is aggressive. The less aggressive, more "metrosexual," the male self-image becomes, the more that is compensated for from the female side.

SINVILLE said...

The "slutty" dress of girls today is aggressive. Is it? If girls perceive that is what boys desire, and they tailor their clothing to meet that ideal, It is not submissive? I noticed that the boys who are peers to my 22 year old are likely the most comfortable with the metrosexual label. I wonder if it is because of the independence of their mothers? Could it be that they perceive their parents on a equal footing, and therefore adapt characteristics of both parents? I am not sure, If I am projecting my experience or regrets. I don't think the stages exist for me and I think a lot of psychology is based on the personal needs of the author : to be published or recognized. We all could be defined in a psychological category. Is that our ancestral sin? I find it less appealing to define people with categories than to just accept them. I think we are more complicated human beings than one psychology or one philosophy can attest.

Rodak said...

I think that it is evident that people, be they male or female, who adopt a style and "look" and wanting to be seen as members of a group, rather than as individuals.
Also, the look they adopt sends signals concerning the behavior to which they are willing--or eager--to accommodate themselves. In 1967, if you say a young man wearing bellbottom jeans, with long hair, you could be pretty sure that he smoked pot and listened to rock music.

SINVILLE said...

That's just stereotyping, and we are all guilty of It. I make snap decisions about people all the time, and I am grateful for the opportunity to learn of my misjudgments. In 1967, I was turning seven, and would have no idea about clothing or pot but today, I would not associate style with behavior. I see dress as a creative expression....In 1967...memory lane? ;-)

Rodak said...

I did laugh.

It's self-stereotyping. All you need to do to avoid it is dress differently. You can see in the music videos what that style stands for. Everybody's choice of dress makes a statement; that's the whole point of it.

Katley said...

reminds me of the wicked witch of the west without clothes on :)