Pornography Debate, Gaze and Spectatorship in Sarah Daniels’s Masterpieces

• Authors: Edyta Lorek-Jezińska
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Masterpieces by Sarah Daniels has been described as a voice in the debate on pornography, expressing the anti-pornography position as opposed to the liberal feminist stance in this debate. Despite its ideological clarity reported by many reviewers and critics, the play has been commented upon as deficient or inadequate because of evoking conflicting interpretations and ambiguity. The paper argues that these deficiencies stem from the play’s concern with the distribution of agency and passivity along gender lines as well as the influence of generic and essentialist notions of genders on the perception of social and individual power relations particularly in the domain of eroticism and sexuality. One of the key issues of the play is the question to what extent and in what ways human perception is conditioned by the place of the subject in relation to the agency/passivity dichotomy and his or her viewing/reading position in relation to erotic and pornographic material.

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Text Matters: A Journal of Literature, Theory and Culture
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 3
• Pages: 154-170

Dates

published

2013-11-01

online

2013-11-01

Contributors

author

Edyta Lorek-Jezińska

• Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń

References

• Aston, Elaine. An Introduction to Feminism and Theatre. London: Routledge, 1995. Print.
• ---. “Gender as Sign-System: The Feminist Spectator as Subject.” AnalysingPerformance: a Critical Reader. Ed. Patrick Campbell. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996. 56-69. Print.
• Barthes, Roland. “The Rhetoric of the Image.” Trans. Stephen Heath. Studying Culture: An Introductory Reader. Ed. Ann Gray and Jim McGuigan. London: Arnold, 1993. 15-27. Print.
• Daniels, Sarah. “Masterpieces.” Plays 1. London: Methuen, 1997. 159-230. Print.
• Davis, Tracy, C. “Extremities and Masterpieces: A Feminist Paradigm of Art and Politics.” Feminist Theatre and Theory. Ed. Helene Keyssar. Houndmills: Macmillan, 1996. 137-54. Print.
• Dolan, Jill. “The Discourse of Feminisms: The Spectator and Representation.” The Routledge Reader in Gender and Performance. Ed. Lizbeth Goodman and Jane de Gay. London: Routledge, 2003. 288-94. Print.
• Fiske, John. Reading the Popular. London: Routledge, 1994. Print.
• Fiske, John, and John Hartley. Reading Television. London: Routledge, 1994. Print.
• Godiwala, Dimple. Breaking the Bounds: British Feminist Dramatists Writingin the Mainstream since c. 1980. New York: Lang, 2003. Print.
• Goodman, Lizbeth. Contemporary Feminist Theatres: To Each Her Own. London: Routledge, 1994. Print.
• Heise, Lori L. “Violence, Sexuality, and Women’s Lives.” The Gender/SexualityReader: Culture, History, Political Economy. Ed. Roger N. Lancaster and Micaela di Leonardo. New York: Routledge, 1997. 411-33. Print.
• Heller-Nicholas, Alexandra. “Snuff Boxing: Revisiting the Snuff Coda.” Cinephile: The University of British Columbia’s Film Journal 5.2 (2009): n. pag. Web. 3 Sept. 2011.
• Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Feminisms: AnAnthology of Literary Theory and Criticism. Ed. Robyn R. Warhol and Diane Price Herndl. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1997. 438-48. Print.
• Vance, Carole S. “Negotiating Sex and Gender in the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography.” The Gender/Sexuality Reader: Culture,History, Political Economy. Ed. Roger N. Lancaster and Micaela di Leonardo. New York: Routledge, 1997. 440-52. Print.
• Wandor, Michelene. Post-War British Drama: Looking Back in Anger. London: Routledge, 2001. Print.
• Whatley, Marianna H. “Raging Hormones and Powerful Cars: the Construction of Men’s Sexuality in School Sex Education and Popular Adolescent Films.” Postmodernism, Feminism, and Cultural Politics:Redrawing Educational Boundaries. Ed. Henry A. Giroux. Albany: State U of New York P, 1991. 119-43. Print.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/texmat-2013-0032