This topic is not exactly the kind of thing that I had planned to address here, but it's been bugging me, so here we go. The uncharacteristically mean nature of the comments on Apartment Therapy's post about Bazaar's coverage of Padma Lakshmi's home really pissed me off.
The first thing that came to mind when I read the angry comments about her "vanity" was the classic family portrait. We consider it perfectly permissible to display and celebrate all of the people who live in a home - as long as there is more than one of them. Even when a portrait clearly celebrates all the family members as individuals, like the one in Bjorg Juto's Beautiful home recently featured on Design Sponge, we consider it acceptable and above reproach.
What is it about the celebration of the self alone that we find to be so impermissibly vain? I hate to bring feminist rhetoric into this, but it really bothers me that a single (or divorced, as in Padma's case) woman can be so vilified for celebrating herself (as well, in Padma's case, as the incredible talent of a world-famous artist). To be completely honest, I think that the fact that Padma is so universally beautiful adds to the negativity of people's reactions. I am loathe to make the comparison, but if, say, this woman hung this photo of herself in her own home,
people would celebrate her choice because she would be perceived as needing or deserving to lift her own self esteem in defiance of society's norms. Padma goes wrong by celebrating a beauty that has been widely accepted and celebrated, and this is what makes her vain rather than brave. That attitude is very evident in the bitter tone of many comments.
Finally, I want to ask - who cares if it is vain? Isn't the point of our homes to make us happy, to serve our needs? Padma has a beautifully decorated home filled with beautiful furniture and artwork. Why does the fact that some of the artwork happens to consist of representations of her even matter to anyone? After all she is not only celebrating her own physical beauty, but the wonderful symbiosis that was necessary to the creation of these pieces - the beauty that she inspired in others.
(The top image was taken of me by a friend, and will one day hang in my home - mostly because it highlights my extremely vain habit of being unable to speak without staring in the nearest reflective surface.)
I wholeheartedly agree. I would even say that family portraits themselves are accepted and even praised not just because they subsume the individual to the whole, but because people view having a family as more worthy of celebratory images than being single/divorced.
ReplyDeletePeople continue to regard having a family as the ultimate achievement, especially for women. Look at the body language in the family portrait--while the woman sits off to the side with her head down, rather passively writing and not looking at the camera, her children are in the middle (a major focal point) and her husband stands on the other side with his arms raised above his head (an active stance, and one that merits visual attention). Her family is the focus--not her individuality.
I believe that the reaction would have been slightly different if Padma had been a man posing shirtless. People may have believed that he was vain or a pretty boy, but I think that he would not have been subjected to the same degree of vitriol as she has been.