Sexual Objectification

From the very beginning of my project emerged the word objectification. Although this word had become apparent to me before, I was intrigued into the official definition of objectification, and from discovering this, decided to delve further into the importance of this topic. As I searched through works by artists contemplating the relevance of this subject in art, that of Sarah Lucas appeared, and I immediately became interested in her point of view on the matter. Lucas toys with the idea of specifically sexual objectification, using photography and sculpture of objects resembling genitals on both males and females. I particularly enjoyed the use of puns in her work, and this inspired me to begin coming up with my own ideas, incorporating my enjoyment of photography. As I developed the concept of my work, the general theme of objectification became more refined to focus on four of the many different theories that feminists have defined surrounding the issue.
The first concern I began reading about is what is known as fungibility, though I had not come across this particular word before this project, I have been familiar with what is represents since a very early age. Fungibility is specifically known in this context as the treatment of a person as if they are interchangeable with other objects, for example, within sexual objectification of
The word I came into contact to was violability, a form of the adjective violable, which means that something is capable of being violated. The definition of violability is the treatment of a person as if they are lacking in boundary integrity, from this, I began to think about the regular use of misogynistic slurs and hateful comments used towards women by some men and occasionally by