Janne Robberstad

Welcome to my site! I work as an eco-designer, an artist, as a teacher and as a researcher, and creating, or ARTING as I prefer, makes me happy! This is both a portfolio of things I´ve made and a blog meant to inspire.

Give Away




Hit Counter
Hit Counters

« | Home | »


By spotogspindel | August 7, 2010

I made this a while ago, but honestly can´t remember if I´ve posted it before.

It is, however a subject that occupies my mind: the limitations, visible and/or unspoken, that apply for women, due to the expectations of the roles they are given. It confuses me and frustrates me, that we still in 2010 have these limitations. It even seems like we are moving backwards in both directions: More and more people are conservative, hiding their women in caging cloth. And on the other side of the pendulum, women wear as little as possible, trying to fulfill a hyper-sexualized and vulgar fashion.

Both sides, though completely opposites, have one thing in common: they define women as sexual objects first, and maybe as a human being second. It provokes me deeply, and I can´t understand how women (and men) are willing to accept this. It´s so shallow. Beauty first, brains not really needed. As long as you look like a cheap hooker, all is well.

Or on the other side: Women being covered up and hidden, in order not to arouse men. As if they can´t help themselves. If I were a man, I´d be deeply insulted by this view.

What do you think?

Topics: Illustration friday | 3 Comments »

3 Responses to “If-caged”

  1. andrew Says:
    August 8th, 2010 at 00:30

    what a question 🙂
    pandora’s box!
    Have you read the selfish gene?


    it explains lots about us from a biologist’s view.

    I think we have >2 layers. Human and animal are the most obvious. Spiritual maybe next.

    Sometimes animal wins, sometimes t’other. Giant petri dish, eh? 😉

    Powerful image you made!

  2. spotogspindel Says:
    August 8th, 2010 at 18:06

    A friend, who wishes to be anonymous, sent me an e-mail with a comment on this post, and allowed me to publish it:

    Your latest posting brought to mind some Buddhist teachings. Namely it is how we perceive things, not what they actually are
    (if that indeed is knowable) which determines our responses and reaction. This is also substantiated in modern psychological research.
    So it must be assumed, that these draped women, if exposed to view would evoke undesireable thoughts. Thus the drapery, which imposes on women a restriction which is not of their making. But it does say a lot about the Muslim view of men’s perspective.
    In their case, the “eye of the beholder” must be evil. Not only does this do injustice to all the women, but it also characterizes men as unable to respect females.
    On the other hand, as you say , there is way too much interest in sex, mostly represented as physical beauty, and its commercialization in most of our societies. This relegates love to a secondary position, while it is truly the reason for relationship.
    As we get older, I would suggest that beauty moves to the inside, rather than the outside.

  3. Susan Williamson Says:
    August 18th, 2010 at 04:37

    What an amazing piece. Chilling, but amazing. So simple and yet the juxtaposition says it all.