One-Track Mind
“One of the most appealing things is the variety of shapes, colours and sizes they come in.” Rory
Feminists may initially shake their heads wearily at the premise for Tony Davidson’s new book One-Track Mind, which bears the subtitle “a revealing insight into the obsessed minds of men”, but should read on as it’s actually surprisingly amusing. The book contains photographs, taken all over the world, of objects that are reminiscent of breasts.
“Pierced nipples are not my idea of fun. It’s like adding fluffy dice to an Aston Martin.” Brian
Some of the pictures are obvious - two fried eggs make an appearance - but many are so subtle, to the untrained eye at least, that they require real scrutiny. It is this that stops the book falling into being yet another sexist cliche, and is likely to make you look at your surroundings in a new light.
The book developed out of Davidson’s tendency to constantly collect images as part of his job as creative director for Wieden + Kennedy ad agency in London. “I’ve always collected pictures of lots of things,” he says. “I suppose it is ideas. Part of a creative’s job is to collect stuff, and since digital photography’s come along it’s so easy.”
“My sister told me it was at school that she discovered their potential as a memory aid. All the boys knew her name.” Sam
After deciding to make the book, Davidson began searching for breasts in earnest, and got many friends in on the act, whose photographs also appear in the book. He also decided to interview men about their opinions on this part of the female form and these quotes are used, with comedic effect, alongside the images.
“There are villages where I am from, where the women don’t cover them up. Therefore there is not the same obsession as you have in this part of the world. Covering things up can make you want them more.” Arinola
Davidson is keen that the book will appeal to everyone. “I hate all these lad’s magazines,” he says, “I really want it to be something that both men and women pick up.” He also wants us to join in on the project, and is working on a website where users can upload their own images. And if all this wasn’t enough to get involved, all proceeds from the book’s sales will go to charity, for breast cancer and prostate cancer research. To buy a copy of the book, click here.
Comments...
Post a comment
We no longer require you to register and have a password in order to comment, simply fill in the form below. All comments are moderated so you may experience a short delay before your comment appears. CR encourages comments to be short and to the point. As a general rule, they should not run longer than the original post. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.
Desire continually transforms complex relationships between subjects and their temporal situations into simplified singular projections. Children’s animated cartoons often deploy the visualisation of this act to comic effect as, for example, when the Road Runner is envisioned as a succulent roast chicken by the slavering Wile E. Coyote. This projection of Coyote’s desire negates the possibility of engaging with Road Runner on an equal footing. Road Runner is reduced to an object of Coyote’s desire. Desire infiltrates our gaze.
In Davidson’s work it appears as if something of a reversal is in operation. Inanimate everyday objects are transformed into objects of desire. Bouy’s, bells and faucet’s take on a sensual yet sexualised charge. Is this a fleet from the chaos and unpredictability of our interwoven world of ‘other’, into a self-defined imaginary world–one in which a powerful narrative is directed towards a relationship with the self (cyber-sex, real dolls etc.) Or, to put it somewhat differently, What does Davidson see when looking at ‘real’ breasts?
For if, as Arinola suggests, ‘covering things up can make you want them more’, then does the opposite also ring true? Does uncovering things make you want them less? Does the easy, all pervasive, sexulised imagery of our media existence redirect the gaze of desire? In order to combat the impotence induced by accessibilty (in which everything, from the internet to sexual relations, is converted into an object of service) does desire not direct us away from a shared commonality to new objects–ones which we can securely objectify in our own gaze?
This gives rise to the two following questions.
What is it that codifies our desires?
And if we are destined, like Wile E. Coyote, to remain ‘a living, breathing allegory of Want…always hungry’ (1) then, can we at least write the code that directs our desire?
(1) Roughing It, Mark Twain
MLA
10/Sep/08, 3:06 pm