the ethics of public life

All of this recent talk of windows and viewership seems to be lending itself to a certain discussion of the "ethics of looking." Specifically, Rear Window questioned the moral validity of voyeurism, King Kong addressed the capture and violence which is sometimes maintained to be implicit in the camera, while our old favorite, "Windows: Of Vulnerability," discussed how proverbial "gaping holes" in our otherwise private lives destroy and mutilate our sense of self.

I propose that looking is always ethical in a situation where subject and object are both conscious of the possibility of voyeurism. I respond to the "window question" in the same way I do to the question of public space: exhibitionism is an essential, and positive, part of our contemporary identities.

I question the almost reflexive way we assign a set of values to the question of objectification, using language which assumes that objectified=bad and non-objectified (or non-observed)= good. I think that objectification is a natural and inevitable product of the gaze, and should not be defamed by a morality which waves vague notions of "true selfness" around in an effort to discredit a portion of our lives which is in no way lacking authenticity. Or, in question form, what precisely is so violent about objectification? Can we not be identities of multiplicity, composed of complex and dynamic relationships of observation, of subject and object, etcetera? What of value is lost by embracing these conditions rather than resisting them?

I'd really like some feedback, either comment-style or in class.