STATEMENT

The Skirt-Function

SKIRLET.ART

Part I. Foundations

1. Function Before Object

I do not begin with the skirt as a garment. I begin with the skirt-function: the operation by which cloth, the model’s body, underlayer, posture, edge, light, movement, and attention are reorganised into a field of relation. The skirt may be sewn, photographed, rendered, painted, sculpted, performed, designed, simulated, coded, or built as an architectural proposition. What matters is not the inventory of its materials but the operation it performs.

The subject of this operation is the beauty of a body as it is composed by dress: by skirt, underlayer, slip, lining, and the layered surfaces of cloth. Its horizon is the order of the garment and the bearing it gives the body, not the bare display of the body beneath it. The work composes how cloth carries, frames, and dignifies a figure; it does not seek the body stripped of that order as its destination. This is why the operation is not owned by any age or kind of body. It can meet different bodies only by transforming its demand in relation to each person’s bearing, context, and form. What the work offers is never flesh surrendered as spectacle, but a body held in the intelligence of dress.

The skirt-function creates an inside without sealing it, an outside without exhausting it, and an interval at which the eye must decide whether to isolate a fragment or encounter a relation. It gathers air, draws an edge, stages delay, distributes weight, differentiates surface from beneath, and makes visibility pass through layers rather than collapse into a single sign.

No image performs the skirt-function merely by containing a skirt, a slip, a lining, a petticoat, lingerie, a lifted hem, a leg, or a threshold. This is not a demand for modesty. It is a demand for relation. A discreet image may fail if it turns the unseen beneath into an absent trophy; a highly open image may succeed if the visible beneath remains structurally bound to cloth, posture, mediation, rhythm, and return. The question is never how much is shown in isolation. The question is whether what is shown can be separated from the field without impoverishing the work.

The skirt-function is one local instance of a broader task I understand as art: the freeing of perception from habitual capture and its return to relation.1, 2, 3 Art is not an ornament added to the world; it is the slowing of attention until what appears becomes legible as more than the first reflex has decided in advance. The skirt-function names the form this labour takes when it passes through cloth, the model’s body, and an underlayer that culture has overcharged in advance.

The aim is not to claim innocence. An artist’s private interior cannot be exhibited as proof, and the viewer’s private interior cannot be purified by declaration. The work must answer elsewhere: in composition, in the route of attention, in the distribution of weight, in the way a body is held as form rather than offered as possession. Beauty here is not an alibi. It is a discipline.4

2. Reverent Form, Not Possession

I begin with the model’s body as form: a living arrangement of posture, weight, balance, grace, pressure, extension, stillness, and self-possession, made legible by skirt, underlayer, cloth, and light. The work does not begin by asking whether the body is pure or impure. It begins by asking whether the image can hold the body in regard without turning regard into possession.

Reverence is not a mood I ask the viewer to grant me. It is not a moral aura around the image. Reverence is a formal relation: the capacity of an image to keep the body, the garment, the underlayer, and the viewer’s attention in a state of mutual accountability. A reverent image does not reduce the model’s body to a detachable sign. It lets the body appear with weight, orientation, bearing, and more than one value.

This does not mean that the work hides behind claims of purity. I make no assertion that a viewer will be untouched by inherited habits, nor that a garment arrives without cultural pressure. The work asks a stricter question: can those pressures be held inside form strongly enough that they do not govern the image? Can the skirt, the underlayer, the posture, the returning look, and the frame return attention to the whole relation?

Reverent form is therefore neither denial nor permission. It is a third position: neither the closure of the body into taboo, nor the release of the body into seizure. It is the compositional work by which a body remains visible without becoming available as property.

This third position is easily misheard as a claim of neutrality, and it is not one. The work does not stand at an equal distance from feeling, indifferent to what a body provokes. It takes a precise and asymmetrical stance: it does not suppress what an image may stir, and it does not depend on it either. These are two different refusals, and they do not cancel into blankness. To suppress would be to pretend that cloth and body arrive without charge, which is the false innocence the work has already refused. To depend would be to let one provocation become the image’s purpose, which is the seizure the work refuses on the other side. Holding both refusals at once is not a failure to take a position. It is the position. And it is coherent only because the claim is never about what anyone feels, which cannot be measured, but about what the image is built to do: whether its structure leans toward possession or toward relation. Non-dependence is a fact about composition, not a confession about the heart.

3. Threshold, Not Essence

The skirt does not contain a fixed essence. The slip does not contain a fixed essence. The underlayer does not contain a fixed essence. Lingerie, where it appears, does not contain a fixed essence. No fibre possesses final meaning from its own side. Meaning is produced through contact, use, convention, commerce, prohibition, memory, habit, distance, repetition, framing, and the conditions of looking.5, 6

For this reason the underlayer is never simply “what it is.” It is a relational surface whose function changes with posture, scale, lighting, cloth, line, age, context, and the habits brought to it. A garment pressed against the body, a garment partly visible through an opening, a costume lining in motion, and an adult-coded garment isolated by a crop are not the same image-event. Each is a different arrangement of relation.

The threshold matters because it refuses essence. It is not a border between innocence and corruption, modesty and display, surface and truth. It is a place where meaning is produced and can be redirected. The skirt-function works at that place of production: it neither seals the body away nor hands it over, but makes the conditions of visibility perceptible.

To speak of liberation here is not to claim transcendence beyond the body. It is to free perception from the grip of one habitual reading. The work does not dissolve the body into abstraction. It lets the body remain bodily, clothed, weighted, particular, and present, while preventing a single cultural reflex from becoming the whole meaning.

4. Drapery, Not Disclosure

A veil and a drape obey opposite logics. A veil belongs to secret and seizure: it organises attention toward what is supposedly hidden behind it. A drape belongs to form: it lets weight, pressure, contour, fold, tension, and interval become visible. The skirt-function succeeds only when the second logic governs the first.

The skirt, slip, lining, petticoat, costume layer, or lingerie are not a sequence of veils leading toward a hidden prize. They are drapery: the textile means by which the model’s body becomes legible as contour, pressure, balance, weight, interval, and form. Where lingerie appears, it is not denied, euphemised, or purified. It is returned to cloth. Its lace, elastic, seam, translucency, pressure, and edge are read as textile intelligence before they are allowed to become a shortcut of possession.

This is why drapery is more precise than disclosure. Disclosure asks what has been shown. Drapery asks how showing has been composed. Disclosure centres the event of access. Drapery centres the labour of form.

Inner drapery is the name for this operation when an underlayer participates in the visible field. It is not a second skin waiting to be isolated. It is a textile plane through which the body’s balance, pressure, and form become more exact. It does not apologise for its visibility; it changes what visibility does.

The work therefore refuses the grammar of the hidden prize. A garment is not important because it lies closer to the body. It is important only if its closeness changes the relation among cloth, posture, pressure, and regard. Intimacy is not an entitlement to possession. In the skirt-function, the closer stratum must become more relational, not more available.

Part II. Historical and Cultural Conditions

5. The Underlayer and Historical Visibility

The underlayer has never been merely private. Dress history shows that what counts as inside or outside, proper or improper, hidden or presentable, changes across social orders, technologies, moral codes, class systems, and textile forms.7, 8, 9, 10 The skirt-function works because the underlayer is already historical before it enters the image.

Japanese clothing histories make this especially clear. Layers, hems, linings, sleeves, and openings can carry aesthetic, seasonal, social, and bodily meanings without being reducible to a single axis of concealment or access.11, 12 The underlayer can be ornament, interval, structure, colour, rhythm, temperature, or trace. It can participate in form without becoming a trophy.

Lingerie history also matters, because the modern undergarment has been placed at the crossing of fashion, commerce, intimacy, propriety, and display.13 The point is not to intensify that history, but to understand the pressure it brings. A skirt-function image cannot pretend that the underlayer enters the frame as neutral cloth. It enters carrying deposits of use and attention. The work must recompose those deposits rather than merely inherit them.

The historical visibility of the underlayer is therefore double. It is material history, because garments have shapes, closures, fabrics, colours, and uses. It is perceptual history, because viewers have learned to classify those garments before they have learned to see them. The work begins where these two histories meet.

6. The Deposit of Charge

The charge carried by a garment is historical, not intrinsic. No fibre is intimate from itself alone; intimacy is produced by contact, use, convention, commerce, prohibition, repetition, and the habits of the eye. A lace edge, a white slip, a translucent layer, or a lifted hem does not possess one final meaning. It receives pressure from histories of classification and display.14, 15, 16, 17

This distinction is crucial. If charge were intrinsic, art could only either conceal the charged object or intensify it. If charge is historical, art can reorganise the conditions through which it appears. The garment remains what it is, but its function changes: from clue to plane, from prize to drapery, from isolated sign to participant in a larger structure.

The skirt-function does not erase cultural charge. Erasure would be another fiction of innocence. Instead, it slows the route through which charge is normally processed. It makes the eye pass through the fall of cloth, the distribution of posture, the pressure of seams, the relation of colours, the return of the figure, and the architecture of the frame.

When this slowing succeeds, the underlayer is not cleansed of history. It is re-situated within form. The work does not say that the viewer has no learned response. It makes that response insufficient as a final reading.

7. Extraction, Compression, and Closure

The danger opposed by the skirt-function is not one emotion, one genre, or one moral category. The danger is extraction: the operation by which a relational image is compressed into a fragment to be taken. Extraction can be sentimental, commercial, moralising, fetishising, mocking, censorious, or acquisitive. Its form is always similar: it shortens the route of attention until a part stands in for the whole.

Modern visual culture has trained the eye through repeated protocols of display, framing, looking, opposition, fetishisation, and spectatorship.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 These protocols do not determine every viewer, but they give certain readings speed. The skirt-function is an attempt to interrupt speed before it becomes verdict.

Compression is the second danger. It takes a layered arrangement and collapses it into a single value: underlayer as signal, body as part, skirt as obstacle, underlayer as target, viewer as reflex, theory as excuse. Compression is not defeated by adding more explanation. It is defeated only when the image itself distributes value across the field.

Closure is the third danger. Closure ends the encounter before relation has time to appear. It tells the viewer that the image has already been classified, either as scandal or as innocence, as provocation or as modesty. The skirt-function refuses that premature closure. It asks the viewer to remain with the relation long enough for form to become legible.

8. Speed, Habit, and the Interval

Habits of perception are not merely personal. They are social, economic, linguistic, and bodily. They are strengthened by repetition until recognition feels instantaneous. The image is seen before it is looked at; classification happens before relation has had time to gather.26, 27, 28, 29

The interval is the work’s response to speed. An interval is not simply a pause. It is a structure that makes premature classification difficult: a fold that redirects the eye, a hand that authorises an opening, a posture that anchors the body, a returning look that makes looking accountable, a scale that preserves the whole field, a colour relation that refuses the isolation of one sign.

The skirt-function produces intervals in which perception can be retrained. It does not ask the viewer to become naive. It asks the viewer to become slower and more exact. Exactness is not a cold virtue. It is the care by which a body is not reduced to the first available category.

In this sense, the work is not built around transgression. It is built around re-education. It asks whether a familiar cultural shortcut can be made to fail, and whether something more careful, precise, and formally responsible can appear in its place.

Part III. Formal Principles

9. Layered Visibility and Distributed Salience

Layered visibility is the basic formal condition of the skirt-function. Visibility does not move in a straight line from concealment to access. It passes through strata: outer cloth, opening, inner drapery, body, posture, light, frame, scale, and the viewer’s route through them. Each stratum modifies the others.

Distributed salience is the refusal to let one visible element govern the entire image. A successful image gives value to cloth, edge, colour, gravity, stance, hand, fold, interval, and address. It does not bury the underlayer, but it prevents the underlayer from monopolising the field. Perception remains mobile because the image gives it more than one necessary path.30, 31, 32

The work therefore cannot be evaluated by inventory: skirt present, slip present, underlayer present, body present. It must be evaluated by distribution. Where does attention begin? Where does it pause? What pulls it back? What prevents it from taking the shortest route? What remains after the first sign has been recognised?

Layered visibility is not a style of complexity for its own sake. It is a formal discipline of attention. The model’s body does not become form by disappearing. It becomes form through relation: by the visible insistence that no single part is the whole.

10. Degrees of Visibility

Visibility is gradual. An image may show little and still be extractive; an image may show much and still be relational. The degree of visibility does not decide the work. It changes the level of formal responsibility.

A low degree of visibility requires subtle counterforce. The absent or barely visible underlayer can still function as a hidden trophy if the image organises attention around what is withheld. A high degree of visibility requires stronger counterforce. The more central, bright, frontal, or legible the underlayer becomes, the more the surrounding architecture must insist on its relational function.

The degree of visibility must therefore be judged together with architecture: scale, posture, drapery, light, colour, rhythm, frame, and return.33, 34, 35, 36 A visible slip, lining, petticoat, or adult-coded underlayer can participate in beauty when it remains bound to the model’s bearing and the textile logic of the whole. It fails when it becomes detachable.

This is why the work does not return to modesty. Modesty would make quantity do the work of form. The skirt-function asks for something harder: a composition strong enough to keep visibility from becoming seizure.

11. Authored Interval

The opening of the skirt is not automatically an event of access. It becomes authored only when the body, cloth, hand, stance, and frame make the opening part of a legible structure. Authorship is not a claim of control made outside the image. It is visible in how the interval is held.

An authored interval is carried by posture. A hand that lifts, gathers, or steadies fabric can be compositional rather than invitational. A knee, foot, hip, shoulder, or gaze can make the opening depend on balance rather than on availability. The body does not merely undergo the image; it helps organise the relation.

Authored interval also depends on framing. A crop can destroy authorship by amputating the surrounding field. Scale can restore it by preserving relation. Light can either isolate a fragment or distribute attention across cloth and body. The interval is never authored by one element alone.37, 38

When the interval is authored, the viewer does not encounter a prize. The viewer encounters a decision already made by form: the visible underlayer belongs to the architecture of the image, and its meaning cannot be taken without damaging the work.

12. The Second Surface and the Slip-Function

The second surface is the underlayer when it ceases to be treated as interior truth and begins to function as visible form. It is not the body itself, not the secret of the body, and not the excuse for looking. It is a surface that mediates between body and outer cloth.

The slip-function names this mediation. It may be performed by an actual slip, by lining, by petticoat, by adult-coded lingerie, by shadow, by translucent cloth, by a reflected plane, by a generated layer, or by any formal device that prevents the beneath from becoming isolated. The slip-function does not hide the underlayer. It gives the underlayer a task.

Gestalt organisation, textile structure, fashion signification, haptic perception, and embodied seeing all matter here.39, 40, 41, 42, 43 The second surface is perceived as part of a field. It is seen through contrast, continuity, interruption, pressure, texture, and the felt relation between cloth and body.

A second surface fails when it is too weak to mediate. It also fails when it becomes so decorative that it forgets the body it serves. Its success lies in a difficult middle: visible enough to participate, disciplined enough not to dominate, intimate enough to matter, formal enough to remain in relation.

13. The Underlayer as Construction

The underlayer is constructed materially and culturally. It is sewn, cut, fitted, chosen, lit, framed, and worn. It is also named, classified, advertised, moralised, remembered, and misread. The skirt-function must address both forms of construction.44, 45, 46

To treat a charged underlayer as inner drapery is not to neutralise it by euphemism. It is to insist that its construction is visible: seam, edge, transparency, opacity, pressure, elasticity, whiteness, colour, line, and support. These features do not vanish into symbolism. They are the work’s material grammar.

The underlayer as construction is therefore neither essence nor accident. It is not the “truth” beneath dress, and it is not a random accessory. It is a built plane inside a built image. It helps compose the body as form.

This is why the work can use a charged underlayer without relying on the shortcuts attached to it. The garment is not purified. It is made answerable to construction.

14. The Material Reasoning of Cloth

Cloth thinks through fall, fold, tension, opacity, weave, friction, seam, and gravity. This is not metaphorical mysticism. It is the practical intelligence of textile form. A pleat stores direction; a hem draws a limit; a lining changes depth; lace breaks the edge into rhythm; elastic registers pressure; white cloth gathers light; heavy cloth gives the body ground.

The skirt-function depends on this material reasoning. It cannot be achieved by concept alone. If the cloth does not organise the image, theory cannot do it afterward. A written statement may name the operation, but the fabric must perform it.47, 48

Material reasoning also prevents the work from becoming a merely moral project. The image is not valuable because it says the correct thing about looking. It is valuable only if cloth, body, light, and frame produce a form that can sustain attention beyond the correctness of the claim.

The beauty of the model’s body appears through this textile reasoning. Not as a body stripped of relation, but as a body whose lines, weight, balance, and bearing are made eloquent by what touches, frames, and moves with it.

15. The Model’s Body, Posture, and Subjective Force

The model’s body is not raw material. It is a living source of form: posture, breath, weight, proprioception, endurance, refusal, balance, and self-possession. The body does not simply occupy the garment. It negotiates the garment and is negotiated by it.

Legs are not detachable signs. They are vectors of ground, extension, locomotion, pressure, openness, force, rhythm, and balance. Hands are not merely accessories to an opening; they can author the interval. Feet and shoes locate the body in gravity. A gaze can return attention to the whole figure. A lowered stance can make openness depend on strength rather than availability.

Photography records these bodily negotiations as events of pose, duration, and encounter.49, 50, 51 Generated images do not carry an indexical body in the same way, but they still must compose the dignity of bodily form against inherited shortcuts within the visual archive.52, 53 The difference between media does not remove formal responsibility; it changes where that responsibility falls.

The model’s body is therefore not an object that the skirt-function decorates. It is the centre of the operation. Skirt and underlayer do not replace the body’s beauty. They make that beauty legible as form.

Part IV. The Viewer’s Apparatus

16. Situated Looking and the Feedback Field

Looking is situated. A viewer arrives with habits, memories, classifications, social training, bodily orientation, and expectations. The work does not control these arrivals. It composes a field in which they can be slowed, redirected, or made visible.54, 55

The viewer is neither sovereign judge nor helpless product of culture. The viewer is part of a feedback field. The image addresses the viewer; the viewer’s route of attention tests the image; the image either offers shortcuts or resists them; the viewer either accepts the resistance or collapses the field. Meaning appears through this encounter.

This is why the work refuses both accusation and flattery. It does not accuse the viewer of corruption in advance. It also does not flatter the viewer as naturally careful. It asks what the image can do to make careful attention more likely and extraction less easy.

The feedback field is aesthetic before it is explanatory. A viewer should be able to sense the route of attention without reading the statement. Theory may clarify the operation, but it cannot create a relation absent from the image.56

17. Mirror-Function and Returning Look

The mirror-function is not the literal presence of a mirror. It is the operation by which looking becomes aware of itself. A returning look, a frontal organisation, a withheld completion, a scale shift, or a compositional address can all make the viewer’s position perceptible.

The returning look matters because it interrupts one-way access. It does not need to punish the viewer. It needs only to make looking accountable. The viewer is not outside the scene, consuming an inert surface. The viewer is placed within a relation and made aware that the act of looking has a position.

This accountability is not reducible to psychology. A photographed subject may return the look through the force of pose and address. A painting may return it through frontal organisation. A generated figure may return it through compositional structure. A sculpture may return it through approach and distance. The question is whether the work formally produces a viewer who cannot disappear into invisibility.57

When the mirror-function succeeds, the underlayer is no longer a mute destination. It is encountered within a field in which the viewer’s route, the model’s bearing, and the textile architecture answer one another.

18. Exact Regard and Aesthetic Surplus

Exact regard is the form of attention the work asks for. It is not cold distance. It is not neutrality. It is attentive admiration released from possession. Exact regard allows beauty to register without turning beauty into a claim of ownership.

The work must still give delight. It must offer colour, fold, rhythm, humour, theatricality, gravity, textile intelligence, bodily force, and compositional surprise. Without aesthetic surplus, the image would become an illustration of a thesis. A thesis can be correct and still fail as art.

Exact regard therefore has two tasks. It must interrupt extraction, and it must remain worth looking at after that interruption has been understood. The eye returns not because it has found a trophy, but because the relation among cloth, body, light, posture, and frame continues to unfold.

In this sense, reverence is not solemnity. A reverent image can be playful, bright, theatrical, comic, severe, quiet, artificial, or monumental. Reverence names not mood but relation: the refusal to let one value consume the body’s many forms.

Part V. Aesthetic and Philosophical Frame

19. Reverence and Anti-Extractive Attention

Reverence is often misunderstood as distance from the body. In this work it means the opposite. Reverence allows the body to remain present without reducing presence to availability. It lets weight, cloth, lower body, underlayer, stance, and light appear with seriousness because none of them is forced to stand alone as the whole meaning.

Anti-extractive attention does not destroy feeling. It refuses captivity to the first feeling. It asks the viewer to remain long enough for the image to redistribute value. This redistribution is aesthetic, not merely correct: a relation must be seen, not merely approved.

What this attention loosens is precise. In Buddhist analysis the difficulty is not that a feeling arises but that feeling hardens: a sensation appears, a value is assigned, a shortcut forms, and the mind reaches to grasp what it has not finished seeing. Craving is this hardening, and clinging is its persistence; together they convert a passing appearance into a possession the mind believes it owns.58, 59 The skirt-function intervenes at the moment before the hardening completes. It does not forbid the sensation. It interrupts the reach, so that what could have been seized is held in relation instead.

The tradition of non-attachment helps clarify this. Non-attachment is not refusal, numbness, or withdrawal. It is the loosening of grasping so that things can appear in relation rather than as possessions. The skirt-function translates this into visual form: the underlayer remains visible, but visibility is no longer grasp.

Reverence also has a profanatory dimension. A garment culturally overcharged as forbidden, ornamental, or proprietary can be returned to common use as cloth, form, support, and drapery.60 This return is not desacralisation into vulgarity. It is release from capture.

Several traditions, despite their real differences, refuse the same reduction: that the meaning of what is seen is settled by the wish to possess it. Kant and Schiller describe a regard in which the object is not subordinated to use, though they ground this in the autonomy of the judging subject. Rancière describes spectatorship as activity rather than passive consumption, and contests the simple opposition between looking and acting. Buddhist analysis grounds the same refusal elsewhere, in the non-substantiality of subject and object alike, so that grasping loosens not by an effort of will but by seeing that there is no sealed thing to be owned. These vocabularies are not interchangeable, and they remain in tension with one another; the work does not pretend to reconcile them. Their convergence is limited but real, and it is enough for the operation: meaning is not decided by the reach to possess.4, 5, 37, 57

20. Non-Attachment and the Middle Path

The middle path of the skirt-function is neither concealment nor seizure. Concealment can make the absent beneath into a stronger fantasy. Seizure can make the visible beneath into a possession. The work seeks a third route: visible relation without grasp.

This route is not a doctrine applied to images from outside. It is a compositional demand. Does the skirt create passage rather than obstacle? Does the underlayer act as inner drapery rather than destination? Does posture carry self-possession? Does light distribute value? Does the viewer’s route become slower and more exact?

Shadow, interval, silence, and partiality can all help this route when they are composed rather than used as mystification.61 But the same is true of brightness, openness, frontal stance, and theatrical display. No style is automatically liberated. Only relation matters.

The work asks to be judged by whether it loosens grasping. It does not ask to be believed because it speaks of liberation. Liberation, if it occurs, occurs as a change in the route of attention.62

A caution belongs here, because these terms are not the work’s to own. Words such as craving, non-attachment, and the middle path come from living traditions with their own discipline and context, and a long history of borrowing has flattened them into a Western vocabulary of calm and detachment that their sources would not always recognise.63 The work uses them in a deliberately narrow way and does not claim to teach them. It does not assert that one kind of image leads to liberation and another to bondage, because that would moralise whole categories of picture and turn a contemplative vocabulary into a verdict on objects. The distinction the work draws is never between pure and impure subjects, nor between art and its opposite. It is between two ways attention can move across any image: a reach that grasps and a regard that lets relation appear. Borrowed language can also become a way of bypassing what an image actually does, dressing a formal claim in spiritual authority it has not earned.64 Against that risk the work keeps the terms tied to something checkable in composition, and asks to be held to the structure of the image rather than to the prestige of the words.

21. Gender, Asymmetry, and Common Use

The skirt-function cannot ignore gendered asymmetry. Women’s bodies, feminine dress, ornament, and undergarments have been made to carry disproportionate burdens of visibility, judgement, fantasy, discipline, shame, admiration, commerce, and classification.65, 66, 67 A work that uses skirt and charged underlayer must not pretend that this asymmetry disappears because the artist names beauty.

For that reason, I do not claim, “I am pure, therefore the image is pure.” Such a claim would be useless. The image must earn trust through form. It must show that the model’s body is not reduced to a surface, that the underlayer is not treated as a trophy, that the underlayer remains bound to drapery, posture, and regard, and that the work has enough internal discipline to be argued in public.

The hope of the work is common use: that people of different generations and positions, including viewers formed by feminist study, can meet the image without being asked to accept an extractive code. This does not mean that every viewer will agree. It means that disagreement can be conducted from the visible structure of the work rather than from suspicion about a hidden intention.

Common use is not simplification. It is the hardest test. An image that asks to be seen widely must not depend on private justification. It must make its respect legible.

22. The Objection from Objectification

The sharpest objection to this work names a single word: objectification. If a body is composed as form—as contour, weight, balance, and line—has it not been reduced to its appearance, treated as a thing to be looked at? This objection must be met directly, because the work depends on the body appearing as form, and the most influential analyses of objectification count reduction to the body and reduction to appearance among its very marks.68, 69 The objection cannot be dissolved by good intentions. It can only be answered in the structure of the image.

The answer begins by separating two operations that the word conflates. To reduce is to subtract: to make a part stand for a person, to let appearance cancel agency, to treat one value as the whole. To present as form is to add relation: to let appearance carry weight, orientation, history, and self-command at once. Reduction impoverishes; formal presentation multiplies what can be seen. The question is therefore never whether the body appears as form, but whether that appearance subtracts the person or holds the person in relation.

This lets the objection be tested rather than merely felt, because the recognised marks of objectification are specific, and each can be answered in composition rather than in conscience. Instrumentality, treating the body as a tool for another’s purpose, is countered when the body organises the field rather than serves it—when posture, not the viewer’s convenience, governs the image. The denial of autonomy and of subjectivity is countered by a returning look and a self-possessed stance, which keep the figure a source of regard and not only its target. Inertness is countered by a body shown acting—lifting, balancing, bearing—rather than lying available. Fungibility, the interchangeability of one body for any other, is countered by particularity: this weight, this bearing, this gravity, legible as no one else’s. Violability is countered by self-possession, a figure composed as inviolable rather than as open to use. Ownership is countered by the whole discipline named here as the refusal of possession.68, 69 Where these counters hold, the body has not been objectified in the sense that does harm. It has been presented as a form that keeps its subject.

None of this claims that composing a body as form is automatically innocent. The marks of objectification can be reinstated by a single arrangement—a crop that amputates agency, a light that isolates a part, a posture staged as availability. That is precisely why the criterion is structural and not moral. The objection from objectification is not refused; it is accepted as the exact test the work must pass, image by image. A defender of the concept and a defender of this work can disagree, but they can disagree about visible structure—about whether agency, particularity, and self-possession are legible in the frame—rather than about the artist’s hidden heart.

It is worth adding that the concept itself is contested. The most careful treatments hold that attending to a body as form is not always a harm, and that objectification can in some contexts be benign or even part of how persons are valued.68 The work does not rest on that concession. It accepts the stricter reading, in which reduction to appearance is a harm, and answers it on that ground: by composing appearance so that it does not reduce.

23. Age, Bearing, and Model-Appropriate Freedom

The skirt-function is not owned by adulthood, childhood, femininity, masculinity, or any single social category. A young model, an adult model, or an elder model can carry cloth, posture, gravity, movement, interval, play, reserve, dignity, bearing, and return. Age is not an empty variable, but neither is it a prohibition or a licence. It changes the formal demand: what kind of distance, fabric, posture, scale, crop, rhythm, and light can let this particular body appear with self-possession?

The work therefore rejects two shortcuts at once. It rejects the permissive shortcut that treats adulthood as automatic licence, and it rejects the prohibitive shortcut that treats youth as automatic exclusion. No garment, pose, or degree of visibility receives value from category alone. Youth does not erase the operation in advance, and adulthood does not license it in advance. The question is whether the arrangement before us is composed as relation, bearing, play, support, movement, ceremony, character, or form, or whether it collapses into seizure.

What decides an image is not age as an isolated category, but whether the composition holds that particular person in relation. A historically charged grammar is therefore neither granted by adulthood nor denied by youth; it must be re-made each time as relation, bearing, play, ceremony, character, support, or form, and refused, at any age, when it hardens into a detachable code of availability. The same garment, the same underlayer, the same interval can be relation with one person and seizure with another. The decision is made not by category, but by what the work can compose with the individual before it: a relation visible as attention, bearing, and form, in which that person appears through their own ease, poise, and self-possession, never as a body arranged over their own absence.

Historical children’s clothing, girls’ underdress and slip cultures, Japanese girls’ dress education, and shōjo manga help show that lace, lining, white edges, and inner textile layers have not belonged only to adult-coded display. They have also belonged to cleanliness, cuteness, school life, ceremony, movement, costume, maternal care, and the ordinary education of dress.70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 This history does not give the work either a licence or a ban. It gives the work a stricter task: to find the form proper to the body before it.

Universality means freedom of operation, not interchangeability of bodies. The same skirt, underlayer, pose, or interval cannot be transferred mechanically, but no category of body cancels the operation in advance. A universal criterion becomes trustworthy only when it can change its demand according to the person before it while preserving the artist’s freedom to search for form and the work’s responsibility to make that form legible.

Part VI. Medium, Circulation, and Transfer

24. The Photographic Operation

Photography gives the skirt-function an indexical pressure. A photographed model’s body has stood, balanced, endured, breathed, shifted, and negotiated the garment in time. The photograph carries traces of that event, even when the image is staged, artificial, theatrical, or digitally altered.76, 77

This indexical pressure does not guarantee reverence. A photograph can reduce the body as easily as any other medium. But photography can also make bodily authorship unusually legible: the tension of a hand, the pressure of a foot, the angle of the pelvis, the force of a lowered stance, the fatigue or steadiness of a pose, the returned address of the face.

The photographic skirt-function depends on making these traces structural. The model’s body must not be treated as an inert support for cloth. The pose must be more than display. The underlayer must be mediated by the event of posture. The photograph succeeds when the visible body is felt as a body holding form.

Photography therefore places a special burden on care. The photographed subject is not a theoretical figure only. The work must respect the event of the body it records, and that respect must become visible as composition.

25. The Generated Image

Generated and altered images change the problem without replacing it. They do not carry the same indexical relation to a single body, but they can carry visual inheritances from photography, fashion, cinema, advertising, and platform circulation: poses, fabrics, angles, lighting conventions, gendered classifications, ornamental vocabularies, and shortcuts of attention.78, 79, 80

For this reason, a generated image is not automatically freer, and a photograph is not automatically truer. Each medium has its own pressure. A generated figure can condense inherited shortcuts unless composition gives it bearing, weight, drapery, scale, return, and resistance to isolation. A photograph can carry bodily authorship, but it can also reduce a living body by crop, light, or circulation. The criterion remains the same: does the image solicit possession, or does it hold a body in relation?

The practical importance of generated or altered imagery is not that it grants a new metaphysics. It may, when used carefully, transform particular detail, displace a scene, recompose a location, loosen the tie to a specific likeness, or invent textile relations that ordinary gravity cannot supply. Such uses can shift the pressure from identification to composition while preserving the formal problem of cloth, interval, and regard. This is a compositional possibility, not a doctrine about the virtue of a tool.

The generated image also carries a concentrated version of inheritance. A generative model is built from large bodies of prior images and labels, weighted toward probable poses, conventional lighting, and familiar classifications of bodies, so that its default output can lean toward the shortcuts the work resists. To compose against that grain is to work from within the material, not outside it; no degree of careful instruction makes the medium neutral by itself. The generated skirt-function therefore does not present its surface as innocent. It keeps the displacement between an inherited probability and a composed relation perceptible, so that the image carries the visible trace of having been built against its own default. The medium’s inheritance is not erased. It is made legible, and held to the same criterion as any other image: not whether the apparatus is clean, but whether the result solicits possession or holds a body in relation.80

The generated skirt-function must not pretend that a synthetic figure is a photographed subject, nor should a manipulated photograph pretend that alteration has not occurred when alteration matters to the image’s claim. The question is narrower and sufficient: whether the image, whatever its apparatus, composes dignity of bodily form without borrowing another artist’s style, another person’s identity, or an inherited shortcut of possession as its unexamined authority.

26. Transfer Beyond Fixed Medium

The skirt-function is not bound to photography. It can appear in painting, sculpture, installation, architecture, performance, fashion design, cinema, animation, code, or generated image. It transfers because it is an operation rather than an object.

What must transfer is not the motif of a skirt but the relational logic: layered visibility, inner drapery, authored interval, second surface, distributed salience, modelled or embodied bearing, and the refusal of seizure. A painting can achieve this through brushwork and framing. A sculpture can achieve it through approach and occlusion. Architecture can achieve it through passage, enclosure, lining, and threshold.

The slip-function also transfers. It need not be a literal slip. It can be any mediating plane that prevents an inner stratum from becoming a trophy: lining, translucent wall, reflected surface, secondary colour field, sonic layer, choreographic delay, or algorithmic veil made into drapery rather than secret.

The future of the work lies not in a catalogue of formats but in the refinement of a problem: how can cloth, body, layer, habit, and perceptual release be arranged so that inherited classification fails?

27. Circulation and Presentation

Images travel. They can be cropped, captioned, ranked, thumbnailed, reposted, searched, archived, and recirculated into fields that restore trophy logic. Circulation therefore belongs to the problem of composition. To compose an image now is to compose not only the frame, but the pressures that attend its movement through technical and social infrastructures.81

Scale, resolution, support, and distance determine whether the layered field holds as architecture or collapses as thumbnail. A large print may preserve the relation among skirt, underlayer, slip-function, posture, and returning look; a small feed image may accelerate the eye toward one sign; a crop may amputate the structure that made the interval authored.

The work cannot control every afterlife, but it can be composed with afterlife in mind: with enough structural force that relation survives reduction where possible, and with enough clarity that the loss caused by reduction remains visible when it does not.

The skirt-function is portable because it is operational. It continues wherever layered visibility defeats extraction, wherever inner drapery rescues the underlayer from isolation, wherever reverent form holds the model’s body at the distance of regard rather than seizure, and wherever the eye is returned to the conditions by which it produces meaning.

Part VII. Criterion and Horizon

28. The Formal Criterion as a Gradual Test

No vocabulary can complete the work in advance. Skirt-function, second surface, drapery, inner drapery, layered visibility, distributed salience, authored interval, slip-function, reverent form, anti-extractive attention, and exact regard are not ornaments around an image. They are names for operations that must be visible in composition.

The criterion is formal, public, and gradual. It is formal because the image must alter the route of attention, not merely be accompanied by a theory. It is public because the claim can be argued from what any attentive reader can see: crop, scale, centrality, contrast, posture, mediation, framing, distribution, and the persistence or collapse of relation. It is gradual because no image is perfectly immune to extraction, and no image is reduced to one fate forever.

The structural criterion can be tested by relation. The test is not whether removing a stratum causes some loss—a competently made image of any kind will suffer when dismembered. The test is what the image solicits while intact. If, with the skirt’s architecture, the mediating slip-function, posture, scale, returning look, rhythm, light, and frame all in place, the image still presents the underlayer as a fragment to be taken, extraction has won; the surrounding structure was decoration over seizure. If instead the intact image holds the underlayer in relation—so that attention must travel through cloth, posture, drapery, interval, and return in order to arrive at it, and finds it changed in function by that travel—then reverent form has been composed rather than merely named. The question the test makes vivid is directional: does the field exist to deliver a trophy, or to hold a body in regard?

The test does not mechanically deliver verdicts. It produces disciplined disagreement among readings. Its function is to discipline interpretation, not to replace it. The test asks critics, viewers, and maker alike to argue from the structure of the work rather than from intention, discomfort, reflex, or private claim alone.

The degree of visibility modifies the test. A low degree of visibility may require subtle counterforce; a high degree of visibility requires stronger architecture. The more the innermost stratum approaches centrality, brightness, frontal legibility, or isolation, the more the work must insist on the surrounding field. A strongly visible undergarment does not invalidate the image. It raises the stakes of composition.

Model-appropriate freedom modifies the test at an even deeper level. No age, gender, or category supplies an automatic verdict. The same skirt, lining, underlayer, pose, or crop can become different operations according to age, bearing, gendered context, medium, and circulation. A work fails the criterion when it asks a model to carry a meaning that the composition cannot return as dignity, play, support, ritual, movement, bearing, or form. A work succeeds when the grammar it uses has been transformed by relation. The criterion is universal because it is relational: it changes its demands according to the subject it claims to hold in regard without cancelling the artist’s freedom in advance.

The criterion holds regardless of how much historical charge a given image carries. A quiet image can fail structurally if it still offers its subject for the taking; a highly charged image can succeed structurally if that charge is held within regard rather than released as a trophy. The question is not the amount of reaction in the field, nor whether reaction is permitted, but whether the composition solicits possession or invites relation. The criterion is structural: it asks what the image does with the body, not what anyone privately feels before it.

The aesthetic criterion cannot be reduced to the structural test. It asks whether the work continues after recognition: whether pleat, interval, colour, posture, light, textile relation, and returning address remain compelling once the viewer has understood the operation. A work may interrupt extraction and still fail aesthetically if it has no surplus beyond its lesson. The rigour of the work lies in this pressure between claim and composition: the image must do more than prove a point. It must interrupt extraction formally, sustain an encounter, and remain alive as form after that interruption has been understood.

The statement itself can become a shield if it is used to explain away what an image has failed to compose. Authored interval can become a name for extraction if the image lets seizure govern what it names as authorship. Reverent form can become a cover for possession if the word is asserted while the composition still hands the body over to be taken; theory can become a substitute for form if it refuses the image. These are not external caveats. They are internal consequences of the operation, and they belong to the same formal test.

29. The Long Horizon

The conditioning that gives the present work its force is historical. It had a beginning, and it can weaken. A future may arrive in which the undergarment no longer carries its present charge, in which the diagnostic labour of the work becomes unnecessary, and in which viewers see only a carefully composed structure of cloth, body, pose, and threshold. Such obsolescence would not defeat the work. It would fulfil one of its deepest possibilities.

The work does not promise to be the same work after the charge dissolves. It promises that what remains will have been worth composing on its own terms. The pleat still falls. The slip-function still mediates. The underlayer still participates in the architecture of dress. The model’s body still bears force. The image still organises an encounter. Historical charge may fade, transform, or migrate; construction remains answerable to itself.

The work does not depend on scandal. Scandal is temporary. Form can outlive the conditions that made it urgent. The skirt-function begins as a test of conditioning and endures as an articulation of cloth, body, threshold, underlayer, and attention.

Part VIII. Closure

30. Form in Passage

I neither conceal nor simply expose. I compose the threshold and author the interval. The skirt builds inside, passage, and relation; the slip-function mediates the interior; the underlayer becomes inner drapery; the beneath becomes second surface; regard holds the body at the distance of attention; the visible becomes a field whose freedom depends on the discipline of relation.

The beneath is not a truth to be extracted. It is a second surface to be composed. The lifted skirt is not the defeat of form. It is form entering passage.

I do not make images in order to make the innermost undergarment available as a trophy. I make images in order to perform the skirt-function, and in order to make visible what happens to seeing when the skirt-function passes through a culturally overcharged stratum. The underlayer is not the destination of the work. It is the stress test of perception. Nor do I make the work by claiming a pure heart or an empty one. I make no assertion about the interior, because the interior cannot be shown and need not be judged. What the work answers for is its disposition: it holds the body in regard rather than reaching to possess it, and that regard is a demand on form before it is anything else.

When the operation succeeds, the underlayer remains visible, but visibility no longer equals possession; the skirt opens, but opening no longer equals invitation; the slip-function mediates, but mediation no longer equals apology; the underlayer appears, but appearance no longer equals trophy; the body appears, but appearance no longer equals consumption; the eye is met, but being met no longer equals accusation; the viewer reacts, but reaction no longer equals verdict. Each pairing names a release. The releases together name the field in which the work asks to be read.

The work refuses extraction, compression, and closure. It refuses the reduction of cloth to trigger, body to part, skirt to obstacle, underlayer to prize, viewer to reflex, or theory to shield. It does not ask the eye to become innocent. It asks the eye to become exact. Exact seeing is not purity. It is responsibility.

The Skirt-Function composes the beauty of bodily bearing through skirt, underlayer, cloth, posture, light, and threshold, so that what culture trained the eye to seize may instead be held in reverent form. It does not claim that one garment, pose, or degree of visibility is right for every body, nor that any category of body excludes a form in advance. It claims that every body must be met by its own distance, fabric, posture, light, rhythm, and form. The work bears the first responsibility.

References

  1. Shklovsky, Viktor. “Art as Device.” In Theory of Prose, translated by Benjamin Sher, 1–14. Champaign, IL: Dalkey Archive Press, 1990.
  2. Bullough, Edward. “‘Psychical Distance’ as a Factor in Art and an Aesthetic Principle.” British Journal of Psychology 5, no. 2 (1912): 87–118.
  3. Dewey, John. Art as Experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Co., 1934.
  4. Schiller, Friedrich. On the Aesthetic Education of Man: In a Series of Letters. Edited and translated by Elizabeth M. Wilkinson and L. A. Willoughby. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
  5. Nāgārjuna. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Translated by Jay L. Garfield. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
  6. Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.
  7. Ribeiro, Aileen. Dress and Morality. Revised edition. Oxford: Berg, 2003.
  8. Vincent, Susan. The Anatomy of Fashion: Dressing the Body from the Renaissance to Today. Oxford: Berg, 2009.
  9. Hollander, Anne. Seeing Through Clothes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
  10. Roche, Daniel. The Culture of Clothing: Dress and Fashion in the Ancien Régime. Translated by Jean Birrell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
  11. Dalby, Liza. Kimono: Fashioning Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
  12. Milhaupt, Terry Satsuki. Kimono: A Modern History. London: Reaktion Books, 2014.
  13. Steele, Valerie, and Colleen Hill. Exposed: A History of Lingerie. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.
  14. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
  15. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge, 1966.
  16. Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Translated by Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.
  17. Anzieu, Didier. The Skin Ego. Translated by Chris Turner. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
  18. Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16, no. 3 (1975): 6–18.
  19. Mulvey, Laura. “Afterthoughts on ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ Inspired by King Vidor’s Duel in the Sun (1946).” Framework, nos. 15/16/17 (1981): 12–15.
  20. Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: BBC and Penguin, 1972.
  21. hooks, bell. “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators.” In Black Looks: Race and Representation, 115–131. Boston: South End Press, 1992.
  22. Silverman, Kaja. The Threshold of the Visible World. New York: Routledge, 1996.
  23. Ahmed, Sara. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006.
  24. Pietz, William. “The Problem of the Fetish, I.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 9 (1985): 5–17.
  25. Pietz, William. “The Problem of the Fetish, II: The Origin of the Fetish.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 13 (1987): 23–45.
  26. Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1. Translated by Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin Books, 1976.
  27. James, William. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt, 1890.
  28. Bergson, Henri. Matter and Memory. Translated by Nancy Margaret Paul and W. Scott Palmer. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1911.
  29. Lusthaus, Dan. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and the Ch’eng Wei-shih Lun. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.
  30. Arnheim, Rudolf. Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Revised edition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.
  31. Gombrich, E. H. The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art. Oxford: Phaidon, 1979.
  32. Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2006.
  33. Semper, Gottfried. The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings. Translated by Harry Francis Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
  34. Wigley, Mark. White Walls, Designer Dresses: The Fashioning of Modern Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
  35. Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Space. Translated by Maria Jolas. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994.
  36. Deleuze, Gilles. The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. Translated by Tom Conley. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.
  37. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Edited by Paul Guyer. Translated by Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  38. Derrida, Jacques. The Truth in Painting. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
  39. Koffka, Kurt. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935.
  40. Albers, Anni. On Weaving. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1965.
  41. Barthes, Roland. The Fashion System. Translated by Matthew Ward and Richard Howard. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.
  42. Marks, Laura U. The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000.
  43. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. Translated by Donald A. Landes. London: Routledge, 2012.
  44. Entwistle, Joanne. The Fashioned Body: Fashion, Dress and Modern Social Theory. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity, 2015.
  45. Young, Iris Marion. “Women Recovering Our Clothes.” In On Female Body Experience: “Throwing Like a Girl” and Other Essays, 62–74. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
  46. Cheng, Anne Anlin. Ornamentalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.
  47. Desmond, Jane, ed. Meaning in Motion: New Cultural Studies of Dance. Durham: Duke University Press, 1997.
  48. Albright, Ann Cooper. Traces of Light: Absence and Presence in the Work of Loïe Fuller. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2007.
  49. Benjamin, Walter. “Little History of Photography.” In Selected Writings, Volume 2: 1927–1934, edited by Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary Smith, translated by Rodney Livingstone et al., 507–530. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
  50. Krauss, Rosalind. The Optical Unconscious. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
  51. Gombrich, E. H. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.
  52. Friston, Karl. “The Free-Energy Principle: A Unified Brain Theory?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11, no. 2 (2010): 127–138.
  53. Clark, Andy. Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
  54. Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959.
  55. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Translated by Hazel E. Barnes. New York: Philosophical Library, 1956.
  56. Danto, Arthur C. The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.
  57. Rancière, Jacques. The Emancipated Spectator. Translated by Gregory Elliott. London: Verso, 2009.
  58. Bodhi, Bhikkhu, trans. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Saṃyutta Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2000.
  59. Gethin, Rupert. The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
  60. Agamben, Giorgio. Profanations. Translated by Jeff Fort. New York: Zone Books, 2007.
  61. Tanizaki, Jun’ichirō. In Praise of Shadows. Translated by Thomas J. Harper and Edward G. Seidensticker. New Haven, CT: Leete’s Island Books, 1977.
  62. Dōgen Kigen. The Heart of Dōgen’s Shōbōgenzō. Translated by Norman Waddell and Masao Abe. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002.
  63. McMahan, David L. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  64. Welwood, John. Toward a Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Psychotherapy, and the Path of Personal and Spiritual Transformation. Boston: Shambhala, 2000.
  65. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990.
  66. Flügel, J. C. The Psychology of Clothes. London: Hogarth Press, 1930.
  67. Wilson, Elizabeth. Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity. Revised edition. London: I.B. Tauris, 2003.
  68. Nussbaum, Martha C. “Objectification.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 24, no. 4 (1995): 249–291.
  69. Langton, Rae. Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
  70. Ariès, Philippe. Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. Translated by Robert Baldick. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962.
  71. Higonnet, Anne. Pictures of Innocence: The History and Crisis of Ideal Childhood. London: Thames & Hudson, 1998.
  72. O’Brien, Alden. “What Did the Austen Children Wear and Why? New Trends in British Children’s Clothing, 1760–1800.” Jane Austen Society of North America.
  73. Japan Association of Home Economics Education. “Chūgakusei no chakusō ni kansuru chōsa kenkyū: Tsūgakufuku no chakui jōkyō ni tsuite.” Nihon Kateika Kyōiku Gakkaishi 29, no. 2.
  74. Kuramochi, Kayoko, and Toshonoie, eds. Kawaii! Shōjo Manga Fashion Book: Shōwa Shōjo ni Mode o Oshieta Yonin no Sakka. Tokyo: Rittorsha, 2020.
  75. Monden, Masafumi. Japanese Fashion Cultures: Dress and Gender in Contemporary Japan. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.
  76. Azoulay, Ariella. The Civil Contract of Photography. Translated by Rela Mazali and Ruvik Danieli. New York: Zone Books, 2008.
  77. Campt, Tina M. Listening to Images. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017.
  78. Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.
  79. Hayles, N. Katherine. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
  80. Crawford, Kate. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021.
  81. Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility: Second Version.” In Selected Writings, Volume 3: 1935–1938, edited by Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings, translated by Edmund Jephcott et al., 101–133. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002.