Sunday, March 6, 2011
Review of Vanessa's sex and media blog.
Vanessa Elridge is most well known for her influential combination of major works presented in an upper division class at PSU, Sex and Media, and the reality of the media and popular culture. She exposes how dangerously over-excessive sexualizing is within the mainstream, which can be found anywhere from the lyrical content of Brittney Spears and Rihanna, to Burger King ads and single’s websites such as dateacougar.com. Even the smaller, more seemingly innocent nuances seen in fringe media, such as the “hot girls” comment stated in Portlandia’s theme song doesn’t get by unscathed without her critical application of feminist, gender, and sex studies. I was impressed Vanessa’s depiction of Miley Cyrus’s evolution within popular culture, and how her nascence as a young adult is immediately sexualized. She may be getting too old for childrens' shows now, but is definitely young blood for the mainstream market which emphasizes sexuality over almost any other theme. Much of Vanessa’s synthesis of critical theories and studies with mediated images and artifacts was spot on, and intriguing. She has inspired me to pay attention more to popular culture, to suspend my apprehension, and see the way we depict our culture within this institution. Vanessa’s blog has opened my eyes and ears to the myriad mediums of popular culture, and through the use of a crucial lexicon one may acquire in such a class as Sex and Media, to deconstruct the messages that are reflected and being said to both us, and more importantly, to our younger generations. Therein, maybe through an active approach, we could enlighten ourselves and hopefully even others to critically read through the blurred lines, to see the ubiquity of pornography and patriarchy within media and popular culture, and how it affects sex and gender identity, ethnicity, and classism. Vanessa is clearly a brilliant provocateur and her blog is only a small extension of her magnitude as an empowered critical thinker and observer.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Sexualized minorities, “sexual otherness” and heterosexism in media
The heterosexual within the media is seen as the dominant form of sexuality, whether or not it mirrors the reality of diversity. And when we see anything but heterosexuality presented in the media, it comes as something beyond the normative. Homosexuality is typically seen as something slightly (to overwhelmingly) abstract from the stated norm of heterosexuality. Typical television programs don’t promote the concepts, conflicts, and issues surrounding heterosexuality, because for them, it is considered the normative. As soon as there is a program containing sexual otherness, immediately that becomes a controversial focal point of the theme. And of course, within capitalism, this can create an audience and capital. Sexualizing minorities and creating sexual otherness provides the detachment of everyday living from sexuality, or sexuality beyond the “normal” heterosexual.
Such would be seen in this first image, where a man is fashioned with a “gay, not gay” switch, as if sexuality is some type of man-made device which can be shut off and on as one pleases. The ignorance behind this image is appalling. Could we not say, then, for heterosexuals, we could create a switch that makes us “hetero, non-hetero” if indeed sexuality is some sort of choice, a mask we can wear and take off at the end of the day? And to add some froth on top of this steamy drink, we can then sexualize minorities, seen within the next picture.
We have two males kissing, seemingly one as an African American, and the other Caucasian. The text claims that “gayness has no boundaries.” So this presents homosexuality as disregarding race, color, and any other prejudice. Through sexualizing an African American male and a Caucasian male, this somehow itself breaks the quietude of racism and deems the comment to be appropriate and acceptable.
Other ways we can see the sexualizing of minorities is featured in this next picture, a comic illustration of a naked, old black man in a recliner chair.
He has an erection, and might I add, a massive erection, completely absurd when proportionally compared to his legs, which is roughly the same length. This cartoon exists from the age old myth and stereotype that ALL black men have enormous penises. Because this stereotype is so pervasively existent within culture, it allows this image to be socially acceptable, rather than objectifying and racist.
This photo, I am guessing, is a still shot from a Nelly video, infamous for the “ATM card ass-swipe.” We see African Americans completely sexualized, Nelly engulfed in exotic and erotic seeming women, literally climbing all over him. More what this photo presents to me is that African Americans are wild and primal, just as other social stereotypes which have existed throughout the Caucasian world for centuries. Maybe the video has greater conflicts with male dominance, but I think this issue presented should not be overlooked, reinforcing sexualizing minorities.
This final image is quite disturbing, so viewers should be forewarned.
This is an image of Sasha Grey, a porn-star gone celebrity. She has transformed from the lower rungs of entertainment, pornography, into the mainstream culture. Mainstream culture trumpets celebrities as talented people, worthy of the limelight, typically superior to the lower classes of society. So here we have Sasha Grey, a female with this status, but still an oppressed porn star. This image is horrifically telling of the way in which females are still treated, regardless of social status. This doesn’t even seem like porn. It seems like a serious power struggle, completely demeaning the female as tears of mascara run and she swallows the reality of dominance. Not only does it sexualize heterosexism, it purports the continuing idea of male dominance within heterosexual relations.
Such would be seen in this first image, where a man is fashioned with a “gay, not gay” switch, as if sexuality is some type of man-made device which can be shut off and on as one pleases. The ignorance behind this image is appalling. Could we not say, then, for heterosexuals, we could create a switch that makes us “hetero, non-hetero” if indeed sexuality is some sort of choice, a mask we can wear and take off at the end of the day? And to add some froth on top of this steamy drink, we can then sexualize minorities, seen within the next picture.
We have two males kissing, seemingly one as an African American, and the other Caucasian. The text claims that “gayness has no boundaries.” So this presents homosexuality as disregarding race, color, and any other prejudice. Through sexualizing an African American male and a Caucasian male, this somehow itself breaks the quietude of racism and deems the comment to be appropriate and acceptable.
Other ways we can see the sexualizing of minorities is featured in this next picture, a comic illustration of a naked, old black man in a recliner chair.
He has an erection, and might I add, a massive erection, completely absurd when proportionally compared to his legs, which is roughly the same length. This cartoon exists from the age old myth and stereotype that ALL black men have enormous penises. Because this stereotype is so pervasively existent within culture, it allows this image to be socially acceptable, rather than objectifying and racist.
This photo, I am guessing, is a still shot from a Nelly video, infamous for the “ATM card ass-swipe.” We see African Americans completely sexualized, Nelly engulfed in exotic and erotic seeming women, literally climbing all over him. More what this photo presents to me is that African Americans are wild and primal, just as other social stereotypes which have existed throughout the Caucasian world for centuries. Maybe the video has greater conflicts with male dominance, but I think this issue presented should not be overlooked, reinforcing sexualizing minorities.
This final image is quite disturbing, so viewers should be forewarned.
This is an image of Sasha Grey, a porn-star gone celebrity. She has transformed from the lower rungs of entertainment, pornography, into the mainstream culture. Mainstream culture trumpets celebrities as talented people, worthy of the limelight, typically superior to the lower classes of society. So here we have Sasha Grey, a female with this status, but still an oppressed porn star. This image is horrifically telling of the way in which females are still treated, regardless of social status. This doesn’t even seem like porn. It seems like a serious power struggle, completely demeaning the female as tears of mascara run and she swallows the reality of dominance. Not only does it sexualize heterosexism, it purports the continuing idea of male dominance within heterosexual relations.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Mediated examples of femininity as specifically sexualized
Within media, femininity is all too frequently exploited as sexualized portrayals of stereotypes, gender roles, and rigidly oppressed. We see femininity rendered as both attainable and desirable to men and women. It reinforces the norms of patriarchy and male dominance. Females are objectified, and this objectification is usually the means of exploitation, such as a female garnishing a mainstream hip hop video as or to sell a product in an advertisement.
This photo graph is quite literally objectifies the female form; it transform the female genitalia into an object. The production of this photograph shows a woman holding a mouse with split fingers, and the mouse cable splits the screen like a slight parting between a woman’s legs. The scroll button (a revealed clitoris), the design of the mouse and of course the hand suggestion is an almost perfect replica of the vagina. Playboy uses an everyday object we use, and compares it to the sexual pornography of smut and XXX porn, affirming the ubiquity of sexualized femininity throughout almost all facets of culture.
This is some post-modern-post-objectification-sexualization type shit right here.
This photo uses a female to support the power of the males featured. The female presents herself as sexually and highly desirable. Her clothing is almost useless here. More important is the positioning of the female here, seemingly on her knees, submissively in front of one of the males. This position suggests she is about to, or already has been performing oral sex on the super star. The album name is “I <3 Your Girl,” which probably relates to the girl in the photo. It upholds male dominance and how sexy female submission can be.
Here is a female and male together in their underwear, I do believe. The way these sexy beasts lay together in a utopia and land of nothingness is unbelievable. They are together, and nothing else impedes this. But I can’t help to see the depictions of the two. The female rests into the male, clutching his side, as if she is pulling herself in for even more protection. But why!? There seems no threat at all in this land of solitude and bliss. But that is just it. Society has normalized females as always being the inferior, and helpless without the presence of the male. So yes, there is no threat, but socially constructed roles tell a different story. And these two characters of this story make it look damn sexy as well.
Oh look, an activist! Wait, not really. It’s just Eva Mendes, naked. Peta, how dare you! Exploiting the sexuality of women to help save the lives of innocent animals!? What kind of mad twilight world are we stuck in? But she said it, I guess. So maybe Peta and Eva are innocent… because the social construction of acceptable sexual imagery of women is so profound and pervasive, they may not even realize they too are infected. I’d love to give them that benefit of doubt, but I feel I’d be a fool to do so. I knew there was a reason I hated Peta.
So I know porn is too easy to give a critical analysis of, especially when considering femininity as sexualized. But I couldn’t keep myself from using this last photograph. I believe it is a still shot from a porno scene, which seems to delve into some BDSM. Attire is being worn, but it’s useless. Or maybe it is functional, to give greater form to the female, to augment her bust and bottom, and make her seem skinnier, idealized, and even sexier than she already might be. The icing is “Fuck Hole” written on her ass in lipstick. Lipstick is already established an object created from the exploitation of female imagery. Females should have huge, luscious lips, and if not, lip stick will help you with that. And lip stick has been around forever it seems, and accepted into feminine culture. Now we’ve finally hit rock bottom- females are nothing but lipstick and fuck holes… or maybe I guess we could consider this as a utopia resulted from sexualizing females.
This photo graph is quite literally objectifies the female form; it transform the female genitalia into an object. The production of this photograph shows a woman holding a mouse with split fingers, and the mouse cable splits the screen like a slight parting between a woman’s legs. The scroll button (a revealed clitoris), the design of the mouse and of course the hand suggestion is an almost perfect replica of the vagina. Playboy uses an everyday object we use, and compares it to the sexual pornography of smut and XXX porn, affirming the ubiquity of sexualized femininity throughout almost all facets of culture.
This is some post-modern-post-objectification-sexualization type shit right here.
This photo uses a female to support the power of the males featured. The female presents herself as sexually and highly desirable. Her clothing is almost useless here. More important is the positioning of the female here, seemingly on her knees, submissively in front of one of the males. This position suggests she is about to, or already has been performing oral sex on the super star. The album name is “I <3 Your Girl,” which probably relates to the girl in the photo. It upholds male dominance and how sexy female submission can be.
Here is a female and male together in their underwear, I do believe. The way these sexy beasts lay together in a utopia and land of nothingness is unbelievable. They are together, and nothing else impedes this. But I can’t help to see the depictions of the two. The female rests into the male, clutching his side, as if she is pulling herself in for even more protection. But why!? There seems no threat at all in this land of solitude and bliss. But that is just it. Society has normalized females as always being the inferior, and helpless without the presence of the male. So yes, there is no threat, but socially constructed roles tell a different story. And these two characters of this story make it look damn sexy as well.
Oh look, an activist! Wait, not really. It’s just Eva Mendes, naked. Peta, how dare you! Exploiting the sexuality of women to help save the lives of innocent animals!? What kind of mad twilight world are we stuck in? But she said it, I guess. So maybe Peta and Eva are innocent… because the social construction of acceptable sexual imagery of women is so profound and pervasive, they may not even realize they too are infected. I’d love to give them that benefit of doubt, but I feel I’d be a fool to do so. I knew there was a reason I hated Peta.
So I know porn is too easy to give a critical analysis of, especially when considering femininity as sexualized. But I couldn’t keep myself from using this last photograph. I believe it is a still shot from a porno scene, which seems to delve into some BDSM. Attire is being worn, but it’s useless. Or maybe it is functional, to give greater form to the female, to augment her bust and bottom, and make her seem skinnier, idealized, and even sexier than she already might be. The icing is “Fuck Hole” written on her ass in lipstick. Lipstick is already established an object created from the exploitation of female imagery. Females should have huge, luscious lips, and if not, lip stick will help you with that. And lip stick has been around forever it seems, and accepted into feminine culture. Now we’ve finally hit rock bottom- females are nothing but lipstick and fuck holes… or maybe I guess we could consider this as a utopia resulted from sexualizing females.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Mediated examples of masculinity as specifically sexualized.
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Socially constructing "appropriate" sex.
In our culture, sex is widely constructed through visual imagery and other vehicles in the media, such as movies and popular music. While discourse about appropriate sex is healthy, there are certain ideological views which pervade intentions to set the right type of grounds to have this discussion. We may have sex education in junior high school, but we also have television shows which glorify underage sex and even early adulthood for those who now have to deal with the consequences of unprotected sex. We also have unprecedented events happening across the country in more recent years, pushing for greater equality for LGBT. And then we see all throughout entertainment and media, still the idea that true love exists really between male and a female, such as this first image.
Here we see the male and female signs entwined. Below the signs remade into hearts is a statement “Belong Together.” This immediately assumes love is between male and female, and any other relationship that doesn’t fit this structure ultimately does not “belong together.” And if any of this was confusing for you, the appropriate colors have been used to define gender roles in the way we are told which colors are fitting for which sex.
This next image is from an old cartoon, which immediately appropriates the female and male. Though the male in this image would be depicted as a dog, the message is just that. The female should show off her body with an almost non-existent skirt and emphasize her bust. It is then shown as completely fine for the male to overly gaze at the female, with tongue and drool hanging from their mouth. Here, even though cartoons may seem harmless, we must realize the target audience is children. And we are already setting the standard for both males and females to this young audience; females should be sexy, revealing, and willing, while the males should fear not to be blunt in their gaze and howl all they want at females they deem sexy (or at least what society creates for them as “sexy”).
Similar to the last image, we see a depiction of the “male” brain, which reinforces almost all male roles. But most importantly, it legitimizes that sex should be of the utmost importance for the male. It also suggests that sex goes without consequence, such as the footnote at the bottom reads- the “listening to children cry in the middle of the night” gland is not shown due to its small and underdeveloped nature.” And speaking about underdeveloped nature, which ever genius created this image used “it’s” wrong in the footnote. Way to go. So we are now told the least a man should worry about is having children, or having to ever deal with them (defining female roles), and sex should always be on the mind, and never let the two be part of the same school of thought.
Next is a highly eroticized image from the True Blood cast on the cover of Rolling Stone. Immediately this image recalls an orgy. One would have to be blind to not agree. Two males and a female, a three-some, are stark nude and groping one another. It is important to draw attention to the female completely engulfed by the males, just as a pornographic orgy typically is depicted. They are covered in blood, which is raw and substance that comes from the human body (gosh, it’s strikingly similar to a hell of a “money shot”)… here as well, do we see a correlation with BDSM. This photo is a straight winner for socially constructed appropriate sex.
I cannot tell, nor can I find really any information on this photo, whether or not this photo is really intentional or its portrayal is an accident. Either way, because it is available for public viewing, it gives acceptance to the image. It may be completely harmless, two bicycle geeks showing off their attire and bicycle, or whatever the intention was. But it is far too close for comfort that the bike seat has transformed into a male erection and seems to be penetrating the female from behind. The female as well has assumed a position which seems to be accepting and submissive of this act, and even enjoying it. The male grabs the female from behind in the same way we are shown in pornography the sexual position of doggy-style. Though this image is probably more comical than anything else, it still indeed exists out there in the world of imagery, and can easily send the wrong message.
Here we see the male and female signs entwined. Below the signs remade into hearts is a statement “Belong Together.” This immediately assumes love is between male and female, and any other relationship that doesn’t fit this structure ultimately does not “belong together.” And if any of this was confusing for you, the appropriate colors have been used to define gender roles in the way we are told which colors are fitting for which sex.
This next image is from an old cartoon, which immediately appropriates the female and male. Though the male in this image would be depicted as a dog, the message is just that. The female should show off her body with an almost non-existent skirt and emphasize her bust. It is then shown as completely fine for the male to overly gaze at the female, with tongue and drool hanging from their mouth. Here, even though cartoons may seem harmless, we must realize the target audience is children. And we are already setting the standard for both males and females to this young audience; females should be sexy, revealing, and willing, while the males should fear not to be blunt in their gaze and howl all they want at females they deem sexy (or at least what society creates for them as “sexy”).
Similar to the last image, we see a depiction of the “male” brain, which reinforces almost all male roles. But most importantly, it legitimizes that sex should be of the utmost importance for the male. It also suggests that sex goes without consequence, such as the footnote at the bottom reads- the “listening to children cry in the middle of the night” gland is not shown due to its small and underdeveloped nature.” And speaking about underdeveloped nature, which ever genius created this image used “it’s” wrong in the footnote. Way to go. So we are now told the least a man should worry about is having children, or having to ever deal with them (defining female roles), and sex should always be on the mind, and never let the two be part of the same school of thought.
Next is a highly eroticized image from the True Blood cast on the cover of Rolling Stone. Immediately this image recalls an orgy. One would have to be blind to not agree. Two males and a female, a three-some, are stark nude and groping one another. It is important to draw attention to the female completely engulfed by the males, just as a pornographic orgy typically is depicted. They are covered in blood, which is raw and substance that comes from the human body (gosh, it’s strikingly similar to a hell of a “money shot”)… here as well, do we see a correlation with BDSM. This photo is a straight winner for socially constructed appropriate sex.
I cannot tell, nor can I find really any information on this photo, whether or not this photo is really intentional or its portrayal is an accident. Either way, because it is available for public viewing, it gives acceptance to the image. It may be completely harmless, two bicycle geeks showing off their attire and bicycle, or whatever the intention was. But it is far too close for comfort that the bike seat has transformed into a male erection and seems to be penetrating the female from behind. The female as well has assumed a position which seems to be accepting and submissive of this act, and even enjoying it. The male grabs the female from behind in the same way we are shown in pornography the sexual position of doggy-style. Though this image is probably more comical than anything else, it still indeed exists out there in the world of imagery, and can easily send the wrong message.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Pornographic Mainstream Media
Mainstream media promotes individuality, sexuality, and empowerment, largely through the exploitation of the bourgeois. Even worse is when it is the exploitation of an ideology which it promotes, like empowerment. And so frequently this line is crossed within our visual culture of consumerism. Pornography within the mainstream media seems to largely be a method of communicating that message to consumers. Within celebrity culture, we see music artists and actors constantly glorified in advertisements, which can all too frequently be easily received as soft-core porn. These first two photos give much substance to this.
This Lady Gaga photograph is straight BDSM porn. It has elements of role playing and bondage. The black tape over her nipples, the scantily black, leather-type lingerie is the outfit of a dominatrix. She wears light purple wig underneath what appears to be a sort of military official’s hat. Interesting enough, in all her seductive seriousness, this all falls apart when she is wearing the hate of an official, a dog of war, who barks orders which end up in the casualty of innocent lives, saluting the view… exposes a tattoo of peace, an emblem she has branded herself with. The ad is a contradiction, and boils it down to nothing but a pornographic image of a popular female music singer.
So close to a nipple slip… or wait, is that a nipple slip? I think it’s a nipple slip. Here, Christina Aguilera is seen coddling a white blanket… like a classical female would be engrossed by her virginity. But we know this is not true for Christina. She has already been exposed other times in the media, naked, and several months pregnant. Talk about fantasy voyeurism. So she clearly isn’t a virgin, though this image, and especially when compared to classical imagery, would maybe suggest that. So what are we left with here? An unnecessary nipple slip and a highly stylized photo of her with slightly parted lips and big innocent, puppy’ish eyes, gazing sexually out of the frame. So maybe this isn’t as bad as the Lady Gaga ad. Or is it? This ad, is post- pregnancy, and maybe we could sense this from the largeness of her breasts. Or, if that may not be enough, let me share how a website presented this picture:
Milf (Mother I’d Like to Fuck) Monday: Christian Aguilera
Where You’ve Seen Her: We all know Christina Aguilera is one slutty chick we’ve love to have a go with. Singing hit songs for the past ten years, she’s defined herself as one of the best pop singers of our time. Her name is synonymous with talent, hotness, and being a skank.
MILF Status: Christina hopped on the MILF wagon years ago, giving birth to a son whom she named Max Liron, consequently
the name of one of her hit songs that means, in hebrew, ‘The Greatest Song’.
So this is how we influence the male gaze with these types of photos in mainstream media? Wonderful. (Face-palm)
Pornography is also very frequent in advertising for sports apparel and accessories, especially when they are dealing with females. This first one is strange approach that Nike took to create an illusion of female empowerment. They appropriate the voice of women and why they should cultivate their bodies. But, this of course, is in relation to the male gaze… which tends to focus mainly on the “tits and ass” of women. So a healthy big butt is good and women should embrace it. Yes, people should always embrace their bodies; no one should ever tell you how to feel about yourself. But then, parallel to this text, is a female with her head coy and held downward, and her body exposed quite profoundly- especially her butt.
This next photo is an Ab-workout ad of a female who has absolutely no fat on her body at all. And she is as good as naked. Maybe this is to show off her abs… but her tube top and tiny bottom are so skimpy and revealing that it’s incredibly easy to just picture her naked. So presenting the model in this pornographic fashion is not necessarily being used to promote her muscularity, but rather shows her in a sexually empowered position while gripping the metal beams behind her, like a steel worker (a male dominated labor job), but her grip is still fairly lose and sexy. Rawr.
This last photo goes beyond the Freudian suggestion of pornographic imagery; this American Apparel ad is straight blunt about it. Their minimal, flesh-toned spandex ware is almost seamless against real human skin. So seamless, that they recommended this for Halloween, to actually draw on their genital areas. Party time. Men and women can enjoy it, can enjoy being naked and seeing one another naked while still technically playing by the rules of obscenity. No harm done. Even though, gosh, it looks so damned real. It seems to me they are all naked, even if it's all just suggestive drawings. But who cares... it's safe, clean, orgiastic fun. There is no way in hell this motley crew would ever make it to home base… now, would they?
This Lady Gaga photograph is straight BDSM porn. It has elements of role playing and bondage. The black tape over her nipples, the scantily black, leather-type lingerie is the outfit of a dominatrix. She wears light purple wig underneath what appears to be a sort of military official’s hat. Interesting enough, in all her seductive seriousness, this all falls apart when she is wearing the hate of an official, a dog of war, who barks orders which end up in the casualty of innocent lives, saluting the view… exposes a tattoo of peace, an emblem she has branded herself with. The ad is a contradiction, and boils it down to nothing but a pornographic image of a popular female music singer.
So close to a nipple slip… or wait, is that a nipple slip? I think it’s a nipple slip. Here, Christina Aguilera is seen coddling a white blanket… like a classical female would be engrossed by her virginity. But we know this is not true for Christina. She has already been exposed other times in the media, naked, and several months pregnant. Talk about fantasy voyeurism. So she clearly isn’t a virgin, though this image, and especially when compared to classical imagery, would maybe suggest that. So what are we left with here? An unnecessary nipple slip and a highly stylized photo of her with slightly parted lips and big innocent, puppy’ish eyes, gazing sexually out of the frame. So maybe this isn’t as bad as the Lady Gaga ad. Or is it? This ad, is post- pregnancy, and maybe we could sense this from the largeness of her breasts. Or, if that may not be enough, let me share how a website presented this picture:
Milf (Mother I’d Like to Fuck) Monday: Christian Aguilera
Where You’ve Seen Her: We all know Christina Aguilera is one slutty chick we’ve love to have a go with. Singing hit songs for the past ten years, she’s defined herself as one of the best pop singers of our time. Her name is synonymous with talent, hotness, and being a skank.
MILF Status: Christina hopped on the MILF wagon years ago, giving birth to a son whom she named Max Liron, consequently
the name of one of her hit songs that means, in hebrew, ‘The Greatest Song’.
So this is how we influence the male gaze with these types of photos in mainstream media? Wonderful. (Face-palm)
Pornography is also very frequent in advertising for sports apparel and accessories, especially when they are dealing with females. This first one is strange approach that Nike took to create an illusion of female empowerment. They appropriate the voice of women and why they should cultivate their bodies. But, this of course, is in relation to the male gaze… which tends to focus mainly on the “tits and ass” of women. So a healthy big butt is good and women should embrace it. Yes, people should always embrace their bodies; no one should ever tell you how to feel about yourself. But then, parallel to this text, is a female with her head coy and held downward, and her body exposed quite profoundly- especially her butt.
This next photo is an Ab-workout ad of a female who has absolutely no fat on her body at all. And she is as good as naked. Maybe this is to show off her abs… but her tube top and tiny bottom are so skimpy and revealing that it’s incredibly easy to just picture her naked. So presenting the model in this pornographic fashion is not necessarily being used to promote her muscularity, but rather shows her in a sexually empowered position while gripping the metal beams behind her, like a steel worker (a male dominated labor job), but her grip is still fairly lose and sexy. Rawr.
This last photo goes beyond the Freudian suggestion of pornographic imagery; this American Apparel ad is straight blunt about it. Their minimal, flesh-toned spandex ware is almost seamless against real human skin. So seamless, that they recommended this for Halloween, to actually draw on their genital areas. Party time. Men and women can enjoy it, can enjoy being naked and seeing one another naked while still technically playing by the rules of obscenity. No harm done. Even though, gosh, it looks so damned real. It seems to me they are all naked, even if it's all just suggestive drawings. But who cares... it's safe, clean, orgiastic fun. There is no way in hell this motley crew would ever make it to home base… now, would they?
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Social critique with sexual imagery.
In a society where we find ourselves inundated with copious imagery, stemming greatly from corporate advertising thrusted into public sphere, we can also find many endeavors of counter-activity, not only to reclaim public space, but as well to contribute to the cleaning of pollution (specifically, for this case, visual and mind pollution) through acts of subversion and culture jamming. Integral to much of these responsive acts is art, sometimes reliant more on concept and theory, where as others are visually simple, meant to provoke the viewer or viewers into questioning and re-thinking the social normative constructed by the ubiquitous images of corporate dominance. "Sex sells" has always been the theoretical base of most advertising, and the bane of consumer culture. This has well molded and manipulated the general pysche of mass culture to see themselves under corporate pretense, whose only initiatives are to increase both power/control and profits. For the rest of society, (most classes, from the bottom up to the higher middle class, and even beyond) we encounter existential issues of our individual image, our genders, our sexualities, and our ideologies of sexual relationships.
Here we have an image, the iconic female sign used mostly for labeling the bathroom door to differentiate between sexes. Though, there are 2 females side by side, where as we frequently see the images of a male and female next to one another upon deciding which bathroom is most appropriate to use. This image doesn't attack an ideology purported by a corporation, but rather a dominant ideology deeply seated in the mind(s) of the masses as to the normative of relationships. Generally speaking, when we use a public restroom, we see 2 choices, one for women, and next to it, one for men. Every once in a while are we given the opportunity to not prescribe to this generalitization, and can use a unisex restroom. But never do we see (and if we do, it must be ever-so-rarely) to female bathrooms side by side. A heavy remark upon the the discourse of LGBT within our culture.
Next, is the re-appropriation of the incredibly famous Quaker Oats man. Here, he has been manipulated to put his gender into question. We are so easily manipulated to see a man or a women and assume their sexuality such as this Quaker Oats man, or Mr. Clean, Ronald McDonald, or Colonel Sanders. They are men, at least this is how they are presented. But what would we really think if we saw these people in the flesh, especially within the context of their environment? A man whose life is featured around food (Quaker Oats), a man who plays with children and wears more facial make up than Ziggy Stardust (Ronald McDonald), a man whose sole obsession is with that of cleaning (Mr. Clean). Society puts generalized ideas on genders, especially through and within mass media. To me, what this ad does is put that idea into question.
Here is a pretty well-known image, a parody on a Calvin Klein advertisement. Such as was stated in the movie Fight Club when the two main characters say to one another "Mommy, is that how a man is supposed to look?" (or something to that effect). Here, we see an overly-chiseled man obsessing over his genitalia with a banal expression. Many things can be assumed- is he questioning his gender? is he questioning what society tells him is masculine beauty? or is he just simply marveling (or depressed) of his own genitalia? Either way, this ad provokingly puts into question the male image in mainstream media.
This advertisement seems quite self-explanatory. Women are heavily targeted by cosmetic companies, and are continuously presented throughout culture wearing make up. What seems to be sold here is lipstick, but more so is the presentation of the model, all in white, surrounded by white, as a divine creature. One could say she must seem empowered, a virgin, and beautiful. This ideology is what the product company is pushing. Just below the model is the word "Feminisn't", a play on Feminism. This model is isolated and her sexuality is glorified. The latter is relevant to feminism, but artist who re-appropriated this image provokes the viewer into deciding for themselves beyond the surface message.
This final image is a photograph by Allen James. The artist may have had many different intentions, but for me, I see as an attempt to point out the social and cultural oppressions pushed onto women, (especially during the time period of its inception, I believe in the 60s) both in the assumption of females as being domesticated wives and sex slaves. The fact that female, a sex toy, is in a submissive position, but she is as also with the benefit of being utilitarian. I don't believe the artist's motive is in-line with these ideas, but to hopefully spark anger and rage into the viewer and maybe push them to think of why this would have been created, with objects and ideologies that already exist within our society and culture.
Here we have an image, the iconic female sign used mostly for labeling the bathroom door to differentiate between sexes. Though, there are 2 females side by side, where as we frequently see the images of a male and female next to one another upon deciding which bathroom is most appropriate to use. This image doesn't attack an ideology purported by a corporation, but rather a dominant ideology deeply seated in the mind(s) of the masses as to the normative of relationships. Generally speaking, when we use a public restroom, we see 2 choices, one for women, and next to it, one for men. Every once in a while are we given the opportunity to not prescribe to this generalitization, and can use a unisex restroom. But never do we see (and if we do, it must be ever-so-rarely) to female bathrooms side by side. A heavy remark upon the the discourse of LGBT within our culture.
Next, is the re-appropriation of the incredibly famous Quaker Oats man. Here, he has been manipulated to put his gender into question. We are so easily manipulated to see a man or a women and assume their sexuality such as this Quaker Oats man, or Mr. Clean, Ronald McDonald, or Colonel Sanders. They are men, at least this is how they are presented. But what would we really think if we saw these people in the flesh, especially within the context of their environment? A man whose life is featured around food (Quaker Oats), a man who plays with children and wears more facial make up than Ziggy Stardust (Ronald McDonald), a man whose sole obsession is with that of cleaning (Mr. Clean). Society puts generalized ideas on genders, especially through and within mass media. To me, what this ad does is put that idea into question.
Here is a pretty well-known image, a parody on a Calvin Klein advertisement. Such as was stated in the movie Fight Club when the two main characters say to one another "Mommy, is that how a man is supposed to look?" (or something to that effect). Here, we see an overly-chiseled man obsessing over his genitalia with a banal expression. Many things can be assumed- is he questioning his gender? is he questioning what society tells him is masculine beauty? or is he just simply marveling (or depressed) of his own genitalia? Either way, this ad provokingly puts into question the male image in mainstream media.
This advertisement seems quite self-explanatory. Women are heavily targeted by cosmetic companies, and are continuously presented throughout culture wearing make up. What seems to be sold here is lipstick, but more so is the presentation of the model, all in white, surrounded by white, as a divine creature. One could say she must seem empowered, a virgin, and beautiful. This ideology is what the product company is pushing. Just below the model is the word "Feminisn't", a play on Feminism. This model is isolated and her sexuality is glorified. The latter is relevant to feminism, but artist who re-appropriated this image provokes the viewer into deciding for themselves beyond the surface message.
This final image is a photograph by Allen James. The artist may have had many different intentions, but for me, I see as an attempt to point out the social and cultural oppressions pushed onto women, (especially during the time period of its inception, I believe in the 60s) both in the assumption of females as being domesticated wives and sex slaves. The fact that female, a sex toy, is in a submissive position, but she is as also with the benefit of being utilitarian. I don't believe the artist's motive is in-line with these ideas, but to hopefully spark anger and rage into the viewer and maybe push them to think of why this would have been created, with objects and ideologies that already exist within our society and culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)