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.