No Hole-In-One...

The great thing about being a huge packrat is that you always have piles of old magazines lying around just waiting to be rummaged through. I was thinking about what to critique today and felt a rummaging was in order. This advertisement that I found comes from the September 29, 2006 issue of Entertainment Weekly (I’m seeing a bit of a trend here…), and what it is is an ad for the Sony Cyber-shot (hmm…I’m seeing another trend here, cough cough Sony…). Take a look:
 

This ad is pretty racist. I’m surprised to see it taking place today really. It actually took me several moments to figure out what it was advertising. By the Zen like pose that the female subject is in, I thought it might be for some sort of herbal product or yoga, (but that would be too obviously stereotypical). As it turns out, Michelle Wie (the model) is a professional golfer. The peacock-like feathers are actually golf clubs. She isn’t dressed like a golfer though, which somewhat confuses me as to the purpose of this ad. What I do notice here however, is that this ad is severely guilty of orientalism. It places an Asian woman in a pose of meditation, which sells the stereotype of Eastern culture being spiritual and commodifies it to sell this product. What also makes this ad to be highly exotic is its’ colourization. Note the use of oranges and yellows, both are visually appealing and have ties with Asian exoticism. There is also the use of objects in this ad that make it to be other-worldly. The mat which Wie is sitting on alludes to be a large lily pad, which is referential to the Lotus, which comes from Buddhism (also Zen/enchanting). The golf clubs behind her are structured to be like a peacock tail. Peacocks are not part of everyday Western culture, so they are more of a novelty to the audience that is receiving this advertisement.

All of these factors within this ad make it guilty of cultural appropriation. Sony is using Asian culture, and stereotypes related to it in order to sell its’ product to the Western market. It does not take into consideration the context of Zen, meditation etc, just the fact that it is appealing to a Western culture because it is different than what we have here. This ad is terribly stereotypical and degrading to Asian culture just for the sake of selling a camera. With this and the previous Playstation3 ad I’m wondering what Sony won’t do for a dollar…

Checkmate.

Don’t you love it when something useful just falls into your lap? This happened to me yesterday. I got my issue of Entertainment Weekly (a week late…) and inside of it was this ad for the new Sony Playstation3.

It shows the new Playstation in the background, and in the foreground there is a bishop piece from a game of chess that is decapitated and bloody. Under this piece’s ‘corpse’ is the ad-line ‘It’s already devising ways to kill you’. I think this ad is a bit much. I also think that it is for reasons like this that the term moral panic exists. I think that there is something extreme in decapitating a game piece that is traditionally not associated with violence. What this alludes to in terms of gaming, is that everything must be violent in order to sell and be amusing. This makes me think of what Henry Jenkins said in his article Lessons from Littleton: What Congress doesn’t want to hear About Youth and Media. He states that “teens aren’t drawn to [video games] because they are bloodthirsty or because they think violence is the best real-world response to their problems” (391), but this is apparently untrue according to the advertising executives at Sony. Apparently violence should be what you think of in order to win. I mean, you have to be ultraviolent in order to beat this new Playstation3, it’s programmed to kill you (in the gaming sense), and so you’d best be prepared. This ad also seems to bring an attack on ideas of what is tough and what is cool. Chess is typically viewed as a game of intellect, and with the chess piece dead; this ad can be seen as an attack on intellect for the sake of cool. Also, note that the chess piece is a Bishop, the chess piece with the most obvious religious connotation. The bishop has been beheaded in a visually appealing sleek and stylized manner. Religion, like intellect, is also not traditionally viewed as cool and exciting, therefore it must be destroyed to allow for play and for coolness. Attacking two such dominant ideas of importance will inevitably create moral panic, as those who establish what is morally offensive are usually intellects or religious officials. The consumers and appreciators of media that is deemed ‘morally inappropriate’ are the ones who enjoy the sexist and violent aspects that are evident. Therefore, this advertisement caters to them, and celebrates fun through violence. It seems that this ad clashes with Jenkins’ theory as it presents violence as the ‘best real-world response’ (91) to religious and intellectual ideologies. Check moral panic...

Happy Hump Day!

Hi again!

I thought in honour of it being Hump day (Wednesday!) I would talk about this lovely promotional giveaway that one of my housemates got at a concert this weekend. It's a Durex condom, from the nice people at 102.1 the edge radio station in Toronto, with a different view on Hump Day and how you should celebrate it. Take a look if you will:

At first I thought that this was a pretty funny and clever promo. Then I paused and thought about it. This package/story is pretty offensive. First of all, it's so heterosexist, it says "You land in a hot tub surrounded by girls in bikinis", which I feel makes the assumption that the reader/user is a heterosexual male, since a) a gay man would not particularity find that much sexual pleasure in said situation, and b) if it were a female landing in the tub, she would have no use for this type of protection as she lacks the physical anatomy to use it. Do gay men and lesbians not enjoy Hump Day in the sense of this package, and do they not deserve to be appointed as royalty, surrounded by many beauties? What about heterosexual women? Where are they with their hot tubs of men in scandalous swimwear? The story ends with the word ‘everyone’; does this mean that only straight men use these condoms? It fully overlooks the women and gay men. All these other demographics use contraception, so why do 102.1 the edge and Durex feel that they should only cater to the sexual needs of men? I mean, there is not a hetero-female or gay-male story version. Durex and the edge are lacking in intersectionality in terms of their promo. Why not make a choose your own adventure version? There are many sides to this package which could be used to have a broader appeal and show the mutual continuativeness of contraception. Everyone needs it; therefore they should be marketed towards. This is perhaps due to the fact that Durex and/or 102.1 the edge have, as Stuart Hall refers to, a "preferred meaning" towards gender ideology; meaning they prefer to have the heterosexual male as their target market. They present the hegemonic idea of male dominance and heterosexuality. Gay men are stereotypically deemed less masculine, and women lack the phallic power of condom usage (they need the man in order for the condom to serve its purpose), therefore that are not the ideal target consumer. I do not think that this is the best direction for Durex to go in, as it will alienate many of the people who might consider buying their products. They need to be more intersectional and show that all people typically use contraception and should therefore be treated equal. There should be no power as to who has the condom, rather to those who are smart enough to know to use one. Not so smart Durex/102.1...

Out the Window?

So in our class we discussed the theory/concept of gay window advertising. What it basically means is putting a gay/queer subtext into a piece of media, usually intended for heterosexual audiences, so that it is has a broader appeal. To most consumers, it goes unnoticed and they feel safe being out of the gay target as it is not always too overtly gay; they can just assume it is being presented as the norm. Queer subtext is typically found in advertising. Since men's clothing is indeed for men, comprising of heterosexuals, homosexuals, somewhat in between or undefined, companies need to appeal their product to as many of the consumers as possible in a singular ad. This is a) to save money (it's probably too expensive to shoot a gay version of an ad right after the hetero, and b) to show that there is no preference over either consumer. They want to create the hegemonic idea of their company being open to all clientele.

To explore this, and see if gay window advertising exists, I went to Indigo and purchased the latest issue of GQ (a men's fashion/lifestyle magazine typically read by hetero men) and the latest issue of OUT (a men's fashion/lifestyle magazine typically read by gay men) and took a look at their ads.

First I think I'll look at the ones from GQ:

This one goes very much along the line of the so-called 'beefcake' pose. The man is rugged and masculine, but also toned, buff, and exposed. It presents an idea of dominant hetero-masculinity, but is a gay viewing pleasure as the man can be gazed upon. For hetero-audiences, the man is the subject of focus, as he is wearing the clothing being modeled. However, for gay-audiences, in addition to being the subject of focus, the model is also the object of focus. His hyper-sexuality becomes a gay viewing pleasure. Therefore this ad can fall under the subjection of gay window advertising.
While this ad is not overtly masculine, it has a very strong (perhaps the stongest) gay subtext. Although the man is not dressed in any stereotypical homosexual way (and therefore can been deemed straight?), his actions allude to homosexuality. The slogan is "Time to Shop!", with pink/red stars around it. Shopping is typically viewed as a gay activity, rather than a straight man's activity. Why would this be in a GQ and not OUT? Perhaps since GQ is not a magazine read exclusively by heterosexuals, Macy's thought it to be important to appeal to the gay readers, but not so openly. Although the man is excited and jovial, he is still presented to be masculine (businessman, mid-age: if trying to appeal to exclusively gay men, perhaps they would use a much younger man?).
I find the Jonathan Rhys Meyers ad to be very open to a queer reading. Look at his pose. There is an emphasis of his sexuality with his legs being spread open in a rather inviting pose. Although fully clothed, it is a provocative display of male sexuality. Although Rhys Meyers himself is a heterosexual, and is dressed rather masculinely, there is such a blatant display of sexual desire for the male viewer.

This ad is very open to a queer reading. Although there is not a display of sexuality, oor effemininity, there is still a strong gay vibe. Note the slogan: 'Time Out". Out as in homosexual? It is appears to be a male dominated situation, with 5 men to 1 woman, and the woman is barely visible. The men all appear to be very comfortable together in such a close situation enjoying each others intimate company.

Ad's in Both OUT & GQ:

These were some of the ads in both magazines, although there are many of the same advertisements in both, I chose these two to critique. Clearly as they are in both, there is an endorsement towards the straight and gay male consumer.

Three men out having a good time. That is what this ad depicts. Not so gay right? However, note the slogans: 'Be Fabulous' and 'Beauty Sleep is Only For Those Who Need It". This advertisement has a gay subtext primarily through it's wordings. 'Fabulous' is not a word that is (if ever) used to describe heterosexual men, it is rather a word used by homosexual men. There is a stereotype of them refering to themselves and their friends as being 'fabulous' or 'fab'. The gay viewer will more likely pick up on this rather than the hetero viewer as they are not exposed to this wording as much. In terms of the other slogan, there is more of an awareness on the homosexual emphasis on beauty. These men do not need their beauty sleep as they are clearly beautiful. A heterosexual male is more likely to refer to himself as good-looking, not beautiful.

Now, while this ad seems pretty normal to most consumers, it has a strong subliminal gay hint. Some could see this man as merely resting or posing. Others could see him as cruising, which is a term for a man out looking for gay sex. Although he is in a fairly relaxed pose, his eyes and body language conveys desire. Desire for rest, or desire for sex? It is up to the viewer/consumer to decide.

Lastly, one thing I wanted to look at was something that struck me in comparing the magazines. These are the ads for Levi's jeans. The First comes from OUT, the second from GQ.

<--From OUT. From GQ -->

These ads are both for the same product. The OUT ad however, is way more openly sexual than the other. Why is this? Why did Levi's choose to have to very different advertisements? I found the GQ ad rather hard to queer since the model has no dominant presence, and seems pretty asexual, which could be the intention. It is just so much tamer than the OUT one. Perhaps Levi's felt that GQ readers would not respond well to such a hot man wearing the jeans? It has such a high gay viewing pleasure, as there is clearly such objectivity of the model here, maybe the just thought it would be too much to put it in GQ and keep it OUT.

Thoughts?

Thanks for reading my first entry! More to come!

PS: I just thought I'd add this. It came from OUT. Can you EVER imagine seeing this in a straight magazine?!

Welcome!

Hi!

Welcome to my Women's Studies: Sex Gender and Popular Culture Blog!

-Brian.