Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Does the world of high-fashion use women, art and violence as a tool for controversy?

12 magazine’s beauty editorial Victims of Beauty, which featured models made up to look like victims of horrific crimes, was neatly skewered by Jezebel writer Jenna Sauers this week.

Sauers pegged the spread as a ham-fisted, short-sighted attempt at edginess: “ The high-fashion world in general loves to think of itself as contrarian, élite, and boldly at odds with the tastes and mores of the wider public. It likes to think that it, in fact, leads those tastes. But much of the imagery the fashion industry uses to communicate its messages at best echoes and at worst reinforces some of the wider culture's most negative ideas about women and girls.” 

The magazine got its feathers ruffled at her criticism and wrote back a letter saying their intentions were misconstrued and closed with these questions: “1. How would you perceive those photographs if they were accompanying an <sic> campaign against domestic violence? Would you still think of them as disgusting or would you praise them as brave and thought provoking? Worth the think <sic>, isn’t it? 2. What would you say if those were bespoken men, carefully groomed, but still, terribly injured? Probably nothing, and quite frankly that’s a bit sexist.” 


Let’s set aside the patronizing tone of those questions and talk about what seems to be at the root of the hub-bub: do the photos glorify or promote violence against women? The magazine claims that they did not set out to condone domestic violence but…if that’s true…it would seem that they didn’t publish the pictures with any conscious aim at all beyond shocking their readership.

That’s negligent.
An important part of my development as a writer was a bit of advice a treasured English teacher gave me: if you’re going to put something terrible on paper, have a damn good reason. Shock for shock’s sake cannot withstand public scrutiny and can compromise the value of your work as a whole.

However, where a book or a movie might suffer blowback for splashing on domestic violence like cheap cologne, there doesn’t seem to be the same kind of accountability in fashion. This Bulgarian editorial is only one example in a never-ending parade of paper dolls and mannequins painted, stripped and speared by an industry stocked with professionals who are rapidly running out of ideas.

Let’s not let controversy be a substitute for substance.

What are your expectations of art and artists?

Link to: jezebel.com/: fashions ongoing violence against women

Tom Ford ad: provocative and no one gets hurt
Robyn here - I'd like to add this to the mix. I would like to say that I don't believe that all high-fashion people are cut from the same cloth (no pun intended.) Designer/Artist Tom Ford has always represented women in a positive way. Yes, his fashion and his ads contain scantily clad people sometimes but there is always a playful self-awareness and gender equality to anything he does. His images can be thought-provoking, but you cannot lump him in with a publication like 12 Mag.
I would also argue that publications are not the makers of fashion (except for Vogue and its editor Anna Wintour) and you would never see an editorial as grotesque and women-hating as that in the pages of any country's Vogue. Or Elle. Or any of the other authentic fashion magazines.
I also echo Ashley in the question, what are our expectations of art and artists? And what role do we have as consumers in the production and selling of the underlying violence of those images?
I refuse to put those images on the blog, so please check out the article on Jezebel if you would like to see them. 
--Robyn


about Duendefilms West production of appleseeds: 

Please visit our indiegogo page to find out how we are trying to make a difference both in our short film and the screening/benefits to follow to raise money and awareness around issues of domestic violence and gender representation in film and media.




Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Pictures worth a million internalized words: The Things That Make Us Uncomfortable

Go Daddy: would this mean the same thing if it was a man?

Read this blog and just had to re-post it. Sometimes we let ideas and images slip by because we are so used to being bombarded with them. They become part of our "socialized unconscious." It's clear a dialogue about how women are represented in all forms of media is needed now more than ever. Sex sells, we know that. But how about some equal time for women to count for more than just a pretty face and a perfect body. Every image counts. 

Excerpt from May 22nd Blog at Feministing.com by ehammers

"We have innate reactions to minority groups. We have innate reactions to things that we feel are unjust or wrong. We feel personally affected, and people begin to argue. People begin to lose control and fight, people begin to start wars and create violence. I’m not just talking about women right now. “Women’s issues” are not one type of “issue”. “Issues” do not need to have a negative connotation at all. What about “IDEAS”? Ideas have a positive connotation. Spreading ideas is the answer. How do we begin to do that? How do we begin to start watching the television and working towards making advertising NOT controversial? Coming up with ideas together. Instead of FIGHTING the ad agencies and turning it into a war about “Women’s Issues”, what about starting a conversation?





about Duendefilms West production of appleseeds: 

Please visit our indiegogo page to find out how we are trying to make a difference both in our short film and the screening/benefits to follow to raise money and awareness around issues of domestic violence and gender representation in film and media.