8.5.10
The most interesting thing about this ad, which is all over Vancouver right now, is the two target audiences to which it markets at once.
The more obvious angle is its patriarchal, heteronormative symbolism, for the sake of appealing to (heterosexual) men and women. The women's shoes, makeup, facial expressions, and posture all help associate Buffalo clothing with female passivity and sexual availability. The balance of the frame makes the one man seemingly equivalent to the three women in terms of the amount of space he is allotted. Adding to that is his male gaze captured in the photograph. From the discussions I've heard surrounding this ad, that seems to be the main analysis: it is simply yet another advertisement uncritically showcasing male privilege.
But this ad is more complicated than that. Reading in to it further, this ad could be interpreted as presenting some version of "female empowerment". The fact that the three women stand together, holding each other, oblivious to the man, suggests that the women are dressed up sexily merely for the sake of themselves rather than for male attention. The male model has his hands in his pockets, shoulders raised, giving an air of awkwardness. The women, in contrast, appear much more confident.
However, like most evocations to "female empowerment" in mainstream advertising, this advertisement's representation of 'sisterhood' is being skinny, white, wearing clothes designed to disarm a woman's physical abilities (i.e. walking), and competing with one another (the women do not look at each other but rather appear to be trying to impress the imaginary photographer or viewer) instead of working together.
The more obvious angle is its patriarchal, heteronormative symbolism, for the sake of appealing to (heterosexual) men and women. The women's shoes, makeup, facial expressions, and posture all help associate Buffalo clothing with female passivity and sexual availability. The balance of the frame makes the one man seemingly equivalent to the three women in terms of the amount of space he is allotted. Adding to that is his male gaze captured in the photograph. From the discussions I've heard surrounding this ad, that seems to be the main analysis: it is simply yet another advertisement uncritically showcasing male privilege.
But this ad is more complicated than that. Reading in to it further, this ad could be interpreted as presenting some version of "female empowerment". The fact that the three women stand together, holding each other, oblivious to the man, suggests that the women are dressed up sexily merely for the sake of themselves rather than for male attention. The male model has his hands in his pockets, shoulders raised, giving an air of awkwardness. The women, in contrast, appear much more confident.
However, like most evocations to "female empowerment" in mainstream advertising, this advertisement's representation of 'sisterhood' is being skinny, white, wearing clothes designed to disarm a woman's physical abilities (i.e. walking), and competing with one another (the women do not look at each other but rather appear to be trying to impress the imaginary photographer or viewer) instead of working together.
19.1.10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)