Theodor Adorno
Adorno (1903-69) argued that capitalism fed people with the products of a 'culture industry' - the opposite of 'true' art - to keep them passively satisfied and politically apathetic.
Media 2.0
Outline of Media Studies 1.0
This traditional approach to Media Studies, which is still dominant in a lot (but not all) of school and university teaching, and textbooks, is characterised by:
A tendency to fetishise 'experts', whose readings of popular culture are seen as more significant than those of other audience members (with corresponding faith in faux-expert non-procedures such as semiotics);
A tendency to celebrate certain key texts produced by powerful media industries and celebrated by well-known critics;
The optional extra of giving attention to famous 'avant garde' works produced by artists recognised in the traditional sense, and which are seen as especially 'challenging';
A belief that students should be taught how to 'read' the media in an appropriate 'critical' style;
A focus on traditional media produced by major Western broadcasters, publishers, and movie studios, accompanied (ironically) by a critical resistance to big media institutions, such as Rupert Murdoch's News International, but no particular idea about what the alternatives might be;
Vague recognition of the internet and new digital media, as an 'add on' to the traditional media (to be dealt with in one self-contained segment tacked on to a Media Studies teaching module, book or degree);
A preference for conventional research methods where most people are treated as non-expert audience 'receivers', or, if they are part of the formal media industries, as expert 'producers'.
Outline of Media Studies 2.0
This emergent alternative to the traditional approach is characterised by a rejection of much of the above:
The fetishisation of 'expert' readings of media texts is replaced with a focus on the everyday meanings produced by the diverse array of audience members, accompanied by an interest in new qualitative research techniques;
The tendency to celebrate certain 'classic' conventional and/or 'avant garde' texts, and the focus on traditional media in general, is replaced with – or at least joined by – an interest in the massive 'long tail' of independent media projects such as those found on YouTube and many other websites, mobile devices, and other forms of DIY media;
The focus on primarily Western media is replaced with an attempt to embrace the truly international dimensions of Media Studies – including a recognition not only of the processes of globalization, but also of the diverse perspectives on media and society being worked on around the world;
The view of the internet and new digital media as an 'optional extra' is correspondingly replaced with recognition that they have fundamentally changed the ways in which we engage with all media;
The patronising belief that students should be taught how to 'read' the media is replaced by the recognition that media audiences in general are already extremely capable interpreters of media content, with a critical eye and an understanding of contemporary media techniques, thanks in large part to the large amount of coverage of this in popular media itself;
Conventional research methods are replaced – or at least supplemented – by new methods which recognise and make use of people's own creativity, and brush aside the outmoded notions of 'receiver' audiences and elite 'producers';
Conventional concerns with power and politics are reworked in recognition of these points, so that the notion of super-powerful media industries invading the minds of a relatively passive population is compelled to recognise and address the context of more widespread creation and participation
Coursework
Ideas
Keep them simple. the more complicated your idea, the more will go wrong. Limits on settings, actions, characters, story. Pitch should be able to be explained in 25 words.
Research
Look at examples
conventions, audiences and insitutions
Planning
Plan for what can go wrong
Record all planning
Show process of planning
Evidence
Storyboard
Script
Feedback
At every stage take feedback to improve
Logistics
People, place, props, costume
Rehearse and prepare
Share contact details
Sunday 24 October 2010
Monday 18 October 2010
Essay
The image above is a composition of several clips from the well known Transformers 2 Revenge of the fallen. The subject of the male gaze within the film itself is star Megan Fox who has starred in several other films. Women in film are represented as ‘objects’, images with visual and erotic impact, which also is termed their ‘to-be-looked-at-ness’. Megan Fox has been given the role of playing the male gaze within the movie. This can be seen by the mise en scene, props used, lighting, make up and clothing, types of shots and use of sound.
Firstly looking at the mise en scene of the clips Meagan's surroundings consist of a bike shop which isn't stereotypically connected with females. By placing her in this environment it instantly catches the males attention to why she's there and stereotypically must have the role of being 'eye candy' while the men work.
Now considering the props within these clips, they are used as a phallic symbol to help create a sexualised image. The use of a motorbike within this clip has followed the objectification of females although being a bike it represents a male and connotes that Megan rides the male. Also further down the sequence the use of flowers are used in context to angelic whore, as Megan appears in pure white however she strips down in a public area into a short white loose dress which has the symbol of being pure but also promiscuous. 
Make up and clothing play a big part in creating a male gaze as the set up of these can either make or break a gaze. Considering Megan, she is heavily drowned with make up ranging from her face to her chest and arms, this is to better her appearance and also add a sense of sexiness to look, An example of this is a bright red lipstick which appeal to men and connote she is looking for attention. 
Now analysing her clothing with the sequence it seems to follow a similar pattern of being revealing and sexualised. Starting of with the first outfit, hot pants and low cut vest which without doubt gets the audiences attention and so much flesh is showing, also fetishisation occurs as the revealing of the buttock and chest appeal to the dominant male audience. 
Thursday 14 October 2010
Post-Feminism Reading/Reserach
Bridget Jones diary - "suggest that equality is achieved, in order to install a whole repertoire of new meanings which emphasise that it is no longer needed, it is a spent force."
Monday 30 December
Flying home from lovely skiing holiday.
Cannot believe quantity of food have consumed over festive period. Wonder how much weight it is technically possible to put on in one day? If you ate the most fattening things you could think of without being sick or stopping, how long would it take the fat to grow, and how much could be produced at any one time? Therefore how much could be put on in seven days of same? Humph. Just asked Mark Darcy, who said I had to shut up or will tell air hostess to put me in jump seat. Anyway, life is going to be completely different when get back. Am not going to smoke or drink and am going to be much more on top of things with Mum. For example am going to tell her Mark Darcy and I cannot come to Una and Geoffrey Alconbury's New Year's Day Turkey Curry Buffet in poised and adult manner. Also am going to really take pleasure from just being at home putting photographs in albums instead of going out to 192 all the time.
Noon. Back In flat. Aargh. Terrified re ringing Mum. Last year Mum, Una and Elaine Darcy spent entire time at the Buffet trying to get me and Mark Darcy off with each other. Mark Darcy says reappearing as successfully-mated offspring would be not only intolerable (as we would be like pair of performing seals forced to have sex in front of assembled company etc), but irresponsible since Mum would spontaneously burst like Oscar Wilde with smugness then die, which would detract from festive atmosphere.
12.30. Just called Mum. "Oh hello, darling, how are you?" she trilled casually, apparently failing to notice my absence for entire Christmas period, "Hang on a tick. Just saying goodbye to Marjorie." She dropped her voice. "You know Ray and Marjorie, don't you, darling - they have hen huts. Marjorie was trying to get hold of this special hen for some unknown reason and... oooh hang on, the timer's off on the microwave."
She then left me sitting on the phone for nine minutes. After spending three minutes yelling, "Mum, Mum," I put the phone down only to have it ring back immediately.
"Bridget," Mum hissed dangerously, "Putting the phone down on another person is Very. Very. Rude..."
Wonder bra - "The composition of the image had such a textbook “sexist ad” dimension that one could be forgiven for supposing some familiarity with both cultural studies and with feminist critiques of advertising (Judith Williamson 1987)."
"taking feminism into account by showing it to be a thing of the past, by provocatively “enacting sexism” while at the same time playing with those debates in film theory about women as the object of the gaze (Laura Mulvey 1975) and even with female desire (Rosalind Coward 1984 Teresa de Lauretis 1988)."
Monday 30 December
Flying home from lovely skiing holiday.
Cannot believe quantity of food have consumed over festive period. Wonder how much weight it is technically possible to put on in one day? If you ate the most fattening things you could think of without being sick or stopping, how long would it take the fat to grow, and how much could be produced at any one time? Therefore how much could be put on in seven days of same? Humph. Just asked Mark Darcy, who said I had to shut up or will tell air hostess to put me in jump seat. Anyway, life is going to be completely different when get back. Am not going to smoke or drink and am going to be much more on top of things with Mum. For example am going to tell her Mark Darcy and I cannot come to Una and Geoffrey Alconbury's New Year's Day Turkey Curry Buffet in poised and adult manner. Also am going to really take pleasure from just being at home putting photographs in albums instead of going out to 192 all the time.
Noon. Back In flat. Aargh. Terrified re ringing Mum. Last year Mum, Una and Elaine Darcy spent entire time at the Buffet trying to get me and Mark Darcy off with each other. Mark Darcy says reappearing as successfully-mated offspring would be not only intolerable (as we would be like pair of performing seals forced to have sex in front of assembled company etc), but irresponsible since Mum would spontaneously burst like Oscar Wilde with smugness then die, which would detract from festive atmosphere.
12.30. Just called Mum. "Oh hello, darling, how are you?" she trilled casually, apparently failing to notice my absence for entire Christmas period, "Hang on a tick. Just saying goodbye to Marjorie." She dropped her voice. "You know Ray and Marjorie, don't you, darling - they have hen huts. Marjorie was trying to get hold of this special hen for some unknown reason and... oooh hang on, the timer's off on the microwave."
She then left me sitting on the phone for nine minutes. After spending three minutes yelling, "Mum, Mum," I put the phone down only to have it ring back immediately.
"Bridget," Mum hissed dangerously, "Putting the phone down on another person is Very. Very. Rude..."
Wonder bra - "The composition of the image had such a textbook “sexist ad” dimension that one could be forgiven for supposing some familiarity with both cultural studies and with feminist critiques of advertising (Judith Williamson 1987)."
"taking feminism into account by showing it to be a thing of the past, by provocatively “enacting sexism” while at the same time playing with those debates in film theory about women as the object of the gaze (Laura Mulvey 1975) and even with female desire (Rosalind Coward 1984 Teresa de Lauretis 1988)."
Citroen - " This advert appears to suggest that yes, this is a self-consciously “sexist ad,” feminist critiques of it are deliberately evoked. Feminism is “taken into account,” but only to be shown to be no longer necessary. Why? Because there is no exploitation here, there is nothing remotely naı¨ve about this striptease. She seems to be doing it out of choice, and for her own enjoyment..."
Wednesday 13 October 2010
Post feminism
• A more positive look at post-feminism:
In raising these questions, I am only at the beginning of figuring out what a more positive kind of post-feminist account of religion and family might look like, and so have no compelling summary to offer, let alone a call to a specific research agenda. In my own work, I do want to take some feminist insights for granted. But I explicitly reject the idea that strong feminist critiques have had their day and must now give way gracefully to approaches that favor a consensual and functional, or even communitarian, interpretation of the good society. I am feeling more combative, or at least constructively critical, about theories that neatly divide society into a “public” and a “private” realm, while systematically devaluing those feminine things (religion, family) assigned to the private (cf., Warner 1999). I am not sure where it will lead, but it feels right to begin pushing back the boundaries of post-feminism by asking a different set of questions.
• Post-feminism as backlash to feminism:
What the hell is postfeminism, anyway? I would think it would refer to a time when complete gender equality has been achieved. That hasn’t happened, of course, but we (especially young women) are supposed to think it has. Postfeminism, as a term, suggests that women have made plenty of progress because of feminism, but that feminism is now irrelevant and even undesirable because it has made millions of women unhappy, unfeminine, childless, lonely, and bitter, prompting them to fill their closets with combat boots and really bad India print skirts.
• Post-feminism as a colloquialism:
It’s about deeply held political convictions, not to mention strategy. If there’s a wad of people out there extolling postfeminism and meaning “I think feminism is flawed and I’d like to see some goal-shifting, fresh tactics, and revisiting of contentious topics,” this isn’t just an issue of what’s going on in a speech group that doesn’t overlap with mine. It’s about defending feminism’s ground. Feminism is already doing the work that these (as I have come to think of them) non-evil postfeminists think comes with their prefix. And it’s beyond obvious that feminism suffers from its terrible reputation and from the vast misunderstandings that stunning numbers of people still have about it (no matter how many times it happens, I will never, ever get used to being asked if I hate men). I can’t help but see even the non-evil usage of “postfeminism” as a rejection of and attack on feminism, and an implication that the movement is finished. And that means I need to challenge it at every turn.
• The ambiguity of the prefix “post”:
I’ve come accross the term used in the way Lurker describes, similarly, in academic circles, and for academic reasons I don’t think anyone should use it. The problem lies in the ambiguity of the prefix “post”, because post can mean since something commenced OR since something concluded. So, while technically a “post-feminist society” could mean a society since feminism began to be an influence, there will always be people who think you mean since feminism ended.
In raising these questions, I am only at the beginning of figuring out what a more positive kind of post-feminist account of religion and family might look like, and so have no compelling summary to offer, let alone a call to a specific research agenda. In my own work, I do want to take some feminist insights for granted. But I explicitly reject the idea that strong feminist critiques have had their day and must now give way gracefully to approaches that favor a consensual and functional, or even communitarian, interpretation of the good society. I am feeling more combative, or at least constructively critical, about theories that neatly divide society into a “public” and a “private” realm, while systematically devaluing those feminine things (religion, family) assigned to the private (cf., Warner 1999). I am not sure where it will lead, but it feels right to begin pushing back the boundaries of post-feminism by asking a different set of questions.
• Post-feminism as backlash to feminism:
What the hell is postfeminism, anyway? I would think it would refer to a time when complete gender equality has been achieved. That hasn’t happened, of course, but we (especially young women) are supposed to think it has. Postfeminism, as a term, suggests that women have made plenty of progress because of feminism, but that feminism is now irrelevant and even undesirable because it has made millions of women unhappy, unfeminine, childless, lonely, and bitter, prompting them to fill their closets with combat boots and really bad India print skirts.
• Post-feminism as a colloquialism:
It’s about deeply held political convictions, not to mention strategy. If there’s a wad of people out there extolling postfeminism and meaning “I think feminism is flawed and I’d like to see some goal-shifting, fresh tactics, and revisiting of contentious topics,” this isn’t just an issue of what’s going on in a speech group that doesn’t overlap with mine. It’s about defending feminism’s ground. Feminism is already doing the work that these (as I have come to think of them) non-evil postfeminists think comes with their prefix. And it’s beyond obvious that feminism suffers from its terrible reputation and from the vast misunderstandings that stunning numbers of people still have about it (no matter how many times it happens, I will never, ever get used to being asked if I hate men). I can’t help but see even the non-evil usage of “postfeminism” as a rejection of and attack on feminism, and an implication that the movement is finished. And that means I need to challenge it at every turn.
• The ambiguity of the prefix “post”:
I’ve come accross the term used in the way Lurker describes, similarly, in academic circles, and for academic reasons I don’t think anyone should use it. The problem lies in the ambiguity of the prefix “post”, because post can mean since something commenced OR since something concluded. So, while technically a “post-feminist society” could mean a society since feminism began to be an influence, there will always be people who think you mean since feminism ended.
Tuesday 12 October 2010
example essay
What are the different representations of women in adverts and how are they signified?
The representation of women can be positive: challenging the roles and expectations of women or negative: reinforcing a patriarchal society. This essay questions how and why these representations are constructed in an advert for Gucci Guilty Perfume and Stella Artois beer.
Firstly the Gucci advert is in widescreen which connotes a dramatic cinematic experience to engage its audience. More attention is gained by the female character first seen in the text and her protagonist is signified through this. The protagonist has female dominance which is signified through the use of colour- everything is in black and white while her hair is gold/blonde. This colour connotes gold, power and divinity signifying her importance in the text.
The use of intertextuality in this text will appeal to a particular audience. The film references a great deal to the neo film noir Sin City, with the use of colour and the female dominant femme fatale character. Sin City appeals to a male audience due to the action genre, this trailer could also appeal to the same audience due to the intertextuality. In terms of the Uses and Gratifications theory, a female audience might realise and accept the protagonist in the text is a form of escapism and also a male gaze, by theorist Mulvey, and therefore might aspire, from Young and Rubicam's 4Cs, to be the object of male gaze too.
Though the protagonist is an object of male gaze, it could be suggested that she sexually objectifies herself to tease the audience. The protagonist puts her leg into the frame of the shot. As she puts into the frame, it signifies self objectification, allowing the audience to fetishise her body. Another shot, a high angle, of their sexual activities signifies CCTV and spying which is voyeuristic. The fact she is on top signifies her control of the situation for both the male character and the audience.
Not only does the protagonist exert her feminity through self objectification she also presents herself as an anarchic character signified by adopting male stereotypes. The advert begins with a long shot of an unknown character speeding down the motorway, which stereotypically would be expected to be a male character. However, the audience's expectations are challenged when a medium shot of the driver shows to be a female.
In contrast, women are negatively represented in the Stella Artois text. The most obvious editing technique used in the advert is the split screen: one side shows the female getting dressed and the other side is of the beer getting "prepared". This use of split screen signifies that neither the beer nor the woman know they have been placed side by side. This puts the audience in position of control as they can voyeur the woman, in a socially acceptable way. Audiences may identify this control as patriarchy, and also identify with the unknown male character whose presence is felt within the text. This text then reinforces the idea of a patriarchal society and that women are subordinated by men.
Not only does the female share the screen with the beer, but the screen is split equally between the two "objects" which connotes the woman is equally objectified to the status of beer. It is suggested the audience is male due to the female and beer subject. Though the advert is targeted at men, it also negatively stereotypes men as people who have little respect for women which however is a dominant representation.
A range of close up shots of the female are used to fetishise her body. There is a close up shot of the female's leg slowly and elegantly rising from the bath tub. On one hand this could signify femininity and her control over it which is the oppositional reading. However, the more dominant reading is that her legs are an important part of the female body and connotes a male audience who can voyeur her body.
The text near the beginning of the trailer says "the preparation" which is an enigma code as the audience question "what event is the preparation for?". It is signified through the shots that the woman and beer preparation is for the male through the use of action codes. Action codes of both the preparation of the woman and the glass of beer are the same.
Women are represented as people who prioritise their looks and appearance, and this ad reinforces this ideology. Action codes including close ups of her: brushing her hair, doing her make up and putting on heels strongly represent women as image conscious. It could be said that the advert reinforces this representation, which is always seen in the media. Funnily enough, it could also be said that the media itself is the cause of this representation as this ideal, perfect woman is always represented in the media, and women feel they have to aspire to it.
In conclusion, both texts females are the protagonists and are sexually objectified for male audiences to fetishise and vouyer their bodies. However, while Gucci’s advert’s protagonist controls her sexuality through self objectification, the Stella Artois’ protagonist is objectified by an unknown but present male character.
In the Gucci’s ad, there are many examples in the text that signify the protagonist’s female dominance, but it is arguable whether this could be seen as a positive representation. The dominant reading is that the protagonist exerts her female dominance over the male challenging the historical patriarchal society and even subordinating males as easily manipulated and easily tempted by women and sex and this would favour feminism. However the oppositional reading which would favour the ideologies of the Stella Artois advert, might be that females can control their sexuality, but it is still for the male gaze and male dominant society.
The representation of women can be positive: challenging the roles and expectations of women or negative: reinforcing a patriarchal society. This essay questions how and why these representations are constructed in an advert for Gucci Guilty Perfume and Stella Artois beer.
Firstly the Gucci advert is in widescreen which connotes a dramatic cinematic experience to engage its audience. More attention is gained by the female character first seen in the text and her protagonist is signified through this. The protagonist has female dominance which is signified through the use of colour- everything is in black and white while her hair is gold/blonde. This colour connotes gold, power and divinity signifying her importance in the text.
The use of intertextuality in this text will appeal to a particular audience. The film references a great deal to the neo film noir Sin City, with the use of colour and the female dominant femme fatale character. Sin City appeals to a male audience due to the action genre, this trailer could also appeal to the same audience due to the intertextuality. In terms of the Uses and Gratifications theory, a female audience might realise and accept the protagonist in the text is a form of escapism and also a male gaze, by theorist Mulvey, and therefore might aspire, from Young and Rubicam's 4Cs, to be the object of male gaze too.
Though the protagonist is an object of male gaze, it could be suggested that she sexually objectifies herself to tease the audience. The protagonist puts her leg into the frame of the shot. As she puts into the frame, it signifies self objectification, allowing the audience to fetishise her body. Another shot, a high angle, of their sexual activities signifies CCTV and spying which is voyeuristic. The fact she is on top signifies her control of the situation for both the male character and the audience.
Not only does the protagonist exert her feminity through self objectification she also presents herself as an anarchic character signified by adopting male stereotypes. The advert begins with a long shot of an unknown character speeding down the motorway, which stereotypically would be expected to be a male character. However, the audience's expectations are challenged when a medium shot of the driver shows to be a female.
In contrast, women are negatively represented in the Stella Artois text. The most obvious editing technique used in the advert is the split screen: one side shows the female getting dressed and the other side is of the beer getting "prepared". This use of split screen signifies that neither the beer nor the woman know they have been placed side by side. This puts the audience in position of control as they can voyeur the woman, in a socially acceptable way. Audiences may identify this control as patriarchy, and also identify with the unknown male character whose presence is felt within the text. This text then reinforces the idea of a patriarchal society and that women are subordinated by men.
Not only does the female share the screen with the beer, but the screen is split equally between the two "objects" which connotes the woman is equally objectified to the status of beer. It is suggested the audience is male due to the female and beer subject. Though the advert is targeted at men, it also negatively stereotypes men as people who have little respect for women which however is a dominant representation.
A range of close up shots of the female are used to fetishise her body. There is a close up shot of the female's leg slowly and elegantly rising from the bath tub. On one hand this could signify femininity and her control over it which is the oppositional reading. However, the more dominant reading is that her legs are an important part of the female body and connotes a male audience who can voyeur her body.
The text near the beginning of the trailer says "the preparation" which is an enigma code as the audience question "what event is the preparation for?". It is signified through the shots that the woman and beer preparation is for the male through the use of action codes. Action codes of both the preparation of the woman and the glass of beer are the same.
Women are represented as people who prioritise their looks and appearance, and this ad reinforces this ideology. Action codes including close ups of her: brushing her hair, doing her make up and putting on heels strongly represent women as image conscious. It could be said that the advert reinforces this representation, which is always seen in the media. Funnily enough, it could also be said that the media itself is the cause of this representation as this ideal, perfect woman is always represented in the media, and women feel they have to aspire to it.
In conclusion, both texts females are the protagonists and are sexually objectified for male audiences to fetishise and vouyer their bodies. However, while Gucci’s advert’s protagonist controls her sexuality through self objectification, the Stella Artois’ protagonist is objectified by an unknown but present male character.
In the Gucci’s ad, there are many examples in the text that signify the protagonist’s female dominance, but it is arguable whether this could be seen as a positive representation. The dominant reading is that the protagonist exerts her female dominance over the male challenging the historical patriarchal society and even subordinating males as easily manipulated and easily tempted by women and sex and this would favour feminism. However the oppositional reading which would favour the ideologies of the Stella Artois advert, might be that females can control their sexuality, but it is still for the male gaze and male dominant society.
Adverts
Female.
Positive
I believe that this is a positive representation of females as normally within the 60's females wouldn't be associated with business and working in mainstream areas. This image has not subordinated females under men as you can see in the image the female is in power and by using a red coat it connotes that she has power and also considering her mode of address she seems to be elegant.
Intresting
Monday 11 October 2010
Gender and advertising
What sort of images of women and men dominated advertising pre-1970s? Why was this the case?
Before the 1970’s commercials were very different from the ones we see to this current date. Women were stereotyped to be seen as a housewife who shall be situated within the environment of a kitchen or in the role of being the cleaner/cook. This was because females were seen subverted to men.
Men on the other hand were shown to be powerful and dominant as within commercials they were given the typical role of a voice over which represented men superior to the images of the females which connoted that they are in control of female actions and that they are the ones who make the choices.
How did the advertising of the 1970’s continue to perpetuate the stereotype of women, despite depicting women in a greater range of roles?
Although there were several changes within the years after the war where females were allowed to express themselves and were given more freedom. They were still placed within the stereotypical role of housewives which kept the tradition going in advertising. However females given more power which was testing patriarchal values, however advertising was used to place females within their stereotypical roles and to continue the equilibrium.
Can Gaye Tuchman’s quote regarding under-representation and the ‘symbolic annihilation of women’ still be applied in 21st Century advertising? If so, how?
In simple words yes. This is because of advertisers still following traditional values and stereotypes of females within the current years. Not only advertisers have continued this ‘annihilation’ also music directors and film directors have still portrayed females as the subordinate gender. Advertisers still use the traditional values of women being the cook/housewife/cleaner within the 21st century. An example of this is for the company ‘Iceland’ as within the advert they use famous start Kerry to promote their products. At the end of each advert she ends it with ‘That’s why mums go to Iceland’ which connotes that females still have the role of providing food for their superior gender males. An example of how music and films annihilate women is by using them as sex objects to fulfil and please the dominant gender. By using females as a phallic symbol of a toy it connotes that males can do as they please with females.
Do you agree that adverts, such as those for the 1990’s Boots No. 7, ‘It’s not make-up. It’s ammunition.’ campaign, are post-feminist (thereby representing women as better than men?). Explain your answer
Yes. The answer is within the title of the advert, using the word ‘ammunition’ it brings a sense of power, as ammunition leads to deaths and injuries. However being ammunition there nothing without anything to fire them (men) so in some way women are does represent women better but subliminally it still shows males as the dominant sex.
Is the representation of women by the media accountable for the results of a survey in which ‘women were up to ten times more likely than men to be unhappy with their body image’?
My personal opinion in this matter is that media has to hold full responsibility of this statement. I believe this because the media is always pushing out material which is created to perfection however has just been digitally enhanced to achieve these looks. The media has brought these ideologies within our society. By using stereotypical thin models it has injected into society that being thin means you look good and that you are also achieving the look of a famous model. All these ideologies of being slim has created several implications in society not just on what values we have but also on peoples health.
Is the contemporary representation of men in advertising perhaps also a negative one where they too are treated as sex objects?
Men have increasinly been represented in advertisments as sex objects or as a emerging female gaze. Recently men within perfume adverts have been shown to be sexual which moves away from the sterotypical masiculinty role of men being tough, strong and leaders.
Before the 1970’s commercials were very different from the ones we see to this current date. Women were stereotyped to be seen as a housewife who shall be situated within the environment of a kitchen or in the role of being the cleaner/cook. This was because females were seen subverted to men.
Men on the other hand were shown to be powerful and dominant as within commercials they were given the typical role of a voice over which represented men superior to the images of the females which connoted that they are in control of female actions and that they are the ones who make the choices.
How did the advertising of the 1970’s continue to perpetuate the stereotype of women, despite depicting women in a greater range of roles?
Although there were several changes within the years after the war where females were allowed to express themselves and were given more freedom. They were still placed within the stereotypical role of housewives which kept the tradition going in advertising. However females given more power which was testing patriarchal values, however advertising was used to place females within their stereotypical roles and to continue the equilibrium.
Can Gaye Tuchman’s quote regarding under-representation and the ‘symbolic annihilation of women’ still be applied in 21st Century advertising? If so, how?
In simple words yes. This is because of advertisers still following traditional values and stereotypes of females within the current years. Not only advertisers have continued this ‘annihilation’ also music directors and film directors have still portrayed females as the subordinate gender. Advertisers still use the traditional values of women being the cook/housewife/cleaner within the 21st century. An example of this is for the company ‘Iceland’ as within the advert they use famous start Kerry to promote their products. At the end of each advert she ends it with ‘That’s why mums go to Iceland’ which connotes that females still have the role of providing food for their superior gender males. An example of how music and films annihilate women is by using them as sex objects to fulfil and please the dominant gender. By using females as a phallic symbol of a toy it connotes that males can do as they please with females.
Do you agree that adverts, such as those for the 1990’s Boots No. 7, ‘It’s not make-up. It’s ammunition.’ campaign, are post-feminist (thereby representing women as better than men?). Explain your answer
Yes. The answer is within the title of the advert, using the word ‘ammunition’ it brings a sense of power, as ammunition leads to deaths and injuries. However being ammunition there nothing without anything to fire them (men) so in some way women are does represent women better but subliminally it still shows males as the dominant sex.
Is the representation of women by the media accountable for the results of a survey in which ‘women were up to ten times more likely than men to be unhappy with their body image’?
My personal opinion in this matter is that media has to hold full responsibility of this statement. I believe this because the media is always pushing out material which is created to perfection however has just been digitally enhanced to achieve these looks. The media has brought these ideologies within our society. By using stereotypical thin models it has injected into society that being thin means you look good and that you are also achieving the look of a famous model. All these ideologies of being slim has created several implications in society not just on what values we have but also on peoples health.
Is the contemporary representation of men in advertising perhaps also a negative one where they too are treated as sex objects?
Men have increasinly been represented in advertisments as sex objects or as a emerging female gaze. Recently men within perfume adverts have been shown to be sexual which moves away from the sterotypical masiculinty role of men being tough, strong and leaders.
Monday 4 October 2010
Tv ad analysis
Fairy advertisements 2010.
In this Fairy liquid advertisement women are represented in a negative way. Fairy have done this throughout several codes and conventions. To begin with the advert starts with a clip from the 1950's advertisement of Fairy liquid. This then transits onto another decade and several after until reaching the current time. Within these clips the protagonist within all the decade is a female. Also considering the mise en scene within these clips which consists of a kitchen with a sink and washing appliances around the protagonist. This therefore symbolises a patriarchal point of view from the advertisers that females should be situated within the kitchen and also that times have not developed from the early 90's and the same traditions should still be followed. To add to this point the use of a young child who of gender is female within the same clips also connotes and also subordinates that even from a young age females should be within the kitchen cleaning up after the dominant gender the 'males'.
The protagonist within the clips uses the quote ' I hardly ever by fairy liquid' which in a slight way subordinates females as this connotes that she has no power of what is brought and that it is the males choice upon choosing the Fairy brand. Another point to put across is that the mise en scene of a kitchen is within all the clips, which connotes that even after decades we still have the stereotypical view that a female should be working within the kitchen picking up after the dominant gender the males.
This advert shows that we still live in a patriarchal society as these transitions show no change over the decade. Fairy have sent a message out that no matter how much change occurs in the world, females will still be the responsible on in the kitchen and shall always be firstly classed as a housewife. This negative representation has typical conversions of feminism, when we are supposed to be in a post feminism society.
This advertisement of Adidas has given females a positive representation as it has withdrawn them from the stereotypical role of being subordinate to the dominant gender males. Adidas has done this through several ways. Firstly looking at the advertisement, it has been created to promote the brand and its combination with the women's world cup 2003. This is something new as normally Adidas would follow the dominant gender males story of the world cup. Normally females were not placed within male roles, such as football. However Adidas has broken the trend and allowed females to express their feelings and talent without being subordinated against men. Representation of females has been shown as calm and peaceful, which in previous years has been the complete opposite where they are classified as the subordinate gender.
Adidas has put females as a gender in a whole new context as creating this advertisement it has broken the feminism within advertising and start to give females more power and responsibility within media. This is shown in the advert as there is no presence of males and it has given females the limelight. Also by putting females in the context of football it sends of ideology that what males can do females has the rights and the correct amount of skill to match what they do. Having the actors in straight lines gives of an image of being in the army, also the synchronisation of each actor with each move is very precise. This gives of ideology of being in the army which has always been represented as the males job, although it being a male job it has broken the dominant representation and placed a new role for females within it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)