To be born a woman has been to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men. The social presence of women has developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage within such a limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman's self being split in two. A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself. Whilst she is walking across a room or whilst she is weeping at the death of her father, she can scarcely avoid envisaging herself walking or weeping. From earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually.
And so she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman.
She has to survey everything she is and everything she does because how she appears to others, and ultimately how she appears to men, is of crucial importance for what is normally thought of as the success of her life. Her own sense of being in herself is supplanted by a sense of being appreciated as herself by another.
A bit further on he adds:
One might simplify this by saying: men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object -- and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.
In light of these arguments, consider the two images below, and answer the following questions (for each image):
1.) What is the argument of the image?
2.) What techniques does it use to convey that argument?
3.) Who is the target audience?
4.) Do you find the advertisement convincing?
Then consider these two general questions:
5.) How does the second image parody/critique the first?
6.) Do you agree with Berger's analysis of gender? If so, why? If not, why not?
15 comments:
Obsession for Men
1) The argument of this image is that men should buy “Obsession” which appears to be cologne (or something to that effect).
2) This image uses sexuality to persuade the buyer to purchase this product. It features a beautiful woman, who is completely nude, lying on a sofa and in the foreground they show the product. It’s like saying “You could have her, but only if you buy this product.”
3) I think the target audience is definitely men. One reason for this is because it says in the ad “for men” so that’s kind of a giveaway. Another reason is the naked woman. Men would likely see this ad regardless of whether or not they see the product in the ad, simply because there is a naked woman lying on a sofa.
4) At first glance, one might find the ad convincing, but if your brain comes into the equation instead of your libido, the ad seems to lose conviction. Once again, there is no description of the product. It’s more of an impulse buy than a smart buy. A man looks at the ad, sees the naked woman and says, “I have to have that!” And then he buys it only to find out that it’s actually a bottle of deer urine used by hunters (sucks to be that guy).
Obsession for Women
1) Honestly, without the image before this one, you wouldn’t know what the argument of this image is. The previous image was an advertisement trying to get men to buy “Obsession” from Calvin Klein. But this image doesn’t show a product or anything, so its argument could be interpreted many different ways. Some might just think that it’s saying that women are obsessed with sex, while others might realize that it’s an advertisement.
2) As with the first image, this one uses sexuality, but less effectively because the potential customer is never actually told what they might be buying. There is no product anywhere in the image, and no mention of where you could buy it. There is just a naked woman who appears to be engaging in sexual intercourse, and superimposed over this image (but not blocking the view of the woman) are the words “Obsession for women.” Unless the two images (Obsession for men and Obsession for women) are used together, the second image really has no value.
3) Apparently, the target audience for this ad is women since it says “for women.” It shows a woman appearing to be having sex, and this could make a potential female buyer think something like “I haven’t had a night like that in a long time.” and then rush in and buy the product, similar to the man in the previous ad, only the woman would likely be more intelligent and actually smell the product before buying it.
4) I don’t find the ad convincing at all, primarily because not only does it not contain any description of the product, it doesn’t even contain the damn product it’s trying to sell! If I saw this ad in the mall my first thought would be “I’m surprised they let people put posters like this up around here. It looks like an ad for a porno or something,” and walk away. Unless this image is used with the previous one, or perhaps another image with a similar argument to the first one, it has no meaning at all, in my opinion. If you want people to buy your product, you have to actually let them know what the product is.
General questions
5) I honestly don’t know how the second image parodies or critiques the first. They are both legitimate advertisements, but I doubt that they’ll sell anything if people start thinking with their brains instead of what’s in their pants. They both use sex as the primary means of persuasion, but the first is more effective in my opinion because it actually lets the buyer know that what they are buying is actually a product, unlike the second one which could simply be trying to show the feeling of obsession.
6) Unfortunately, I do agree with Berger’s analysis of gender. Women are seen more as objects than as people in many cases. Yes, it is true that women are just as free, legally and constitutionally, as men, but women are still seen as objects, especially in advertising. If there is a man in an advertisement, it is usually saying that you could be this guy; you could have what he has, and often times what he has is two supermodels clinging to him. If there is a woman in an advertisement, it is often saying that this is what you could have. You could have a woman as beautiful as this if you buy our product. A lot of the logic in this, I think, comes from the fact that men are typically the ones watching television, surfing the Internet, etc. They see these kinds of ads more than women. Women, on the other hand, are actually doing something productive: working, making sure the kids don’t kill themselves, cleaning up the crap that the lazy man is “too busy” to clean up. This is very ironic, I think. Women are typically the more productive of the genders while men are sitting on their asses half the time being lazy good-for-nothings, but it is women who are still seen as objects. Men are more like the objects, but not very desirable ones. I mean, who wishes they had a beer-guzzling lump in the middle of the living room? Nobody! But if you replace that lump with a beautiful woman, you actually have something enviable. It’s logical that women get seen more as objects than men because women are typically more desirable than men. But even though it’s logical, it’s not very fair or kind towards women, especially in this day and age when women and men are supposed to be completely equal.
First Ad
1. The argument of the image is that if men wear Obsession by Calvin Klein that they will attract attractive women.
2. The main technique the ad uses is sexuality. The naked woman would obviously appeal to most heterosexual males. I think the woman is used to, like the book states, “feed an appetite,” she is there to fulfill the obsession of the man who is wearing the cologne (54). Sexuality helps make the argument of the ad by displaying that wearing the cologne will attract women.
3. I think the target audience of the ad is heterosexual men. I think men are the main targets because it is a product for men and the use of the naked woman would primarily appeal to men. Although this ad is geared towards men I think that women may view the woman in the ad as a symbol of what they should be. I think the ad could give women the impression that they should look like the girl in the ad because that is the type of girl guys’ want and obsess over.
4. I don’t find the ad convincing. Just because a guy is wearing cologne doesn’t mean that he is going to attract girls and it certainly doesn’t mean that he’ll get to see them naked. I also don’t find the ad convincing because I’m not a guy and I don’t buy or wear cologne. Most likely if I saw this ad in a magazine I would just turn the page.
Second Ad
1. The argument of this ad is that “this is what happens when women see ads (like the previous one) and become obsessed with their own body image.” The ad depicts a very skinny woman that seems to be in a stance that displays sorrow, misery and dissatisfaction. By showing a woman this way I think the ad argues that popular ads displaying flawless women have become a problem in today’s society and can lead to self-esteem problems in women. I think it’s a great example women being “continually accompanied by [their] own image of [themselves]” (46). I think the ad can argue that women should be happy with their bodies.
2. I think the main techniques of this ad are parody of the first ad and the way the woman looks in the ad. I also think that its lack of sexuality may also be a technique. This ad obviously is making a statement about the first ad by illustrating that women can be the obsession of themselves, but in a negative way. I think these negative thoughts are displayed in the way the woman is posed exposing the bones in her back and grasping her stomach. By the way the woman is holding her stomach and with the sink or toilet in the background the ad somewhat alludes the viewer into thinking that the woman may have an eating disorder. I think the frailness of the woman’s body and the somber tones in the ad take any sexuality the ad may have away.
3. I think the target audience of the ad is primarily women but also includes men. I think it targets both because it is trying to convey the problem in our society about the unrealistic ideas of women that are displayed in advertisements. I think it is targeting women more than men because I feel the ad is trying to say that women shouldn’t feel like they need to look like the girls they see in the magazines.
4. I find the ad convincing because I think the image does a good job illustrating the dissatisfaction the woman has with her body. The ad seems to show the reality of what pop culture ads can do to the self-esteem of women.
General Questions
5. The second image critiques the first by saying that the real obsession is the one that women have over the way they look and appear to society. It is a parody of the first image because it uses the same slogan but completely changes its meaning and also uses the image of a naked woman but this image isn’t as optimistic as the original.
6. I think Berger’s analysis of gender is fairly accurate. I do think that women are sometimes still treated as objects (as made apparent by the Calvin Klein ad) and men as the owners of those “objects.” However, I do think that our society had been changing since the book was written in 1972. I feel as though we may be trying to grow out of the idea that women must look like the supermodels in the magazines. One example of this is Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty” which uses commercials showing women of all body types to endorse their products and also tries to inspire women to be comfortable in their own skin. Even though I think we have made progress since Berger made his analysis I think we still have a long way to go. Women still only make 80 cents for every dollar a man makes.
1. Argument of image?
The argument of the first image is that men can attract women like the girl pictured if they were the cologne being advertised. The second image (as well as the first) ties into Berger’s argument that women are objects to be looked at or ‘sights’.
2. Technique used to convey argument?
Obviously the technique being used is sex appeal because both women are naked. The product isn’t even shown in the second image.
3. Target audience?
The target audience is generally anybody who wears perfume or cologne. Probably women more than men though.
4. Argument convincing?
Yes and no. It’s unconvincing because it seems like almost all perfume or cologne ads use sex appeal as their advertising technique. It does catch your eye though which is the point of the ad.
5. How does second image critique first?
The second image critique/parody’s the first because the first image implies an obsession that guys have on girls that look like the model in the pictures. The second image implies an obsession that women unfortunately have to try and make themselves look like the woman in the first image -a guy’s obsession.
6. Agree with Berger’s analysis of gender?
I agree with what he’s saying that ‘it’s a man’s world, but women have come a long way’ but his theory of all women being objects for men to look at seems a little unreasonable. The ads in the picture prove him right, but there’s plenty of ads with half naked guys too or Abercrombie ads with half naked guys/girls together. There’s definitely a pressure for girls to make themselves look like the models in ads but over the years it’s changed a lot to include guys having a high standard as well to look like the super tanned guys with perfect abs. So I guess I agree and disagree with him if that’s possible.
Advertisement 1
1. The first ad argues that if men wear Calvin Klein cologne, they will attract beautiful women.
2. This ad uses sex to sell its product. The naked female will attract one’s attention and then when they are looking at the ad, it implies that if you buy this product, attractive women will be attracted to you.
3. The target audience of this ad is definitely men. It is a men’s cologne and uses a naked woman to lure the audience in and make them think that this product will allow them to get women such as the model in the picture.
4. To me the ad isn’t convincing. I see ads like this all the time in magazines, etc and just skip over them. It’s like Orwell’s “dead metaphor”; it becomes used so often that people just learn to ignore it.
Advertisement 2
1. The second advertisement argues that women have become obsessed with attaining the stereotypical “perfect” figure that is seen in supermodels and Hollywood stars and that this obsession makes them do extreme and sometimes unhealthy things to get this.
2. I think that this ad plays off of the first one in a sarcastic way. It becomes the opposite of the first to express its point. There is a lack of sexuality in the second ad that makes the viewer realize exactly what happens when women obsess over their bodies and try to become like the model in the first ad. Also you can see the woman’s bones and see that she is next to a toilet which implies an eating disorder. This is a sort of shock factor that gets a message across to the reader that obsessing over your body can be harmful and unhealthy.
3. This ad really doesn’t target any particular group. It is a very general ad that is trying to convey the effects of obsessing over your body and having an eating disorder. They want people to realize that the skinnier you are doesn’t always mean the sexier you are.
4. This is a very convincing ad because they do not try to “sugar-coat” this subject. They come right out and show what the effects of body obsession and eating disorders are. It shows the viewer that skinny isn’t necessarily sexy and that the person in the picture is dissatisfied with her body still, so becoming super skinny didn’t make her happier at all.
5. The second advertisement parodies the first because it compares men’s obsession with what women look like with women’s obsession of what men think of them. They are a kind of cause and effect advertisement and show that because men want women with the “perfect figure” women want to attain that “perfect figure”. They also parody each other in that the first ad has a skinny but healthy woman that is attractive, and the second ad has a skinny and unhealthy woman that is not very attractive.
6. Berger’s analysis is very accurate as seen in the first ad. The woman is shown in the ad as an object that comes along with the cologne. It seems as though they are not only claiming to be selling the cologne, but in a sense, selling women.
1) What is the argument of the image?
a. For Image one, the argument is for men to buy the product Obsession. If you buy this product, then you can attract a woman like the one who appears in the ad.
b. For Image two, the argument is for women to buy the product. Here, in this ad, a woman is shown naked in an intimate setting. How can showing a woman be effective in selling women’s perfume? Simply because this ad argues that, one should want to be like this woman, so buy the product.
2) What techniques does it use to convey that argument?
a. The techniques used for Image one, is obviously sex. It also uses glamour. The naked woman is all you see in the ad, it solely focuses on her. She is seen as a woman that men adore or are pleased to look at.
b. The technique used in Image two includes sex as well but also envy. The naked woman is very thin , which suggest that all women should want to look like her. Also because she is in an intimate setting maybe the ad is saying that if you buy this product, Obsession, then you can experience what the woman is experiencing and be envied as well.
3) Who is the target audience?
a. For Image one, the targeted audience is men simply because it is showing a naked attractive woman looking directly at you. No one would bother to question who is targeted because it is obvious.
b. For Image two, the targeted audience is women, despite the scantily clad woman. But this is not as easy to figure out, the only way one could know is if one read “ Obsession for women”.
4) Do you find the advertisement convincing?
a. For Image one, the advertisement is not convincing. Once again, the idea of sex selling a product is boring now.
b. For Image two, the advertisement is a little vulgar. I do not find this convincing at all.
c. In both adds there is lack of creativity. Someone just said hey! Lets put naked women in our advertisements and call it a day.
5) How does the second image parody/critique the first?
The First Image is a naked woman advertising for men’s perfume, and the second image is a naked woman advertising for women’s perfume. Logically one would think that maybe a naked man would be advertising for women’s perfume. This proves Berger correct, women are to be seen for the pleasure of men, but women are not allowed to do the same. One could have shown a naked man to advertise for the product, but men have not been made objects in society.
6) Do you agree with Berger’s analysis of gender? If so, why? If not, why not?
a. I agree with Berger’s analysis of gender completely. More and more in our society, attractive women are used to sell everything. While it exist, it is rare that one would find ads of naked men. Women are the object of men, and that is how they see themselves, through the eyes of men.
shawn finney
1. The first picture is saying that obsession of men is a naked, hot woman. If you were their “obsession” you will get her as much as she’ll want you because it smells so good. The second picture is a woman throwing up, saying her obsession is trying to stay “hot” by being skinny.
2. The first picture uses a naked woman laying on a couch staring at me. The second has a naked skinny girl facing away from us, showing this is bad, holding her stomach to give us clues to what she is doing.
3. Men for the first. The second is anyone, especially girls but to anyone that knows someone that may have this problem.
4. Not really, she would need to be hotter and come with a free sample.
Not really, because I don’t know anyone that throws up completely naked. It does however make me more aware.
Obsession for Men
1. The argument of this image is that if a man buysthe cologne "Obsession" you will be able to have a woman like this.
2. The technique is strictly sexual. The woman's face holds a sublety suggesting that she surrenders to his desires and will offer herself to him. She lays in a sexy pose with her front covered, possibly as a "teasing" effect.
3. The target audience is obviously men, due to the fact that the advertisement is for a cologne, as well as the sexual appeal.
4. I do not personally find the ad convincing, but I'm sure all men do, especially since ads are designed for nothing but a quick glance that dont consider critique. There are too many ads that feature women in the nude and lose conviction the more they are obsessively repeated.
Obsession for Women
1. The argument of this image, I believe, is that women will become obsessed with themselves, i.e. give self-confidence to those who wear this perfume.
2. The image is sexual, but it more or less emphasizes the beauty of a woman's body. The woman in the ad is viewed from behind, with her hand wrapping around her stomach and attached to her hip. This suggests that she is comfortable with herself.
3.The target audience is obviously women, considering that it is perfume, but it could also be men. Men may look at the ad and be convinced to buy it for a girlfience, wife, etc.
4. To me the article is not terribly convincing, but that's just because its hard to convince me! However, I don't view the message as "if you buy this perfume, you will look like this" but more like "you will feel amazing about YOURSELF if you buy this perfume".
General Questions
5. The second image critiques the first by saying that the real obsession isnt that which men have for women but the obsession women have to look a certain way for men.
6. I do agree with Berger's analysis of gender. He doenst day he necessarily agrees with how society portrays women, but he states the facts.Women are seen as objective to men in almost every way, whether very suble and unnoticable or not. Because of the way men credit women, they gain very little respect, and if so, only for a nice body. Women are just as smart, equal, successful and talented as males, however society tries to hide it. Another point is that many women accept this and dont mind it. So they also continue the degration by working at strip clubs or working for Playboyl
Obsession for Men
1. The argument of this image is that if a man buysthe cologne "Obsession" you will be able to have a woman like this.
2. The technique is strictly sexual. The woman's face holds a sublety suggesting that she surrenders to his desires and will offer herself to him. She lays in a sexy pose with her front covered, possibly as a "teasing" effect.
3. The target audience is obviously men, due to the fact that the advertisement is for a cologne, as well as the sexual appeal.
4. I do not personally find the ad convincing, but I'm sure all men do, especially since ads are designed for nothing but a quick glance that dont consider critique. There are too many ads that feature women in the nude and lose conviction the more they are obsessively repeated.
Obsession for Women
1. The argument of this image, I believe, is that women will become obsessed with themselves, i.e. give self-confidence to those who wear this perfume.
2. The image is sexual, but it more or less emphasizes the beauty of a woman's body. The woman in the ad is viewed from behind, with her hand wrapping around her stomach and attached to her hip. This suggests that she is comfortable with herself.
3.The target audience is obviously women, considering that it is perfume, but it could also be men. Men may look at the ad and be convinced to buy it for a girlfience, wife, etc.
4. To me the article is not terribly convincing, but that's just because its hard to convince me! However, I don't view the message as "if you buy this perfume, you will look like this" but more like "you will feel amazing about YOURSELF if you buy this perfume".
General Questions
5. The second image critiques the first by saying that the real obsession isnt that which men have for women but the obsession women have to look a certain way for men.
6. I do agree with Berger's analysis of gender. He doenst day he necessarily agrees with how society portrays women, but he states the facts.Women are seen as objective to men in almost every way, whether very suble and unnoticable or not. Because of the way men credit women, they gain very little respect, and if so, only for a nice body. Women are just as smart, equal, successful and talented as males, however society tries to hide it. Another point is that many women accept this and dont mind it. So they also continue the degration by working at strip clubs or working for Playboyl
Advertisement# 1
What is the argument of the image?
It says to the viewer you can have what ever you want with this cologne for instance the female in the picture. It says if you buy our product you will be desirable.
What techniques does it use to convey that argument?
They use sex and literally a nude body to sell the product. Plus the position the woman is in gives the viewer a sense of dominance.
Who is the target audience?
Obviously the men. It is cologne for men. It links back to the whole dominance thing which appeals more to men.
Do you find the advertisement convincing?
I believe that it is simplistic enough to do its job. It uses the visuals but allows the viewer to draw their own conclusions.
Advertisement #2
What is the argument of the image?
If you are self conscious you can be sure and confident of yourself with this perfume
What techniques does it use to convey that argument?
It uses a close up view of the woman, it also cuts her head out of the picture for the woman to be able to put herself in the position of the women in the advertisement. Since women already examine themselves with a magnifying glass this is sort of seems like it’s a mockery and takes advantage of the female psyche.
Who is the target audience?
Women the fact that it is close on the woman’s back and not her whole body.
Do you find the advertisement convincing?
No, it seems like it is too much for a women’s advertisement. It would seem that the women would be a little envious but it doesn’t seem appealing enough to buy to product.
How does the second image parody/critique the first?
The second image seems more like the out of body experience. It seems to put the person in the scene with the women. This is supports the whole idea that women watch themselves being look at. The first jus looks like a portrait.
Do you agree with Berger's analysis of gender? If so, why? If not, why not?
I agree simply because as a female I notice that women rarely every dress for men. Often times they dress for the approval of other women. While I’m sure men like how women look, they generally don’t grade women as harshly as they do each other which makes women examine their selves.
Joe Dust
First Ad
1.) What is the argument of the image?
The argument presented in this ad is that if you wear this cologne, you will have attractive women that will want to have sex with you.
2.) What techniques does it use to convey that argument?
The technique used to convey the argument is a young and attractive woman laying on a couch naked longingly staring at you. It's like she'll only have sex with you if and only you buy the cologne.
3.) Who is the target audience?
The target is definitely pointed towards young men probably younger than 30. The reason why it's only this specific group is because first of all, woman don't find other naked woman a very provocative spectacle, and might even be aversed to the ad had it been blatantly directed towards women. Another thing is that men older than 30 will probably already have a certain someone.
4.) Do you find the advertisement convincing?
It's very hard to say that the advertisement is convincing because you're critiqueing it and exposing it's weaknesses, therefore destroying it's foundation. However, I could see how it would catch a man's eye if he were to flip through a magazine or whatever and stop to read it.
Second Ad
1.) What is the argument of the image?
The argument seems a bit cryptic to me since it doesn't really have a product logo or popular slogan, so it almost seems like women's obsession of sex. Or maybe if you try the product (whatever it is), you'll look good and have sex, perhaps?
2.) What techniques does it use to convey that argument?
Since the argument presented is in itself confusing, the techinque used, in my opinion, is vague as well. The ad presents a back shot of a naked woman having sex. I think the reason behind the backshot is to open up the idea that YOU (the woman) could be in that place.
3.) Who is the target audience?
Well, the target audience is very blatant, since it says "for women", so I'm going to have to say that it is intended for young women in general. However, it could also apply to men as well because it shows a naked woman having sex, which is appealing to the male eye. But I don't think men would buy the product necessarily; they would just be interested in the ad.
4.) Do you find the advertisement convincing?
I think the ad is slightly convincing because it's very simple and appealing. And since it doesn't state WHAT the product is, it makes you curious as to what it is, and might even make you go search it out.
Then consider these two general questions:
5.) How does the second image parody/critique the first?
The second ad critiques the first one because it's like a woman's obsession is to look good for men, and the first ad is like a man's obsession is to have a great looking woman. So it pressures women into looking good for men, as oppposed to men looking good for women.
6.) Do you agree with Berger's analysis of gender? If so, why? If not, why not?
I agree with Berger's analysis because you see so many ads in today's world that use women as objects that men want to have. Something that you can buy at the mall or the like. It's like the product takes out the hassle of going to a club on friday and throwing out one-liners in hopes of getting with a woman. Instead you go to a store, whip out your wallet, and voila.
1st ad
1. The image is arguing that you should buy and wear Obsession for Men.
2. The ad shows a naked woman lying on a sofa. The ad is trying to convince the viewer that wearing the cologne will attract beautiful women.
3. The target audience is men. Possibly single men with an active social life.
4. Yes. I believe that the cologne smells good to attractive women. However, I don’t believe that wearing it will magically place naked girls on my couch.
2nd ad
1. The image argues that women have an obsession with being thin.
2. The ad shows a naked woman leaning over the toilet to vomit. This portrays that women will make themselves sick to stay thin.
3. The target audience is anyone who fall victim to the style of advertising in the first ad. It is trying to show that our society is to obsessed with being thin and beautiful.
4. I don’t find the ad convincing. There is no real product being advertised, just a belief. It takes more than a parody to influence my beliefs.
General
5. The second image tries to parody the fact that a beautiful naked woman is an obsession for a man, and eating disorders are the results of the obsession of women to be thin and beautiful.
6. I agree with Berger’s argument that women are objects of viewing for men. This is proven by the first ad. It is certain that the imagery use in the first ad was very successful in convincing men to buy Obsession cologne.
Obsession for Men
1. The argument seems to be that men need to buy Calvin Klein's cologne called "Obsession
2. This advertisement uses the whole sex sells idea to try and get men to buy the product. "If you wear this cologne naked girls will be on your couch" .... sure
3. Men in their late teens and older who actually wear cologne.
4. Not really, it just doesn't stand out to me when compared to other advertisements seen on tv today.
Obsession for Women:
1. If I had never heard of Obsession before, I wouldn't know that this was an advertisement for a product even. I think it is a joke aimed at how women are too self conscious.
2. It is a parody of the normal sex sells advertisements and is showing how they make women try to look like the people in the ads.
3. I don't know if it even has a target audience other than maybe society since society makes women think they have to sit in the bathroom and get thin.
4. I could see how it would be convincing to women to make them realize how dumb it is to try and look like all the models on tv.
General Questions:
5. The second ad parodies the first in that it takes the idea of women being skinny and sexy and shows what some of them do in order to look like that. It also points out that guys are obsessed with looking at women while women simply are obsessed with how they, themselves look.
6. Yes I agree with him because in today's society women seem to always put extra effort into their appearance to try and match the people that show up in advertisements, where as men roll out of bed and go look at the women while not worrying about what they, themselves look like.
Rachel Post
1. What is the argument of the image?
a. The argument of the first image is that men should wear the advertised cologne, because women like the model will want to be with men who wear it. It tries to convince men that if they wear this cologne they can be more powerful and alluring to beautiful women (if you consider Kate Moss beautiful).
b. The second image is obviously an “adbuster” critiquing society’s current desire for anorexic-looking women in the media. The fact that it says “for women” is trying to get women to see that bodies like this are not healthy, and being obsessed with living up to the media’s body standards is not nearly as important as it may seem.
2. What techniques does it use to convey that argument?
a. The first image uses sex to sell the cologne, of course. When men look at the image, they feel powerful (because the woman is lying in a very submissive manner). It appeals to a man’s desire to be masculine, objectifying a woman in the process.
b. The technique the second image uses is obviously parody. It shows the extreme of a male-dominated society’s abuse of body image. The woman is unhealthily thin and it looks like she has just purged, or is about to purge, in an effort to live up to how she thinks she needs to look. The media, and society in general, is so obsessed with being as thin as possible to please others that some women succumb to the pressure to become bulimic or anorexic and in pain, as this woman appears to be.
3. Who is the target audience?
a. The target audience is heterosexual men (who are attracted to rail thin, subservient women).
b. The target audience for the second image is women who are smart enough to realize that looking how society (primarily chauvinistic men) wants her to look is not healthy and will make her unhealthy and unhappy.
4. Do you find the advertisement convincing?
a. I absolutely do not find the ad convincing. I find it offensive, especially considering the manner she in lying on the sofa. She is seen only as an object, nothing more.
b. I was actually enlightened by this image, and found it convincing. I had started to get caught up in how “ideal” women today are expected to look. It made me realize that women’s bodies are not meant to be objects for men and society in general to critique and use to sell products, but should exist solely for the minds that they belong to.
5. How does the second image parody/critique the first?
The second image bashes the first by telling women that the “ideal” is absolutely not healthy and will make them very unhappy. Women are not meant to be seen as advertising mechanisms and sexual objects, but actual human beings who have minds and can be just as educated, just as smart and just as useful (if not more useful) than men.
6. Do you agree with Berger's analysis of gender? If so, why? If not, why not?
ABSOLUTELY NOT. I think Berger was drawing his inferences from the media’s portrayal of women. He is (was?) not a woman, so how would he know that we have thoughts and minds and personalities and lives just as important as men’s? Yes, the examples of art he showed did portray women as objects without personalities, but there is so much more art out there, especially sense the beginning of feminism, that portrays women as powerful beings and not just sexual objects. He is completely wrong in his assumption that “men act and women appear.” Maybe women merely “appear” in most advertisements, but not in real life. The women attending, and teaching at, MU, for example, ACT. We are educating ourselves just as the men do. Actually, college enrollment statistics show that there are more women enrolled in universities than men.
REAL AD
1.) What is the argument of the image?
Women are passive, powerless, vulnerable and always available for sex and that this is all desirable for hetero males. Advertisements like these make viewers callous to rape and violence.
2.) What techniques does it use to convey that argument?
A waif-thin model lying in a vulnerable position blankly staring at whomever’s staring at her.
3.) Who is the target audience?
Hetero males – you can get this
Women and girls – this is the only beauty ideal, this is the only way that men will want you, or obsess over you
4.) Do you find the advertisement convincing?
Obviously it must be convincing because so many of us thought that this was a real advertisement. This proves that advertising is both pervasive and persuasive.
PARODY
1.) What is the argument of the image?
It provides social commentary of the consequences of advertisements featuring women who only have one body type - which is genetic and literally unachievable for the majority of women - and in vulnerable positions.
2.) What techniques does it use to convey that argument?
It features a women who is clearly in pain and anguish.
3.) Who is the target audience?
Everyone.
4.) Do you find the advertisement convincing?
Yes.
5.) How does the second image parody/critique the first?
It shows the consequences of advertising. It is difficult not to compare our own lives to advertisements’ ideals. The ideal is flawlessness. Our beauty depends upon buying the right products.
6.) Do you agree with Berger's analysis of gender? If so, why? If not, why not?
His arguments were sexist at times.
It is true that a woman’s body has become just another piece of merchandise. Not only are we just our bodies, we are for sale.
Rachel Post
1.) What do the images have in common? (Consider such things as composition, lighting, framing, subject matter, color, argumentative technique, etc.)
Both images portray naked women. The two “Obsession” images are both grayscale. I think the original ad was put in grayscale in order to give it a sense of dignity, and less like pornography, and the Adbuster followed suit, in order to parody it.
2.) How are the images different? (Consider these same issues, but also think about the idea of PARODY. The Adbusters image in each set of ads is a parody of the original, so think about how this dynamic works).
Whereas the original image is supposedly portraying the ideal body (which men are supposed to want and women are supposed to want to have) the parody portrays a woman who has given into these pressures, and has become bulimic in an attempt to live up to society’s ideal. The first is supposed to be sexy and provoke envy and glamour, and the second is almost painful to view, and provokes pity and helps women see that the “perfect” body is seldom healthy.
3.) How do these images relate to Berger's notions of "envy" and "glamour" (which he defines in Chapter 7 of Ways of Seeing)?
The first image provokes envy from both men and women. Men want the woman and women want to be the woman. Envy, according to Berger, is what the spectator feels in relation to the marketing spectacle. Kate Moss’s impersonal expression certainly achieves in its goal to provoke envy from the viewer. The ad also manufactures glamour because it takes the ideal of society and applies it to the viewer, thus making the viewer envy the subject.
The parody has no envy or glamour whatsoever, which is vital to its success. The first image is also key to its success; without the original ad, the second would be significantly less meaningful. It strikes its viewers, particularly women, so strongly because it shatters all of the glamour of the first image.
Post a Comment