Debates In Feminist Research Weblog

The task that we had to do for this week involved interpreting the pictures below after reading three items to do with content analysis, semiotics and interpreting images. We were given two images to interpret with questions that would help us think about the ways the images draw on extra textual knowledge as well as semiotics (the interpretation of ’signs’).

Image 1: Golfing Holiday Ad.

Look at the landscape and the buildings. What messages is the ad trying to convey about the advantages of golfing in Kenya?

To me, it looks as if the buildings and the landscape are not in Kenya at all: they appear to be emulating stately edwardian style homes that are often found in the UK. Taking this into account, we could assume that the ad is offering a stay in ’stately home’ that just happens to be in another country - like taking a vacation in the UK with warmer weather and the added “bonus” of a golf course. The only images that seem out of place in this picture is the border at the side of the page and the Kenyan man in the image, because they do not ‘fit’ the cultural scene.

There is also something quite ‘theme park’ about the architecture as it seems to be a parody of westernised living. To me it does not seem particularly comfortable – perhaps this is to do with the type of lifestyle that someone needs to have in order to feel in their element on a golfing ‘home away from home’ holiday.

What is the ad trying to tell us about the two men in the foreground? What is significant about their dress?

Both the men seem to be a certain stereotype of western and kenyan cultures. The western man is wearing trousers, he is fully clothed; whilst the Kenyan man is wearing (supposedly) his tribal dress, which is a skirt/wrap, sandals and beads. This seems to denote an ‘otherizing’ or denotion of the ‘exotic’. The western man is “helping” the kenyan man to play golf, which is supposedly meant to signify that perhaps they can ‘learn’ from each other about certain aspects of their different cultures. However, it comes across as patronising in some way, because it is a stereotype, and appears to be a blatantly westernised ‘ideal’ of tribal culture.

It is also significant that there do not appear to be any women in the picture and that both men are a certain ‘type’ of man. It locates golf as a masculinised pursuit.

Why is the white man holding a spear and the kenyan man holding a golf club?

Apart from the simple idea that the white man may just be ‘holding’ the the spear for the kenyan man whilst the white man teaches him how to play golf, I would hazard a guess that it is supposed to denote an exchange of culture. However, it could also be seen as a “civilising” of the tribal culture – those tired old stereotypes about tribal culture somehow being ‘less’ developed and inferior. It also seems very much out of place – the juxtaposition of tribal dress and a spear with colonial stately surroundings – in many ways, this could be seen as racist and a denial of western history of colonialisation (or an affirmation – that it was, or is, somehow positive).

Both the golf club and the spear seem to be particularly masculinised because they could be seen as representing the phallus, and an exchange of two different types of masculinity.

How can we decode the masculinities of the two men? Is one more masculine than the other? How can we tell?

The white man seems to have a certain patriarchal and benvolent type of masculinity. He appears well fed and perhaps wealthy, someone who enjoys ‘masculine’ pursuits, like golf! On the other hand, the kenyan man could be seen as masculine also, out of this context – in the stereotyped westernised idea of his culture, perhaps he hunts with the spear, and is seen as quite ‘tough’. The western man seems ’soft’ whilst the kenyan man seems ‘hard’. However, in this context, the kenyan man also seems more feminine than the western man because of his attire – exposing his upper body and wearing a skirt/kaftan. I believe that it depends from what point of view you are coming from and what assumptions you make about the two cultures. In the context of the advert, however, the kenyan man seems somehow ‘otherized’ like western culture ‘otherizes’ women as feminine.

The ad is also trying to convey something about cultural exchange. Is it an equal exchange?

I would argue that no, this is not an equal exchange. The kenyan man is surrounded by westernised culture, he is being taught golf by the western man and he is not giving the western man any lessons from his own culture. The western man holding the spear is not doing anything with it, he does not seem to be particularly impressed by it. It does not mean anything to him because he does not actually know what it means to the kenyan man.

How can we use post-colonial theory to shed a critical light on the central messages and values of this ad?

I felt I did not know enough about post-colonial theory to answer this question. However, the other students’ answers were interesting – it was suggested that the idea of the native ‘other’ represents everything that the western man is not. The western man, the western culture, is seen as affluent and more developed. There was also discussion of how western and native ideologies and constructions of power collude to exclude women.

Image 2: Jean-Paul Gaultier Mermaid Perfume advert.

Again, begin by considering the landscape. Where is the ad set (identify by landmarks) and what has happened?

The ad is set in what appears to be Paris, which is flooded. The mermaid is sat on the top of the Arc de Triomphe. The men are in the flooded Seine, with life rafts around them. However, the scene appears to give the deliberate illusion that it is staged: the scene looks like it is on a stage and that the environment has been painted as part of the stage scene. The fact that the arc de triomphe is crooked also supports this because even if Paris were flooded, the arc would be solid in the ground. So perhaps this hints at a kind of ‘playing’ within a theatre on a stage.

Why is the woman in the centre of the ad a mermaid? And what is she doing?

This could be an attempt at implying that the mermaid now has the power over men, that their roles are now reversed – she has a tail and the sea is her environment. She seems to be calling through the megaphone – although to me, it is not clear why! Perhaps it is to do with the idea that a mermaid’s song drowns men or ships. It could be interpreted as misogynistic though – to me she seems a bit helpless with her tail, particularly as she is out of water on the arc. She does not seem very empowering to be a mermaid and lure men to their deaths.

What can we infer about the men in the water? What has happened to them? What are they doing and where are they looking? Can we tell anything about their identities?

I pointed out that it seems that they are ‘performing’ a camp/queer musical, as indicated by their mouths open and the mermaid’s microphone (also, the ’set’).The men do not look particularly desperate, they appear to be enjoying themselves and singing. This could tie to the idea that it is possible to ‘perform’ gender (if we consider the idea that Jean Paul Gaultier likes playing around with gender and subversion of gender, this idea would have some currency). However, I do not think that this means that the woman in the advert is ‘powerful’ as seeing that it is perhaps trying to subvert gender, it points to women being normally in the submissive position. Her lack of legs could be construed as a weakness – yes she is powerful in the water, but is she powerful on land?

What about the bottle of perfume? Why is it dressed in a metal-looking corset? What do we know about the history of corsets? Who is well known for wearing a corset like this one and how does that effect our interpretation of it?

The bottle of perfume is a disembodied corset. Madonna is most famous for wearing a pointed breasted corset – which points further to the idea that the advert is trying to associate itself with powerful femininity and playing with fashion/queer/gender. Madonna has constantly re-invented herself over the years, so the ad message is that you, too, can play with fashion. However, for me, a corset does not have any playful connotations as I associate it with constricting the female body, controlling women’s bodies in order to look a certain way. This is why I am reluctant to see the advert as ‘empowering’.

What is the overall message of the ad? Could this ad be described as ‘feminist’?

I do not see what could be ‘feminist’ about this advert. As I pointed out before, the lack of the woman’s legs, although a reference to a mermaid, could be read as the woman being powerful now because Paris is underwater, but what happens when they are on dry ground again? She will become like a flailing fish out of water. She is attractive in fashionable, cosmopolitan westernised terms – make-up, long hair, corset and ’sparkle’. Women can play with their images (make-up, fashion, etc), yes, but then again, if read in terms of feminist discourse within a patriarchal society: how far are those choices to wear make-up and play with fashion choices free of patriarchal norms of what it means to be ‘attractive’? I have found it interesting to read the queer culture contributions (on the York VLE wiki) as they do put context behind the advert.

Reflections on Session

This session was useful as it reminded me that interpreting things (artefacts) visually is something that involves knowledge of being in a particular culture or of knowing information that enables you to read further into just a collection of images on a page. For example, I felt that I did not know enough about queer theory to be able to interpret the Jean Paul Gaultier advert even though I am a consumer and have knowledge of particular ‘identities’ and symbols within fashion, music and popular culture.

If I were not a feminist, however, I may not have felt that there was anything ‘wrong’ with the idea of a corset or of a mermaid being seen as ‘empowering’. This reminds me that as a feminist researcher and as a women’s studies student, I subjectively interpret things according to my own viewpoint as a feminist, with the knowledge of the history of corsets (as constricting for women) and of women as ‘other’ (the mermaid is not human and only exists to ‘lure’ men to their deaths).

My interpretation of the adverts is not the only possible interpretation. However, from using the wiki on the VLE system, it occurred to me that even though there may be different interpretations of something, all our ideas about the adverts built upon each other to create a whole. It may be interesting to think about all the possible interpretations of something in order to be critical with our own ideas. For example, my idea that the corset is not empowering, given its history, other people may not agree with me and may find that modern corsets are not as restrictive as they were previously.

Madonna’s image may take time, effort and constant maintenance (as she is seen as very dedicated to her image, and has personal trainers, beauty and fashion stylists and so on), but maybe women find her dedication and determination powerful, as she is seen as a woman that has taken control of her life.

The session made me think more critically about how I interpret things, why I interpret them that way, and what other interpretations there may be.