[Find the article here]
I see it a little differently.
Firstly, the two images in the article seem really drastically different to each other. The first of almost fully naked woman (AD 1) is pretty mainstream. I've seen an image of a toned naked blonde woman in dark moody lighting in high fashion ads before - I'm pretty immune by now - and no doubt will be seeing them for a long time yet. This one, I can agree, is pretty tired.
AD 1 |
BUT
The second is one I can get behind (AD 2).Wheras the first one is a passive lady possibly half asleep lounging on a chair for us all to look at, the second is one of active sexuality. This distinction is key.
AD 2 |
There is a very valid argument made in the Huffington Post about the problems with commodifying naked women's bodies to sell all and any product, and this fits the first closely. The woman's body is there for our gaze, and the product is almost invalid. The female body and all its connotations are there for us to connect to the Alexander Wang brand.
The second, however, is very obviously an advert for trousers. The jeans are the central focus, and the model is there as a participant to represent the physicality and connection to the clothing.
The contrast is of old and new ways of playing out female sexuality in advertising space, and the reason they are side by side in one campaign is unusual to me. Maybe it is just safer to retread the old ground and cover all bases.
Whatever the case, although to some normal people and to some Helen Lovejoys it might be uncomfortable to some to see sex portrayed so overtly, an active female participant is the kind of sexuality I would rather see in public spaces, and the one which will probably sell more jeans.
tell me what you think in the comments, or
tweet me @bakebakebaker
BAKER
xoxoxo
No comments:
Post a Comment