At first glance, this photo is seen a "normal" American Eagle ad which is coming from a society where marketing campaigns capitalize on the hegemony of our culture. We are used to images like this that sell clothes by showing them being worn by models that are supposed to replicate our world.
Addressing the idea of gendered bodies, we can look deeper into this photo. First off, the overall feeling of each person is very unique. The girl is carefree and overall happy while the guy is portraying a powerful and "cool" persona. We do not ask why the girl has flowing hair, a foot popped, or a graceful hand; we already assume because 'she's a woman' and portrays exactly what our society believes is 'woman'. This idea of woman is an excellent example of semiotics because the characteristics that make up the idea of woman would mean very little if there was not its counter of man. This photo does a fantastic job of illustrating this concept placing two distinctive people counter to each other to accentuate the differences. The idea of man is that he is supposed to be powerful, aloof, in control, and always with a woman which is exactly what is portrayed in this ad. In the same way we do not ask why the woman is positioned, we do not ask why the man has a wide stance, no smile, and hands in pockets: it is because he is a man. We are taught to identify these certain characteristics with different genders which therefore classifies people into the two options. If there is any deviance, we (society) proclaims it as strange and therefore necessary to put back into place. But how did this rigid definition start? I once read about cultures that had three different 'labels' of being where there was man, woman, and 'other' (as in each culture had a different name for the third group). This third group were those that we could call gay, lesbian, transgender etc. However, in these other cultures they had no negative connotations. How did our culture shape that the third group is so different and "wrong"? Where does the line lie that divides woman from man and excludes those who would classify themselves in the 'other group'?
Going back to the ad, we see a male and female portraying their gender roles so the typical viewer can relate to the photo, point out which one they associate with and want to be like them. Sadly, this blatant gender casting of the models excludes the 'third group' which is sadly what our culture is doing. An American Eagle ad, supposedly just meant to sell clothes, instead gives credence to the cultural construction of what it is to be man and woman.
I agree with what your reading of this ad. On the surface it seems like companies are just trying to sell a product, in this case clothes, but what they are really selling is an image and a lifestyle. The reader is meant to look at this ad and identify with one of the two people in it. In addition to your mention of the male female hegemony of this ad, the fact that both people in this ad are white is also very interesting. The ad suggests that this is a man and this is a women there is no middle ground, but by having both people be white it adds race into this divisions and makes any other race the “other”. What makes this even more interesting is the history of companies like this and having racially biased hiring practices. A few years ago Abercrombie got into major trouble for not hiring African American people because they did not fit the store’s “image”. This all combined with the fact that this store is very popular with younger people and is has “American” in the name suggests they are sending a really messed up message to young impressionable people.
ReplyDelete