Violence in advertising?
Following on a discussion I had about Bob Herbert’s kickass op-ed in the NYT today, I have a question for you:
In the 2007 season, America’s Next Top Model ran a “Crime Scenes Victims” show, where the aspiring models were shot in poses presenting them as murder victims. WARNING FOR TRIGGERS: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE. You can see ten images from the show here. The first one is arguably the least disturbing–I saw it and thought, what with the lighting and the palette, that it was a Hell atmosphere with the model as demon or whatnot. Then I realized that she looks dead – look at the emptiness in her face, the limpness of her limbs. The ones following the first photo are increasingly violent and brutal.
Do these images glamourize violence against women? Are these images, in the context of modeling and advertising, using violence against women to sell products? Do these images eroticize violence against women? Do these images eroticize dead, drowned, stabbed, raped, discarded, broken, poisoned women? Are these images misogynist?
I’m interested in your honest responses and reasoning. One person I talked to said no, that it was obviously art and not misogynist, because art can’t be misogynist (or racist or classist). It can provoke discussion and critical thinking about misogyny, but anything that’s art isn’t misogynist. For a variety of reasons, I’m not sure I’d call this art, but leaving aside the issue of whether it’s art or not, I’d argue that art can indeed be misogynist. Being art doesn’t give something a pass on being misogynist, racist, or otherwise problematic. Do you think these photos portray glamourizing violence against women in a way that prompts critical discussion–”Gee, that photo points out how violence against women is glamourized to sell clothing in mainstream fashion advertising! That’s awful!”–or does it simply portray violence against women as glamourous?
ETA: I’m asking about the images specifically, not taking into account the comments the judges make on them. I think those comments definitely prove that violence against women was glamourized, eroticized, and seen as beautiful in the shoot:
On model pushed down the stairs: “I think Sarah is the classic example of someone who isn’t typically pretty, but translates amazingly well on film.” – “translates amazingly well” = looks good dead
On model shot with a gun: “The reason why this shot works so amazingly well is the positioning of your body. On top of that, the background, the way it’s lit — that’s one of those shots that if I took all that away from you, then how great would you look?” – The background is the spray of blood behind the model’s body. The positioning is that of a person that’s been shot through and then collapsed onto the ground. “If I took all that away from you” – she looks beautiful in this shot only because she’s been shot through and slumped onto the ground, dead.
On a hanged model – “All the other girls managed to have some sort of spark even in this sort of morbid situation. I think I look at you in this picture, and you actually just look dead. One of the simplest things, like acting dead, can be the most challenging. The problem is that you didn’t do anything. You just gave up and thought that that was being dead.” – “You look too dead! The other girls managed to have some sort of spark–look pretty, sexy, or appealing, while being dead/electrocuted/pushed off a building/shot/stabbed/organs hacked out of her body–and shame on you for looking horrifically dead instead of sexily dead!”
Also, I realize that this is old news and the episode aired sometime early last year. However, I’m still interested in it and it’s the first thing that readily came to mind when I thought about the glamourization of violence against women in fashion advertising. Well, this and the recent Target ad. I don’t consume enough mainstream advertising to know much about it, so what do you think? Does advertising use depictions of women in glamourized violent or pornographic situations? Brownie points for links!
Tari said,
2008 January 16 at 1:06 PM
Those photographs are horrific. Also I looked at the captions, and they’re all murder by another model (“decapitation by a model”, “pushed down the stairs by a model”, etc.), which adds a whole new level of misogyny on its own.
Saint Splattergut said,
2008 November 30 at 4:45 PM
Hello,
I came through this link http://www.boingboing.net/2008/11/28/william-burroughs-sh-1.html#comments
Incidentally, the comment that linked to your post, was from an article on a sculpture that I think will add to your interest on this topic. I found your post very interesting. While women have always been portrayed as victims in media, this is the same thing on another level. I mean, I know there have been always been select group of people who find interest in women beyond living victims, they are called necrophiliacs, right? (ie. the works of dolcett)
It’s the first time something like this, to the best of my knowledge, has appeared on mainstream media. I’m not quite sure what we’re supposed to think. Is this just a tough challenge for the contestants of the show? Or did this happen because the producers thought people would drool over dead models?
pizzadiavola said,
2008 December 3 at 4:15 PM
Hi Saint Splattergut, thanks for the link to the Burroughs post. That sculpture is definitely food for thought–to me, it’s the sculptural equivalent of a radio shockjock’s show, and simply vile. There has been great art that portrays dead and dying people (e.g. the statues of the Dying Gaul from the Roman period), but I think the Winehouse sculpture is quite different in that it seems to fetishize the violent murder of a female celebrity. It’s impossible to separate that sculpture from the context of the real world, where violence against women is rampant and Amy Winehouse probably does have to deal with hate mail and death threats, because she’s a female public figure.
Is this just a tough challenge for the contestants of the show? Or did this happen because the producers thought people would drool over dead models?
I think it’s an extension of a mentality that obsesses over stories and depictions of tragically dead, beautiful women. When Anna Nicole Smith died, there were countless stories about her, alongside pictures of her body (even in The Economist, which doesn’t normally do celebrity news, forchrissake!). I got a sense that the writers of the articles were getting titillation out of the story and couldn’t stop obsessing over it.