The holiday season is upon us, and with
that comes a wave of new products for consumers. The picture to the left is an
image being used by NARS Cosmetics as part of their new holiday collection, entitled
NARS by Guy Bourdin. Guy Bourdin is an infamous fashion photographer, who is
the inspiration for the products in the line.
Let’s deconstruct the image: We’re looking
at a woman with an apparent bruised eye (based on my interpretation), headfirst
into the grass, and presumably naked. NARS selected the image from one of
Guy Bourdin’s photographs, as seen here. For me, the picture raises a lot of
immediate red flags and questions. Why would NARS think that showcasing this seemingly
battered woman would somehow make female customers want to buy this product?
Are they implying that violence against women is somehow the woman’s fault,
which is why women would find this image desirable? We all know that these
types of decisions are made carefully and deliberately, especially in
aesthetic-based industries like beauty.
The picture above is an entryway
into a bigger topic, because this is not the first time we've seen companies use questionable images on their products. Focusing on Guy Bourdin for a minute, a lot of his photographs
that can be seen in the link above feature women in demeaning, almost-nude
positions. He’s known for having a fascination with violence, sex and death.
But interestingly enough, he’s also an extremely celebrated and revered fashion
icon. In industries like art and fashion, this trend of violence (mostly having
to do with women) is considered edgy and mysterious. But why is portraying
women in that way acceptable, but if we exchanged those spots
with men, it would not be cool or interesting anymore? The media knows that the
dominant discourse within our culture is that women automatically equal sex and
weakness. Even when discussing topics like rape, we always talk about its
effects on women. Well, women are not always the victims as men get raped too.
But because of the way history and many other things have shaped the way we
think, the issue of women being victimizers does not get discussed as much.
These types of advertisements
have a big effect on the way men perceive women, how women look at themselves
and even how they look at men. The picture itself portrays women in an unfavourable
light that transcends outside of stores and magazines, into the minds of young
people who don’t realize that these advertisements are more than just hollow pictures. They are meant to evoke emotion and thought, whether it is good or
bad. How we let controversial images, like the one NARS has used, influence the
way we as a society think is extremely crucial to moving forward with issues
like gender equality and feminism.
The important thing to realize is that the whole
reason why companies and media outlets create the advertisements they do is
based on us. They pay people tons of money to understand what we as consumers
like, and what we don’t like. What’s the new “thing”? Who’s the new “it” girl?
All of these things are considered when the commercials and advertisements
we’re discussing on the blog are being made. Their creations come from us inadvertently
accepting these controversial issues, and not doing anything about it until
we see it in a magazine or read an article online. In a way, these media texts
are a reflection of us and our ideologies.
Additional Note: If you have a Twitter account and would like to chime in on the issue, you can tweet to NARS Cosmetics with your thoughts to their twitter handle, @NARSissist, with the hashtag #NotBuyingIt.
Questions to Ponder:
1. Where do we cross the line on free expression?
2. Do you think it's right to portray women in a violent/belittling manner, in the name of art?
3. What kind of message, if any, do you think NARS is trying to send by using this specific photograph on one of their products?
4. How can we collectively change the negative way women and other groups of people (e.g. teenagers, Muslims) are represented in the media?
4. How can we collectively change the negative way women and other groups of people (e.g. teenagers, Muslims) are represented in the media?
Original Article: NARS Cosmetics Glamorizes Violence Against Women
Great post Rebecca. I will start off by answering your last question. I believe that even if we try collectively to change the negative way women and other groups of people in the media are represented will be really difficult. I think at some cases its near to impossible. Dominant discourse is too blame and I think trying to change societies mind on the negative way women are represented in the media is quite frankly untenable. We are constantly bombarded with all sorts of media representing women negatively. There might be light at the end of the tunnel if all media were to stop representing women negatively and then society will be able to have a different view. Until that time comes we will have to settle with what we have.
ReplyDeleteI definitely see your point. We've grown up with the media brainwashing us for so long, that it's getting increasingly difficult to differentiate between what's right and wrong. But if we continue to critically analyze media and their messages, over time we can make a difference.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Rebecca. Media has indeed portrayed a negative image of women in today's younger generation. I don't think that it is right at all for someone to publish a photograph that encourages violence against women. Like you said, "Even when discussing topics like rape, we always talk about its effects on women. Well, women are not always the victims as men get raped too", i completely agree with this opinion because there are also men that are raped and it is such an issue when they do get raped which shows us the stereotypical society we live in that thinks its only a big deal if a women gets raped. Furthermore, i would like to add that men kill women because of the publications like these that provoke men to do anything with women. Also, because they think women are like toys. It is something that we need to criticize media for and it's messages. Moreover, you also brought up a good point of photographs of women that show, "de-meaning and almost nude positions", i think stuff like this has a huge impact on men since their lust for women increases even more and that lust later turns into a rape case of a sexual abuse. Media is to be blamed for this and it is a shame that some people actually appreciate the so called "art" of pictures like these and actually buy products of brands that promote wrong ideas, pictures and encourage abuse against women in all contexts.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's really horrible that we let these images influence our actions and desensitize our thinking. When I was reading the original article, most of the comments were actually disagreeing with the writer's POV, saying things like "He's brilliant!" and "Get over it". It's unfortunate that exploiting women is now considered the norm.
DeleteInteresting read, Rebecca. I'm going to try to answer two of your questions here.
ReplyDelete1. I feel that with freedom of expression it shouldn't be limited because then the whole point of the term "free" goes bye bye, as it won't exist. But then at the same time it shouldn't be used as an excuse to share demeaning photographs of women also.It should go hand in hand with critical thinking. Strong consideration should be taken into account when the artist is trying to express their thoughts, as to how is this going to make women feel, who is affected greatly by this, will it support the man to attack the female as the artist is making it seem like it's okay to do so.
2. I do not think it's right to portray women in such a manner. Why is it women are constantly presented in a form of them being victims of violence. They are made to seem weaker, with no strength to defend themselves. I feel that it also gives a man more of a reason or back up into abusing the women. It is wrong where what you see of women is them being the victims unable to fight back.
I definitely agree. Free expression is unlimited, but if someone knows their work is going to be seen and criticized by the world, they need to realize that there are certain unspoken boundaries. It's true, these types of paintings contain implicit messages that affect everyone viewing them, whether artists like it or not.
DeleteThis is a great post Rebecca, I personally agree with you on how there should be a limit on what the media posts. In other words we have been growing up in a society where we have been exposed to banners and ads that include woman being nude just so companies can advertise their products. I believe that there should be a restriction on this since media is going too far with what their posting. For example, the pictures NARS used to advertise their product are indeed disturbing and they all have something in common which is nude woman on each of the ads. To answer question number 4 I believe that if we can all take action and change how the media represents woman, then there is a chance that advertisements and movies will represent woman in a different way rather than how NARS presented them.
ReplyDeleteThank you Kulvir. Hopefully, in the future we'll be able to change the way women are represented in the media.
DeleteDon’t hate me for this. Although the topic you have is really great; I feel you didn’t support it well in this post. You start off with the photo of a woman with red eye shadow. Looking at the ad I’d say red-eye shadow is what is being sold, considering the woman is a red head as well. You begin by making some pretty, far-fetched claims about how this shows that the woman in the photo is being brutalized and abused. I’d say that is not true. You mention the photographer has a few obsessions, sex being one of them. In this photo, the woman is face first in a pile of grass. I don’t know about you but lying in a pile of grass doesn’t seem to be that brutal. But breaking down her positioning. She is made to lay face first, so she can show her right eye, whilst covering most of her face, to make the eye shadow (the product they are selling) more noticeable. Another reason she is face first, is to cover her breasts because that would not be allowed to be shown and the black censor marks would distract consumers from the actual product, the eye-shadow. If she had been laid on her back, the censored breasts would have easily, caught they eyes of consumers over the more subtle, harder to notice eye-shadow which is being advertised. They also put her red hair over her head, to compliment the eye shadow and it is put in that position so it does not get on her face because that may confuse consumers on what product is being sold. The woman being naked is just a hint of the author’s touch, of being obsessed with sex, I can agree on that. But to go as far making claims that it shows the woman being physically abused seems a bit too much for me. But then again it all depends on how you interpret the ad. Besides that, your post was great! :)
ReplyDeleteOh one more thing i forgot to mention. If what you are saying about the picture is true, that the woman is being abused and it is meant to look sexy. And you say in your post that if the role is reversed than, and men are put in that position, it isn't sexy at all. I'd have to disagree with that. Men that have, scars, torn clothing, and look like they've been "roughed up" are also portrayed as sexy in media. The physical abuse men face, is sexualized, it is supposed to be appealing to women and is supposed to show their masculinity and strength. So if the roles would be reversed, it would still have the same effect.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment, Akber. Unfortunately, I wholeheartedly disagree. As for your claim that my interpretation is "far-fetched", as I said in my post, the photographer from who NARS took this photo from is notoriously known for his controversially violent photos of women. Second of all, if you look at the link above where I cited the original photograph, you will see that the original picture also has red eye shadow. NARS did not add that to advertise their product, it was originally there. If you look at the other photos in that collection, they all have a central demeaning theme to them. He sure as hell wasn't advertising eye shadow when he took that photograph! You also have to realize that every single thing in that ad is constructed with a purpose, whether to be subtly or explicitly communicated. Yes, she's not topless with a bloodied eye, and yes, they might have positioned her in a certain way to highlight the makeup, but it's the little things you have to consider. Why Guy Bourdin, of all photographers? Why THIS photograph? It may not be as obvious, but it's nonetheless an important factor. I do agree that men are not always featured glamorously as well, but it's for a completely different reason. The look advertisers are going for is the rugged, not-trying-hard attitude of men. The only time men are shown with things like scars is to showcase their metaphorical and physical "battle wounds", implying that men who are brave warriors are the desirable ones. It's obviously used to pressure men to be brave and violent in order to be accepted, which is definitely wrong, but it has nothing to do with abuse. If anything, that's opposite of what they want to advertise, because the dominant discourse within the media is that male abuse victims = weak, "sissies".
DeleteMy mistake for assuming it was an original photo for the ad. Well sure, that's his style. In this particular photo though, the message is so subtle, that it is practically unnoticeable. It was unnoticeable to me and most likely will be to the general public. The topic you have is great, and a lot of photos you have in the gallery would've been more suitable for this post. Yes I agree with your criticism about the photographer. I just feel your photo choice could have been better, because from that photo, it makes your claims seem to be too broad. As for your second statement I'd have to agree with you, thank you for letting me see it from a different perspective. :)
ReplyDeleteI like that you pointed out Rebecca "The media knows that the dominant discourse within our culture is that women automatically equal sex and weakness. Even when discussing topics like rape, we always talk about its effects on women. Well, women are not always the victims as men get raped too. But because of the way history and many other things have shaped the way we think, the issue of women being victimizers does not get discussed as much." which is very true.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your questions, I do think it is right to portray women in a violent and or belittle ring manner in art because art is meant in some cases to invoke an emotion, and if an artist wants to show women in that way, they should be free to express women in this negative light. For question 4, I guess the only way we can collectively change the way groups are negatively represented in the media is by taking a neutral stand. By this, I mean by not allowing the media to implant into our minds stereotypes and views shown in the media are true. Like you said, media spends money to discover what consumers want, and at some point they'll get the message that negative portrayals of groups is wrong, by society's feelings. For example, showing a black person as a criminal in an advertisement tends to not ever been seen, as media knows it's bound to get backlash for doing it; like the Mountain Dew commercial with the goat.
If you want to see the Mountain Dew ad, here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFRWf-CNC8
-Lydia