 |
More or less how I gloss over ads with pretty women.
We see she's attractive, but hollow. Form without core. |
It was a strange coincidence that these readings were assigned a few days after my S/O and I had a discussion about whether or not we even
notice 'conventionally' beautiful women anymore. Women like the one in Wysocki's example completely oversaturate the majority of consumable media, to the point of desensitivity (not sure if that's a word, but it is now). When I'm browsing a magazine, which is probably only in the doctor's office (so once every decade), of course I notice the ad with the partially clothed woman. However, it's more like I am aware that it's there and what it contains, but don't ever bother to pay any real conscious attention. I end up assuming that I know the form of the ad and have some sort of preconditioned template to produce a static image in my head, but there is no real stimulation or element of engagement involved. Of course, I enjoy the female anatomy a great deal, and I've also seen enough of it to know what's realistic and what is wildly over exaggerated. See the .GIF on Anjeli's blog post for reference. This image alone made me realize that this isn't just a 'sticky embrace' of male dominant constructs vs. female realism, but it's an issue of age as well. Unless the ad is for menopause supplements or Depends, models are airbrushed and distorted to look like
girls instead of
women. Why could this be? I think, at least partially, the juxtaposition of nudity against youth evokes a feeling of innocence in the viewer. Innocence is perhaps more rare than beauty, so when our eye stumbles across it we can't help but marvel over it. How does this look in conversation with Jamieson's point, in reference to only being taken seriously in public speech if it is in "manly" form? How can we simultaneously value the aesthetic of innocence
and the abandonment of (as Anjeli listed it:) "feelings, intuition, desire for intimacy, relationships, and peace." Aren't these all constituents of what makes up innocence? Perhaps this disconnect exists because we've been conditioned to separate what
looks good and what
sounds good. Which seems strange, because ultimately to enjoy one of these things, you must ignore the other.
Returning back to my original thought process concerning how easy it is to overlook conventional beauty these days, I began to think about how and why styles/fashion shift to accommodate the ever-evolving perception of beauty. It's easy to get bored of the same recycled perspective, so it becomes necessary to alter it here and there. Take these trending high-waisted booty shorts all over campus for example. Only a few years ago, the style was low rise 'just below the hip' with butt-cheeks fully covered. Apparently we got bored of that, so designers decided we needed to see more cheek, and less belly. There's nothing wrong with this, but it's interesting that style shifts are usually an effort to draw more attention to one's self, so that one can be noticed, and then pondered about whether or not they are conventionally beautiful.
After reading both of these pieces, I had a tough time finding the relation to our class, but Brett's post summed it up pretty well by saying that the big picture is about visual hierarchy. So what's important currently, visually speaking? The soft curves of the female anatomy are certainly high on the list for advertising companies, but this image is partially a catalyst for what's really important universally: change and accommodation for socially shifting definitions of beauty, delivered in a time sensitive window. Otherwise, we'd skim everything without pausing to notice anything at all.
Adam,
ReplyDeleteNice post. I really value hearing men's perspectives on issues regarding feminism, beauty standards, etc. Too often, when discussions are held like ours in class Thursday, it seems that men either feel attacked or irrelevant, neither of which should be the case. But you address the issues with tact and honesty, and I appreciate it.
in your discussion of booty shorts, you mention that we get bored with the same styles, and so it becomes necessary to change things up. Which I think is true, but I also think that shifting style standards (and in conjunction, shifting beauty standards) have a ton to do with consumerism. If we maintained the same styles for years on end, how would companies make money? God forbid that the ruling 1% holding most of the wealth suffer, or have to find more renewable forms of making profit. In our consumerist society, we have linked happiness with purchases. Yet the "trend" mindset, at its core, is based on the same arbitrary standards as beauty. So we have the entire U.S. population spending money, getting plastic surgery, etc., all chasing an ideal as wispy and empty as the photo you posted. To me, that is Wysocki's point, that we have traded the magic of particularities and messiness and raw naturalness for abstract ideals, and it manifests itself in visual text everywhere.
As writers, I think this is important because language provides an opportunity to show rawness and shift away from abstraction, particularly through integrating narrative into our writing. At least, that's where my mind rests at the moment.
Enjoyed reading your post, as always.
Anjeli
I like what you've discussed here. One of the things I wanted to discuss, was your consideration of creating a woman in the image of a young girl. While I see your point about innocence and, ultimately, agree with it, I think there is more to it than that. Having been a teenage girl, I have heard many discussion revolving around this very topic. "Why do women in magazines look like that?" In my experience, it's more about the creation of an image of perfection. Youth is viewed as innocent, definitely, part of that concept of innocence lies in the perfection of their innocence. They have not been tainted by any form of corruption. The same can be said about things like their flawless skin or clear complexions. Youth is idolized in our culture because it displays perfection. Perfection and youth have become so ingrained in our society's expectations of beauty that we have come to experience "desensitivity" (to use your word) when viewing photographs like the one Wysocki shows. So, then, what is conventional beauty? Is it not childlike perfection and innocence? We hold on so tightly to this idea of beauty that maybe we have lost sight of real beauty. Also, are we speaking about solely physical beauty? In my opinion, how someone looks has been, and may always will be, considered in pop culture significantly more than emotional or psychological beauty. Maybe this also plays into the idea of youth idolization. Children are looked at for their innocence and their perfection, but not (usually) their emotional maturity and other such characteristics. So why not stick children's faces on these advertisements?...probably because (considering the typical ads that have these women on them) it would be insanely inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post!
I like the term you brought up in your post– conventionally beautiful– and I find this thought interesting as well. I like this notion of desensitivity also, although Microsoft word doesn’t recognize it as a word, I am fairly certain it is a word; at least, it is one that I can relate with. I have heard a similar conversation relating with video games ‘desensitizing’ kids to violence, making them more prone to violent behavior because they play games like “grand theft auto” or “call of duty.” I’m not really sure which side I am on though. I understand the point, that images in media can make us more tolerable to seeing blood or naked women or whatever the point is I’m not sure. I guess what I’m getting at is that I am familiar with these concepts and, as someone familiar with violent video games, and seeing glamorized women either in movies or magazines or whatever, I’m not sure that this is what makes a person prone to violent behavior, or along side your point desensitized to ‘conventionally beautiful’ women. I like to think that I can still recognize what is beautiful or what is violent in real-life, but I do agree with you that certain images and standards oversaturate our lives these days. It is because of technology and because we are all so connected nowadays and these kinds of images are so easily accessible. Back to violence in video games (hopefully this relates) I think that kids don’t become violent because they act out violence in a simulated world, I think that kids become violent when they are subjected to an abusive and violent environment. Kids will fight or act out aggression in less comfortable environments than kids that grow up in relaxed environments with loving parents and family. Anyways, I’m not sure what that tangent was all about. Desensitivity I guess; I get it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOkay, here's where my super sociological (possibly annoying and irrelevant) self takes over.
ReplyDeleteI recently minored in sociology, as a whim, if you didn't already know; and it has completely changed many of the ways I think, feel, and interpret many things. You've been warned.
First of all: "Male dominant constructs vs. Female realism"???? Hell yeah. Seriously one of the best things I've ever heard. Can I use that for like a thesis paper or something? Wow. This post is genuine. I love it.
Okay, so here are may actual thoughts now that I've collected myself:
You're totally right on about a lot of this, and if I had an hour, I would sit here typing all my crazy thoughts about gender, but really what fascinates me here is your idea of conventional beauty and, in particular, your first picture about the woman being real, but hollow. Form without core. That's totally how countless women are portrayed in the media. And, as Anjeli also mentioned, I love hearing your thoughts as a man. It's good to know that this type of beauty is evident to you as well.
Your post got me thinking about intersectionality and how all types of social identities combine, or intersect, to create oppression. While your thoughts may not have completely aligned with this concept, my sociological brain made me go there (I told you). Mostly, because you discussed what it meant for a woman and for a man in these circumstances, but you also mentioned age, which got me spiraling off in other directions about ideas of beauty and how inequalities can and do impact our socially constructed opinions about it.
It's fair to say then that our opinions and ideas that circle around beauty and what it means to be beautiful create, as you called it, or Brett called it, a visual hierarchy. And that's totally true. We want, hell, we NEED the beauty in our lives. It's why attractive people are more successful, more trusted, and more liked. I'm not making this up; it's a totally well-studied area of psychology. We crave beauty. We bend over backwards to get it sometimes. And if we don't get it, we create it, we edit it, we fix it.
You've given me some interesting ideas for future areas of study. Thanks, friend.