Sunday, April 11, 2010

Visibility for some... invisibility for Others?

Here are some advertisements that in use of the white male body may point towards ambiguity, or rather than selling a 'product', are an attempt to buy a specific audience.

"The natives thought we were wacky-but what a bath, brother, whatta bath!"

1944- Ad for Cannon Towels. Soldiers bathing semi-naked and naked, one of them depicts a
feminine pose the rest of them laugh and apparently are having a good time.


1992 Banana Republic- Free souls



Giorgio Armani Ad


Armani Ad

In Nothing Queer about Queer Television, Avila-Saavedra discuss how homosexual men are neither participants nor beneficiaries of any kind of hegemonic masculinity (7). Nonetheless, it seems that advertising for mainstream or LGBT audience in use of the homosexual man figure, (in must of the case with white homosexual as a commodified representation) may point to different directions: visibility for the gay community or invisibility for the queer community.
In this sense, questioning Avila -- Saavedra: What do you think about visibility in the media for the LGBT community, is it inclusive enough? Who is benefiting, or profiting from this type of advertisement? The LGTB community? The Marketers? Why we can't find ads for lesbians as much as we see Beckham in every corner, clearly a reference both for straight and gay, women... and all the homoerotic combo....



7 comments:

  1. This blog echoes many of the ideas that were discussed last week with regard to Salma Hayek representation and Latinos in general and their sudden acceptance via Ugly Betty of Latinidad in a very hierarchical and choice stereotypical depictions. The idea that certain men in the celebrity eye can appeal to various audiences in a great methodology for economic gain in the advertising perspective. According to Avila-Saavedra "...constructionists believe that a homosexual identity is a cultural product and a social construction." (6) Moreover, these social constructions are simultaneously being used as repressors of homosexuality because people won't openly admit that these ads are targeted toward homosexuals while also appealing to the masses of men who are attracted to these supposedly straight advertising models. In the Avilla-Saavedra article, he quotes Foucault as saying that "sexuality and sexual definitions are created by society in order to repress individuals wishing to engage in behaviors that deviate from the heterosexual model." (6) Not only does this sadden me, but the issue exists that a very secluded and oftentimes rejected lifestyle is now being used to put money in people's pockets and the advertising companies are using this false sense of (at best) secret homosexual appeal in their ads to attract those that many in society despise.

    I realize that agencies are oftentimes uncouth and have no real perception of who their ads are affecting, yet it also makes me wonder if this is exactly what they desire simply to draw in consumers?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Commenting on Tichina, it's a desire to draw in consumers to buy their products by portraying a straight male model to engage in a homosexual position. I believe that these different ads disturbs the homosexual society. The producer are to involve heterosexual and homosexual commmunity to gain economic support towards capitalism. The representation is seen as a commercialized scene of ignornant to justify the use of this type of agency.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To answer some of your questions, I do not thing that representations or visibility for the LGBT community in the media is inclusive at all. It leaves out many people as well as amplifying others. Its interesting how in the media, gay men are shown in the media more and not gay woman. Why is it that when two woman are portrayed in an ad it is clearly two straight woman giving off some type of sexual fantasy for men? Yes, I have seen many ads of two woman touching eachother etc...but no they do not represent lesbian woman. Of course it is the companies who put how these ads who are benefiting from it the most.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that the high volume of "straight" advertising is a result of market forces instead of ideology, because, as Avila Saaverda notes, "Rather than coercion, social domination can be conceived as a more flexible system of normalization through social structures and cultural production." As the majority of Americans are straight, the advertising in this country better reflects this group than the homosexual audience. However, I feel that some advertisements are ambiguous in nature, such as the David Beckham one above. It could be argued that it is marketing to a homosexual male audience or a female audience through its undisclosed presentation of his body. But then it could also be marketed towards straight males, showing him more as a role model that one should strive to look like, than a sex symbol.

    ReplyDelete
  5. While watching the documentary today in class, I picked up on some key elements that may help me to best answer the questions you (NIBIA) have posted in this blog. I think that due to the fact that "commodifiers" are seeking to make things comfortable for the sake of tradition and to enforce heterosexual norms that have been in heavy rotation since the foundations of Judeo-Christianity. I feel that Poxiejunior was right in saying that it is NOT inclusive because the version of these people that they show only enforce these norms and exclude the many people that represent the complexity within this community. Avila-Saavedra mentions a quote from Shugart's analysis which states, "Gay
    males are defined as privileged for their total access to women but as impotent
    for their homosexuality, a notion consistent with heterosexism"(6). I think this just about explains why Giorgio Armani Ads would replicate this form of male dominance only to exclude those who do identify with heterosexual males. Therefore, this also gives reason to why many people weren't to sure of Ellen's coming out process because it really goes against the norms and promotes a anti-sexist and anti-homophobic form of advocacy that (in her visibility) could not function as an alternative way of being represented as a prominent citizen within society. Furthermore, great blog!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I meant that don't identify with heterosexual males.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I personally think that the media is definitely trying to be more inclusive of this LGBT group and I feel like they are tryingto do it in a way that will be comfortably accepted by the majority but still seems inclusive. Thats the idea I got after talking in class and i Find it interesting how the LGBT community was and still portrayed in the media today.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.