BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

British Vogue...Friend or Foe???

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
sara
19:20 / 24.05.07
Hi ladies,

My name is Sara Ashraf and I am a Masters student studying Fashion Marketing and Commincation, at Nottingham Trent University.

For my dissertation I am looking at Vogue magazine covers since 1916 and their relation to feminist imagery.

I was just wondering if you could answer my questions on this subject matter. I would like to know as consumers of Vogue or not, do you feel the representations of women are fair nowadays compared to earlier years of how women were portrayed on the front cover, or vice versa? Also do you think that these women hold the same sexual connotations as mens magazines? What are your opnions on Vogue covers? do you like the way they are presented to the consumer? and would you change anything about the covers? and do you agree with men being on the front cover with women; as a mainly female magazine?

I am trying to look at the underlying signals these covers cause! and whether the changes are technological,social or both? I did interviews with women and front cover analysis and it was really interesting how much someones perception is contradicted when you remove the title from the front cover! I found that mens magazines models were much more of a threat than Vogue women (maybe because they see Vogue as more a friend and men are not their consumers?) Importantly, when removed the titles from various magazine covers the most popular one was of a women in her underwear, on top of a car bonnet with her fingers down her pants?!?! i suppose without a title these women could justify their reasons for choosing the magazine as apposed to a magzine that says Nuts or FHM.

Its amazing what people say and think, without realising they are not continious in within their answers. As the interviewer, I picked up on these inconsistencies. These are the kind of underlying answers i am looking for. Do consumers realise they are being affected but dont want to admitt it? or are they reall unaware as to how much harm these covers can do...esp with the introduction of celebrity cladded endorsments.

You can view the Vogue cover archive at:

http://www.vogue.co.uk/CoverArchive/


Any of your opinions would be fabulous!!!!! thanks soo much for reading my ramblings!

Sara
xxx
 
 
Ticker
19:33 / 24.05.07
Hi Sara.

Actually quite a lot of people on here may read this and some of them may or may not identify with being 'ladies'. Was your intent to only ask a subgroup of the board to participate in your survey? Only British Ladies perhaps?

I would like to know as consumers of Vogue or not, do you feel the representations of women are fair nowadays compared to earlier years of how women were portrayed on the front cover, or vice versa?

I feel women's images are still used as commodities and unrealistic representations. The lack of minorities, disabled, older, and a variety of physical shapes are glaringly not present on mainstream fashion magazines.

Also do you think that these women hold the same sexual connotations as mens magazines?

I'm not sure what you are asking here? Do I think women's magazines promote the same shitty agenda about women's bodies and behavior as men's magazines? Why, yes I do.


What are your opnions on Vogue covers? do you like the way they are presented to the consumer? and would you change anything about the covers? and do you agree with men being on the front cover with women; as a mainly female magazine?



They are glossy vapid marketing atrocities wasting trees to promote a materialistic consumer agenda. I would replace the images with pictues of real people not selling anything. The perception of the binary men/women as the only options for a cover choice is archaic and depressing. Why not butch lesbians, older fabulous gay men, amazing transexuals, femme women, metrosexual men, and an entire spring edition of bears?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:37 / 25.05.07
Yes, this is why something like I-D magazine (or even Vice, perhaps) is a bunch more worthwhile.
 
 
sara
17:20 / 25.05.07
Hi, yes sorry, didnt explain that bit properly..it is mainly questions directed for women and how they feel Vogue is presented to them. I dont mind male opinions, but since im looking at it through a females persepective, it would be great to get anyones input into this.

Thanks a bunch for those who have replied already.

xxx
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:34 / 25.05.07
Yes, this is why something like I-D magazine (or even Vice, perhaps) is a bunch more worthwhile.

Please be joking.
 
 
Saturn's nod
08:39 / 26.05.07
I would like to know as consumers of Vogue or not, do you feel the representations of women are fair nowadays compared to earlier years of how women were portrayed on the front cover, or vice versa?

My first impression of the covers archive you link to is I don't like many of the covers, because they are too samey - the same white woman, in the same size, similar poses, just slightly different hair/clothes/makeup. I like the ones that are outside, not in studio. I like the ones with different use of the space on the front page but I would probably buy it when I want it without there being an image of a person on the cover.

When I buy Vogue, I buy it to look at cut, because there aren't many magazines that have such volume of images of interesting clothes. If I could decide, I would move Vogue more towards the direction of a clothing-geek magazine. Sometimes the 'fashion scene' talk is a bit boring, but I love in-depth discussion of the effects of particular choices of materials, colours, cuts, and finishes.

I want more varied pictures on the cover too: men as well as women, older people, children and so on. I want to see fabulously well-cut and practical outfits that are great for breastfeeding and for sailing. I want to see clothes that are functional for coppicing and hiking and fieldwork in various climatic conditions, as well as clothes to wear in urban situations. I want to see clothing to enfold and cherish every type of body, and I want features on materials sourcing and how intelligent supply chain management can bring the world of justice into being.

I don't like the advertising pictures I see in Vogue - I've seen too many images that hit on my eyes like a row of young men and women advertising themselves for hire. Maybe it's the culture of image-making they come from, but often I find the advertiser's images repellent because the young people look so uncentred, ungrounded. They look exploited to me, they don't look like they are making good use of their lives or even having fun, so I don't like the product.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
23:00 / 27.05.07
Yes, this is why something like I-D magazine (or even Vice, perhaps) is a bunch more worthwhile.

Please be joking.

Er, what Haus said.

Really, Vice is wannabe hipsters tripping over their own sense of entitlement and red, angry cocks. Nothing good, there. Move on.

I must say that while I agree whith BiHB's comments about disabled-la-la-la models not appearing on the cover of Vogue, I'd perhaps suggest that complaining about this on Barbelith is at best grand-standing, and at worse a dereliction of the duty to take the fight elsewhere, where it might impact more, and more deeply.
 
 
Saturn's nod
09:27 / 28.05.07
I must say that while I agree whith BiHB's comments about disabled-la-la-la models not appearing on the cover of Vogue, I'd perhaps suggest that complaining about this on Barbelith is at best grand-standing, and at worse a dereliction of the duty to take the fight elsewhere, where it might impact more, and more deeply.

I don't see it like that: perhaps obviously, given my comments above. There are a million things in the world that could handle a change for the better, don't we have a right to pick the battles in which we can extend ourselves?

This seems to me to be an entirely appropriate forum in which to express an opinion about the content of Vogue covers, especially since we've been specifically asked what we as primarily-female-identifying posters think about them. I'd presume that sara's research will get to the editors, when it's finished. It seems to me to be a good use of my time to extend an opinion here - where I know someone's asked and is listening - than to provide unsoliticed feedback at higher effort-cost.

The definition of grandstanding I think you are using might be this one - "to perform ostentatiously so as to impress an audience"? What gives you the impression that BiHB's not giving her sincere opinion? Why assume that BiHB is not expressing this opinion as part of her activism which extends to other areas of her life?

But perhaps I've misunderstood your comments? Will you explain a bit more about what you meant, if it wasn't just a drive-by?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:35 / 29.05.07
and do you agree with men being on the front cover with women; as a mainly female magazine?

I have to question the idea of Vogue as a female magazine. Vogue is a fashion industry magazine, its circulation figures are huge because it's fundamentally a fashion bible. Vogue isn't aimed at women, it's aimed at people of both genders in the industry and those interested in fashion generally. The perception of it as female is because it primarily covers female fashion/uses female cover models but the inherent suggestion that men wouldn't read it because of this is mistaken because of its age. Vogue is an institution.

I don't have a problem with men being on the cover of Vogue, actually I think they should put men on the cover more often and really expand the remit of the magazine to include more male fashion.

do you feel the representations of women are fair nowadays compared to earlier years of how women were portrayed on the front cover, or vice versa?

What are your opnions on Vogue covers?

I've always preferred the fashion illustrations that were put on the cover in the early part of the twentieth century. I think they portrayed the content of the magazine as something bordering on a fashion journal more effectively. Nowadays I prefer it when they have full body shots to close ups of the face although if it's very connected to a trend- Twiggy, Kate Moss in the 90s, the supermodels in the late 80s- that's a good cover image. Fashion models tend to be put on the cover and for me that's less a comment on women then on fashion, I think the industry connection and its representation is important because the covers give us a window on the status and treatment of women in fashion. I can't really relate Vogue to representations of women because its content is so rarely connected to that, it's not a women's magazine in the same way that something like Cosmopolitan is.


Also do you think that these women hold the same sexual connotations as mens magazines?

No I don't. All women have sexual connotations for people who are attracted to them but Vogue isn't trying to sell sex, it's trying to sell fashion (not even clothes because that's one small part of what the magazine is for). Any sexualisation is part of the broader aesthetic purpose/the photographers direction/our own assumption rather than something in and of itself. Men's magazines also differ in this way, GQ and sex is very different to Nuts or FHM and sex. Are you thinking of any particular men's magazines?


do you like the way they are presented to the consumer? and would you change anything about the covers?

This almost always relates to the individual image and whether I like it aesthetically. I don't tend to like the covers of the 1980's but almost uniformly adore the 1920's images. I love the font that they currently use for "Vogue" at the top of the cover. I absolutely hate the current issue but think it's very relevant to the 80s comeback that we're seeing on the High Street at the moment so I wouldn't change it. I would like to see more full body shots, which actually feature clothes rather than facial shots but essentially that's not something that I would change about the cover.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:38 / 29.05.07
BihB, I'm going to address your comments later because I think they're important in relation to the binary nature of fashion and magazines really only represent that but it might take a few hours.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:53 / 29.05.07
I feel women's images are still used as commodities and unrealistic representations. The lack of minorities, disabled, older, and a variety of physical shapes are glaringly not present on mainstream fashion magazines.

Primarily I agree with this, particularly the second part of your comment but women’s images; it’s a difficult one for me. I don’t actually want to see women in Vogue, or men. I don’t want to see real people in Vogue, I want to see people wearing very extreme and fashionable clothes in the best possible way. I don’t want to see myself in Vogue, I’m not interested in it for that, I’m never going to wear a £1800 dress from Valentino and I wouldn’t look as good in it as a supermodel. I want to see a supermodel wearing that dress because I’m interested in what can be done with the clothes when they're hung in the right way. I don't give a shit about an ordinary person wearing the clothes. For me someone talking about unrealistic representations of women in Vogue is akin to computer games being a cause of violence: I want the game, I don’t give a shit if it’s about guns, if someone's playing because it's about guns then they're missing most of the game. Models are the computer games, not the glorified images of violence on the screen.

Do I think women's magazines promote the same shitty agenda about women's bodies and behavior as men's magazines? Why, yes I do

Vogue isn’t a women’s magazine, it’s a fashion magazine that features female models. That just isn’t the same thing. I’m not arguing that the fashion industry isn’t bad for women but I don’t think it’s bad for us as observers who are also women, I think it's bad for people in the industry. It needs stricter, universal employment rules. I think it is absurd to suppose that images promote behaviour. Behaviour is already ingrained and present and influenced by the environment, it has nothing to do with forms of media. That shitty agenda you talk about isn't promoted by magazines, they are the symptom, perhaps we find that symptom, that expression repulsive but we shouldn't mistake it as influential.

I would replace the images with pictues of real people not selling anything. The perception of the binary men/women as the only options for a cover choice is archaic and depressing

Real people not selling anything? Wouldn’t they be selling the magazine?

I think the binary perception is incredibly overwhelming in fashion, partly because we mainly buy off the peg clothes so assumptions are made about our bodies constantly, clothes are generally divided into "for the female body" and "for the male body". I think you’re right that the image needs to be extended: if you actually look at fashion as a whole there are hints of gender blurring in photos and literature but it’s often ignored intellectually. My argument is always that there needs to be more of a discourse about fashion, Vogue bordered on this for a time, in the late 90s it was a much better, brighter magazine then it is now. Shulman introduced a great heap of society bullshit into the back (there’s a lot of hate in my soul especially reserved for her). Basically I don't think cover choice is really archaic but the fashion industry definitely is.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:19 / 29.05.07
I have to say, I am not by any means an authority on fashion as an industry or an art/craft, but I get very very twitchy when I read people complaining that a mainstay of the mainstream media is shallow, materialistic, promotes unrealistic images and so on, but apparently without acknowledging how much of the wider context would need to change before you could have people "not selling anything", or that various subcultural 'alternatives' tend to be, whilst not necessarily equal, also selling something, far from ideologically perfect, etc (although I acknowledge only Allecto went as far as to say "and here are some alternative examples that are better"). And my alarm bells go crazy whenever the idea of "real people" is invoked, particularly with regard to any kind of mediated representation - there's nobody in the world who's any more real than anybody else, and this is even more true when they're just a photograph. It's interesting to imagine how comparable arguments regarding forms of music would be responded to in the Music forum.

I mean, sure, Vogue promotes a materialistic consumer agenda. But in this forum when we have a thread about shoes or bags or coats or Fashion advice in general a lot of the time we will by necessity be talking about buying i.e. consuming material goods. People can't make all their own clothes after all. We can imagine what fashion and the media related to it might look and be like in a world which is not capitalist, but that scenario has to be total.

And even then, I'd want there to be media that focused on people who looked fabulous or exceptional - there's nothing wrong with having idols, or people to aspire to emulate. Yes, there should be a broader definition of what that means, one that is not dominated by patriachy, racism and other existing power structures. But I shudder at the idea of "real people", because I know what that means when it rears its head in pop music, and what it tends to mean is a kind of anti-"pretentiousness", anti-flamboyance, anti-art.
 
 
Saturn's nod
12:06 / 29.05.07
@AdL:I don’t actually want to see women in Vogue, or men. I don’t want to see real people in Vogue, I want to see people wearing very extreme and fashionable clothes in the best possible way. I don’t want to see myself in Vogue, I’m not interested in it for that, I’m never going to wear a £1800 dress from Valentino and I wouldn’t look as good in it as a supermodel. I want to see a supermodel wearing that dress because I’m interested in what can be done with the clothes when they're hung in the right way. I don't give a shit about an ordinary person wearing the clothes. For me someone talking about unrealistic representations of women in Vogue is akin to computer games being a cause of violence: I want the game, I don’t give a shit if it’s about guns, if someone's playing because it's about guns then they're missing most of the game. Models are the computer games, not the glorified images of violence on the screen.

It's interesting to hear your point of view here, because you're speaking up for the 'fashion' element that I find most dispensible. I'm interested in how to make clothes, even costume clothes-for-fun, rather than abstract art. I guess that's why the fashion stuff irritates me, and maybe I'm not the person Vogue is aimed at. It might be that this perspective of mine is affected by my general ignorance about art.

What I'm interested in, when I'm designing or evaluating clothes, is first of all function: does this thing actually work as clothes for a human body. I see that as an unsolved problem: I don't see an overabundance of clothes widely available which are good at looking after human bodies, and integrated in appropriate pathways of production and disposal.

Whether it's beautiful to me comes as a secondary feature of the elegance in which function is fulfilled. I guess the art and beauty in my perception come partly from my evaluation about whether a need is met. I like to focus on the limitations of meeting the needs of human wearers as a baseline. I know ornament and creative display are important as well, but to me they're secondary, they come after the convenience of the wearer. I guess by grounding my interest in the question of what clothes are needed to do, I find the limits which channel my dissatisfaction towards creativity. I want to see people presenting their creative answers to the huge variety of human needs and circumstances, and allowing those aims to shape the accompanying decorations.

I want to know about a garment primarily what it's like to wear. I guess I see all garments, however artistic, as having a function: I'm put off when the function I can infer from the image is more similar to footbinding than dressed-to-succeed-at-human-endeavours. I guess I see a flavour of dehumanizing: I think the interactions become acts of objectification if the human needs of the model vanish altogether in the haze of 'art'.

The unrealistic representations in fashion magazines annoy me because it's harder for me to see whether/how the garment works as a garment. I love to read Vogue together with other hobby-dressmakers so I can share in a conversation about the features of the cut and choice of materials presented, because an image alone lacks so much in terms of the backstory and trajectory of a garment.

I do like to see fabulous costume, and perhaps that's where our interests would overlap; but I want to see fabulous costume arising from an approach which is about celebrating and cherishing humans, rather than lauding objectification of other humans to the glory of a 'great man' figure.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:37 / 29.05.07
I know ornament and creative display are important as well, but to me they're secondary, they come after the convenience of the wearer. I guess by grounding my interest in the question of what clothes are needed to do, I find the limits which channel my dissatisfaction towards creativity. I want to see people presenting their creative answers to the huge variety of human needs and circumstances, and allowing those aims to shape the accompanying decorations.

That is interesting because to an extent I dress for the aesthetic rather than function. Today for instance I'm wearing quite practical clothes: denim skirt, long sleeved T shirt, tights but heeled shoes (about 2") and all blue. Everything is blue because that's what I found pleasing to the eye this morning, I went out of my way to wear blue (the heels are the only blue shoes I own). I have a tendency to buy only objects that are useful and beautiful to me and only clothes that make me more: taller or skinnier, more fun or more serious. All clothes in my mind are creative display, presenting part of yourself to the audience, if I didn't feel like that I wouldn't wear clothes as often and I'd feel far more resentful about having to. Magazines like Vogue are really an art display to me, I love the images, I love the adverts because they're a wonderful collection of professional photography, money doesn't really enter into it for me because I'm not going to buy, it's the images in and of themselves that I desire.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:45 / 29.05.07
Wow, I think there's at least two general threads, one of which is definite Head Shop material, to be spun off here.

Firstly, the idea of function vs what we might call "pure" aesthetics when dealing with something like fashion. It's very interesting to think of comparable fields, because clearly music, visual art, film, theatre, prose fiction and poetry are all not in any sense comparable because they have no basic function in this sense. The comparable fields would be cookery, architecture, and I guess other forms of product design if that's not too broad a field. Does the issue of to what extent these can ever be considered without function have to be considered on a case by case basis? I kind of think it does, since I'm sympathetic to the idea of clothes which are utterly impractical but beautiful, but not to buildings which are such (I think there's an issue of scale and cost here).

Secondly, "an approach which is about celebrating and cherishing humans, rather than lauding objectification of other humans to the glory of a 'great man' figure" - I don't know if this was in response to my "there's nothing wrong with having idols", but I certainly felt I was responding to this idea when I typed that. I'm just not sure what it means to talk about celebrating and cherishing humans, how you'd do it, if you didn't just take examples and point to them and say "this is what humans can be/do". Which is surely about perspective rather than much of the art/craft itself? And sure, I guess if we're talking about the media that surrounds said art/craft, media is an expression of perspective. But even so, I'm not sure how one distinguishes between one and the other - do we need said media to constantly editorialise that any of us could achieve X or Y? Arguably reality television etc. is already doing this, much to the annoyance of all kinds of people...
 
 
nighthawk
14:19 / 29.05.07
Vogue is a fashion industry magazine, its circulation figures are huge because it's fundamentally a fashion bible. Vogue isn't aimed at women, it's aimed at people of both genders in the industry and those interested in fashion generally.

....

I don’t actually want to see women in Vogue, or men. I don’t want to see real people in Vogue, I want to see people wearing very extreme and fashionable clothes in the best possible way. I don’t want to see myself in Vogue, I’m not interested in it for that, I’m never going to wear a £1800 dress from Valentino and I wouldn’t look as good in it as a supermodel.

Do you think you're characteristic of the majority of Vogue readers though, given that it is a 'fashion bible', aimed very much at people actively engaged in the fashion industry. I enjoy looking at Vogue too (despite being very practical and conservative in the way I dress) but I always feel that the content is primarily aspirational and aimed at people who would at least consider spending money on what's shown. I mean, the sheer volume of adverts suggest that these companies are expecting to get some revenue back from advertising in the magazine - they're not shelling out money for ad-space because some Vogue readers will find it aesthetically pleasing.
 
 
nighthawk
14:37 / 29.05.07
Just to add: I realise that you were answering sara's question Anna, not claiming to represent all Vogue readers - I'm asking out of curiosity.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
14:50 / 29.05.07
Er, what Haus said.

Really, Vice is wannabe hipsters tripping over their own sense of entitlement and red, angry cocks. Nothing good, there. Move on.

Yes, I was wrong to suggest Vice, but I-D is a different kettle of fish. Has a generally left-wing vibe going on, or as left wing as a magazine advertising clothes can be, and the clothes are actually interesting.

Sara, I'd be interested in knowing what you meant by the following:

Also do you think that these women hold the same sexual connotations as mens magazines?

I mean, to attempt to answer what I think you might be asking, the Vogue covers are obviously very different from, say, Nuts or FHM. I wouldn't be too quick to say "less harmful" or "more respectable", but they at least are presenting a woman for women rather than a woman for men.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:52 / 29.05.07
I-D is a different kettle of fish. Has a generally left-wing vibe going on, or as left wing as a magazine advertising clothes can be, and the clothes are actually interesting.

"Interesting" is entirely subjective in a way that "worthwhile" isn't, though - unless you meant aesthetically worthwhile, which I didn't get from the context of your post. I don't know much about I-D being more left-wing than Vogue (which is not to say it isn't) - any examples?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
15:04 / 29.05.07
Well, they had a focus on ethical materials, clothes as statement, and so on, in the last issue I read. I don't know if it was a one-off or not.
 
 
nighthawk
15:19 / 29.05.07
Well, they had a focus on ethical materials

Vogue have done this too. They are marketed as aspirational products, and the readership of both Vogue and i-D are both likely to be interested in them. In fact I challenge you to find any fashion magazine that hasn't run a feature on 'ethical shopping' in the past few years. Besides, I'm not sure why this would make one magazine more worthwhile than the other?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
20:37 / 29.05.07
How many issues of i-D have you perused, Allecto? And how many issues of Vogue?

I'm trying to think of a non-snarky response to the suggestion that on the basis of one feature about "ethical materials", a fashion magazine is relatively left-wing and "worthwhile". 'brb', as they say on the internet.
 
 
Saturn's nod
07:11 / 30.05.07
@Flyboy The comparable fields would be cookery, architecture, and I guess other forms of product design if that's not too broad a field.

Yes, I think that's a good analogy and I'm aware of how my aesthetic stance is mirrored in my attitude to those areas as well. I'm fairly uninterested in a building design unless it makes the best possible use of sunlight and is up to scratch on efficient use of that energy - unless it's a some kind of temporary festival structure. Similarly with food: I want the basis to be good nutrition, sourced sustainably, but bubbly and chocolate are both fun sometimes.

@Flyboy I'm just not sure what it means to talk about celebrating and cherishing humans, how you'd do it, if you didn't just take examples and point to them and say "this is what humans can be/do". Which is surely about perspective rather than much of the art/craft itself?

I'm not entirely sure either. I'm writing outwards from a discomfort with what I perceive, so of course 'what needs fixing' might as much be in my perspective as anyone else's . I guess I take the approach of holding a question like 'what would the clothes industry look like if it was devoted to cherishing the reality of human lives?' and carry it around in my mind, looking for clues about what the coming world is going to look like and giving anything a bit of a push if I think it's going in the right direction.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:28 / 30.05.07
Do you think you're characteristic of the majority of Vogue readers though, given that it is a 'fashion bible', aimed very much at people actively engaged in the fashion industry. I enjoy looking at Vogue too (despite being very practical and conservative in the way I dress) but I always feel that the content is primarily aspirational and aimed at people who would at least consider spending money on what's shown.

Well I considered fashion journalism for a while so in a sense I am typical of Vogue readers. I'm female, in my 20s, the industry interests me and I very occasionally reveal my complete obsession with clothes as a performance piece to the world.

The content isn't only aspirational, it's an indicator of trends. If you were a buyer for a high street chain you would be basically off your fucking trolley if you didn't read Vogue. The magazine is definitely all about money but so is the fashion industry (not fashion itself, which I think covers other stuff like the Russian Avant Garde textiles movement) but it's not specifically about direct selling, the remit is broader than that.

I am looking at Vogue magazine covers since 1916 and their relation to feminist imagery.

Sara I'm really interested in what you're doing, I think it sounds tremendously difficult. What do you mean by feminist imagery?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
16:33 / 30.05.07
Yeah, well, my contributions here have mostly been flawed.
 
 
sara
19:11 / 30.05.07
Hi everyone.

Firstly, thank you so much to everyone for discussing your opinions and engaging in this topic. It’s fantastic to see that consumers of magazines have such strong and valid opinions on a brand that is not necessarily purchased by yourselves. All your opinions are perfect in me forming my argument and conclusion.

Anna: I know what you mean about the word `feminist imagery` its so difficult to define as it can mean many different things to different people. However, since my last post i have dropped the word `imagery` and am looking at how it effects feminism in relation to the male gaze instead. I don’t know about anyone else but to me feminist imagery is something I associate with artists such as Tracy Emin and Sarah Lucas, who directly promote their art in tune with their messages. I don’t think Vogue exploits its messages directly infact, I think they are very clever in the way they use their imagery, text and structure. You would never really question its appeal to the reader. Consumers have let it be and this could be due to its long established name and smart promotional direction.

However, its interesting to note Vogue is not one of the biggest selling monthly magazines. The top 5 were Debenhams Desire, Glamour, Good Housekeeping, Cosmopolitan and Yours. Vogue came in 14th out of 36! Its biggest promotional tool is word of mouth; however it does not explain its popularity with women in comparison to its lack of readership?

When I carried out my interviews I showed participants these 2 images.
All the answers were continuous. The Vogue cover was said to be typical `Vogue, ` nothing to penalise and was associated with summer. This image was however was acceptable and not penalised.
[+] [-] Vogue cover

However when I showed them the FHM cover (which I showed first before Vogue)
[+] [-] FHM cover


They were all appalled, calling it demoralising to the female race, disgusting and a typical male magazine cover! This cover was seen as a threat.

In my opinion there is no difference between the 2! The Vogue cover in terms of semiotics is more successful in catching the male gaze. The model is looking directly at the reader and her body is positioned forward making her more welcoming. She is also bikini clad, legs apart with water surrounding her. I don’t know about you guys, but this image is just as sexual as FHM to me. So why is the Vogue model more acceptable?

It is interesting to note that since September I have tried to contact Vogue in response to my research. No surprises then that they refuse to comment or respond. Although they did send me a media pack, which is ironic as, even though I explained to them my topic, they decided to send me a promotional tool which does nothing but endorse the brand name ( maybe they think this will convert me to changing my dissertation question?? )

I am really grateful for such a wealth of response, ideas and opinions. Please don’t be afraid to take your own stance on this, I really won’t hold it against you


Thanks again.
 
 
petunia
23:38 / 30.05.07
I agree with the people you questioned. I find image 1 more palatable than image 2, though it is difficult to say why. Though both are obviously sexual images, there is a higher degree of objectification in the second image than in the first.

Some reasons that come to mind (quite a tired mind so sorry for any incoherence).

Body language:

In 1, the model is facing the camera directly, her face and eyes point straight 'at the reader', suggesting a pride-of-self. Compare this with 2: the model's face is pointed away from 'the reader', while he body is bared towards him. This frequent pose acts to give the body up as an offering, the turning of the face showing a lack of potential confrontation - an acquiescence.

Model 1 holds her arms across her chest in an act that is both defensive and conforting (to herself). Remeniscent of self-ownership. Also, covering of the breasts (admittedly while accentuating cleavage). Model 2 bares her torso and chest, pulling up her top to reveal more of herself. She pushes her body forward. Again - an offering.

Style and Setting:

Photo 1 is set as a bikini-for-summer shot. Lighting, sea, bikini (which, though not the most practical, is still pretty realistic beachwear), 'lotion gloss' all give this impression. Obviously, it's a sexy summer shoot - the photo is designed to catch the eye (or gaze) and bring one further in, but there is still an attatchment to something other than 'this is a hot chick. Buy her.'

Photo 2 is classic wankpap. The 'setting' is steamy (showerroom?). The model has her hair swept back and dampened. Her body shines with water (or is it sweat?). If we look closely, we can see that the model is actually meant to be in the shower (after some sporting event, perhaps?), but this pretence is worse played than the proverbial plumber in a porn film. Her pose is nothing but sexual-offering. The 'wet t shirt'-style water (a nice place-holder for cum) spraying onto her belly. Even the angle of the pointer on the 'Las Vegas blowout!' box acts as an excited little phallus.


I think you might be right about the first image being the better at holding the gaze. It essentially does the same thing ('look! hot chick! buy!'), but does it in a way that is less tacky. Vogue have been very clever in that they have chosen an image that has the right buzz-poses ('i'm looking straight at you - i'm keeping my pride - this is my sexy to use as i want' 'i'm holding myself as i am comfortable with myself without needing to flash my tits'). FHM have done straight-up 'want body. naked. maybe sex.' that is a lot less sophisticated and pulls a lot more 'Ugh!' levers.

While image 1 shows 'a sexy lady who you could have sexy sex with', image 2 shows 'a sexy lady who you could do sexy sex to'.

Of course, i might have said something totally different if i didn't know which magazines the images came from....
 
 
Saturn's nod
05:44 / 31.05.07
Yeah, I see a clear difference in the images as well. In the first image I see a direct gaze and I too get that impression of a declaration of 'self-ownership' which I don't get from the second one.

There's a photo essay here by T. Streeter and others about fashion and the male gaze which might be of interest if people don't already know it, and it has formed what little I know about comparing images of people.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
07:17 / 31.05.07
Its biggest promotional tool is word of mouth; however it does not explain its popularity with women in comparison to its lack of readership?

Because it's popularity is not with women, it's with high fashion consumers. I bought a copy of Vogue yesterday, I wish I'd brought it with me now so I could talk about it in more depth, it has an article on women in middle eastern countries and their experience of wearing the niqab, a series of reviews of literature penned by women that's currently coming out of that area of the world, two fashion editors swapping wardrobes for 3 days... it's fashion heavy. Glamour isn't fashion heavy, it's clothing heavy and celebrity heavy and its appeal is far broader. I now know that this season make up is extremely light, I know that because I looked at the adverts.

The cover images above: I agree with trampetunia but to par it down to the basics, the first shot is just a good photograph, it could be used in FHM but it probably wouldn't sell very well because it's not inviting. Her body belongs to herself and the audience. There's no way the second image could be used in Vogue because it's purely photographed for sexual appeal, she does not possess her body, the audience does.
 
 
Saturn's nod
11:43 / 04.06.07
I wrote: I'm fairly uninterested in a building design unless it makes the best possible use of sunlight and is up to scratch on efficient use of that energy - unless it's a some kind of temporary festival structure.

As well, and also probably for a different thread: temporary festival structures and festival costumes need to be properly temporary: the component molecules oughta have a predictable and nontoxic - preferably positively beneficial - fate. And also, the costumes and structures need not to take an unfeasible amount of energy to get there; neither should they require fossil energy to produce in the first place, since fossil energy should now only be used in setting up infrastructure for running solar-economic compliant enterprise.

%Where do I nail my list of demands?%
 
 
Olulabelle
09:13 / 07.06.07
In the first image I see a direct gaze

I see that in the second one too. I think it's harder to see and I know the models face is turned away but she is also looking directly into the 'eyes' of the buyer.

I think that often people make 'excuses' for magazines like Vogue and that is happenening here in this thread under the guise of deconstructing each image. It's very easy to accept Vogue as high-brow and therefore nakedness on the cover becomes more 'acceptable'. FHM is never going to be thought of as high-brow and so any image of nakedness on it's cover becomes one which people see as sexualisation and not celebration of nakedness. That Vogue cover is just as sexualised and not to recognise that falles into the marketing power of the magazine.

I agree with Sara that there is little difference between the two images. The FHM cover is far more honest about what it is doing. It's selling sex - here she is! But so is the Vogue cover, only it's doing it in what people might say is a more more respectable way. I personally don't think so. I prefer the FHM cover. It's more honest, it's not sneakily selling sex. Personally I would prefer less nudity on the cover of everyday magazines but if we're going to have it at least FHM is honest. Sometimes magazines like Vogue feel like wanking material for the middle classes, prettily disguised.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:17 / 07.06.07
I think that often people make 'excuses' for magazines like Vogue and that is happenening here in this thread under the guise of deconstructing each image.

OK, that's interesting. Could I have some examples of some of these excuses, and how they can be identified as excuses, rather than honest responses to the original question? That is, how does one distinguish an excuse under the guise of deconstructing each image from an actual deconstruction of each image?
 
 
Saturn's nod
09:41 / 07.06.07
I perceive a clear difference in the images, as I said before, though my description of the differences is much less well-articulated than trampetunia's or Anna's. Like many incidences where I feel revulsion towards something I encounter in public space, the feeling is where my response starts and I work towards a conscious and verbal articulation of what it is about that piece of media that repels me.

Perhaps cos I read too much Wittgenstein as an undergraduate, I'm less concerned about our ability to verbally define the differences between offensive and inoffensive images - although I find the exercise interesting, I think it's useful to develop those critical thinking skills, at it may have revolutionary utility - than I am to honour them as authentic and potentially useful and interesting responses. It may be that our ability to analyse and describe the features of images is comparatively undeveloped, but I don't want to allow that less-developed skill to preclude us deciding to honour a sense that a certain kind of image invokes a kind of exploitation that is repellent.

I guess this may be what inspired you choice of the language of 'excuses', Madame Miriam Mooncat? In the sense that a verbal and logical difference is being elucidated after the fact of revulsion, rather than revulsion being a consequence of analysis? My model of my mind means I am inclined to honour my feeling-reactions as a carrier of important information processed at non-verbal cognitive processes, so I don't perceive it as excuse-making in the same way.

To me it is an exercise in construction of wholistic critical thought: rather than allowing myself to be held back by a lack of clear verbalised definitions about what constitutes sexualised imagery or not, I work to build a bridge of clear thinking between my feeling reaction and the features that have provoked it. I perceive my feeling and intuitive reactions to be usually reliable and often acutely useful, so I give them room.

I don't think it makes someone hypocritical or insincere if they are not able to articulate the features which distinguish two kinds of image: I prefer to start from the point of view that they obviously can be distinguished, and then to assume that verbal definitions could be elucidated if it were useful. Those could be constructed perhaps through consciousness-raising and collective discussions, in order to make the intuitive differences transferable, easier to articulate for others. This of course illuminates the model I use of articulated knowledge as a product which takes construction and maintenance to be useful.
 
 
Olulabelle
10:30 / 07.06.07
Haus, I think what I mean is it's a sense of what is not being referred to. For example, .trampetunia give examples about how the Vogue picutre is less provocative without referring to the position of the models legs, so that is being overlooked. .trampetunia says of the FHM cover: Her pose is nothing but sexual-offering. But I think an image of a women with her legs wide apart also comes under this distinction and that is not what is being said of the Vogue cover.

Saturn's Nod says In the first image I see a direct gaze and I too get that impression of a declaration of 'self-ownership' which I don't get from the second one.

As I say, the model's gaze is direct in the FHM cover, even though her face is not forward. I also think that the self ownership issue is questionable. In the first image the model is covering herself on the top but exposing herself on the bottom. In the FHM cover, the model is exposing herself on the top but turning away on the bottom. Neither one has anything over the other really, it's just a case of how you view them. You put the Vogue girl on the FHM cover and it becomes a different picture. That's why I say that people make excuses for Vogue. The isssue isn't the images, it's peoples attitudes the magazines that portray them.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:08 / 07.06.07
For example, .trampetunia give examples about how the Vogue picutre is less provocative without referring to the position of the models legs, so that is being overlooked.

OK - so you don't mean that people are making excuses, so much as that the way the picture is framed - in this case, with the legend "VOGUE" above it - is changing their reaction to it, and making what sexual elements invisible or unnoticeable in some way - for example the spread legs of the model - when they would be noticed if the legend above the picture were FHM? Or do you mean that .trampetunia and others are buying into some form of process where they are choosing to defend Vogue in the face of evidence that is clearly evident to them, and doing so by not drawing attention to that evidence, when they would do so if the picture were on the front cover of a magazine that is not Vogue.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply