skip to main |
skip to sidebar
AG ad
In this ad (for the Clothing company AG), we noticed that the girl is looking down and the boy is looking up, but neither is looking at each other. Another detail that came to our attention was that while the girl seems shy and unsure of herself, the boy seems cocky and confident, even while his focus is turned elsewhere. We also noticed how the girl showed more skin than the boy (ripped jeans). These details seem to imply that in a relationship, the guy has to make the first move and thus the guy has the power in the situation (a so-called "typical" relationship). Another detail that supports this claim is how the guy seems to blend in (white on white) while the girl, although dressed in a casual outfit, seems to be trying to look sexy with her makeup and jewelry. Despite this hypothesis, there does seem to be some gender reversal, as the girl seems more messy with ripped jeans while the boy seems more clean cut. This ad seems to assume that the viewer is heterosexual as it is an ad involving a boy and a girl. This image also assumes that any viewer cares about how they dress and puts time and effort into how they look. The ad implies that it is impossible to just throw on an outfit without thinking about how it looks if you don’t want to be judged harshly. An implication of this ad is that boys always have power in any sexual situation. Also, although girls have more freedom in what they can wear, they have to carry the insecurity of not knowing what is to come in their relationship. This ad raised several questions for us. Do men always have to take the lead in heterosexual relationships? Who created this ad-- a man or a woman? Is this ad really about the jeans company, or is trying to make a statement about (hetrosexual) relationships in general? -Eva, Jonathan, Ansley
Not so sure about this one. Compared to many of the clothing ads I have seen, this one seems more gender neutral than most. But I think it only seems that way because they have dressed the woman in a more casual, masculine way. They haven't dressed the man in a more feminine way. So the underlying message is that women can achieve parity by playing by male rules. When men dress as women in an ad, it's usually seen as a joke. What do other people think?
ReplyDelete-Erik
I'm really curious to know if Bob felt he was perceived this way - as playing a 'joke' - by wearing a skirt today. I didn't get that sense from him, but I do also see your point, Erik, and am curious to know what others think.
ReplyDeleteI was also immediately struck by the 'submissive' and insecure/nervous pose of the female model (biting her nails, looking down, standing pigeon-toed) in direct contrast to her male counterpart, whose whole body LOOKS smaller because of the perspective (because he is further away from the camera), but he still seems to be 'taking up more space,' and seems confident doing so (legs spread further apart, leaning outside of 'his' space, scoping out others (far beyond the female model - doesn't seem like he is looking at her at all, or that they have any sort of existing relationship, although I also see from where you three drew your hypothesized messages).
In subways, I've recently started to notice more and more how some males that I sit next to don't notice that they are in 'my' space (legs are spread apart, while many women cross their legs and therefore 'take up less space' in the subway), so I have started to literally push back and take up their space with my legs too. I am always met with unhappy grunts. I'm curious to know what you all think about how much 'space' men and women are 'allowed' or expected to take up. Even the difference between who crosses their legs and who doesn't - someone check this out at morning meeting tomorrow and see if my hypothesis rings true at CITYterm?
-Steph
I'm really curious to know if Bob felt he was perceived this way - as playing a 'joke' - by wearing a skirt today. I didn't get that sense from him, but I do also see your point, Erik, and am curious to know what others think.
ReplyDeleteI was also immediately struck by the 'submissive' and insecure/nervous pose of the female model (biting her nails, looking down, standing pigeon-toed) in direct contrast to her male counterpart, whose whole body LOOKS smaller because of the perspective (because he is further away from the camera), but he still seems to be 'taking up more space,' and seems confident doing so (legs spread further apart, leaning outside of 'his' space, scoping out others (far beyond the female model - doesn't seem like he is looking at her at all, or that they have any sort of existing relationship, although I also see from where you three drew your hypothesized messages).
In subways, I've recently started to notice more and more how some males that I sit next to don't notice that they are in 'my' space (legs are spread apart, while many women cross their legs and therefore 'take up less space' in the subway), so I have started to literally push back and take up their space with my legs too. I am always met with unhappy grunts. I'm curious to know what you all think about how much 'space' men and women are 'allowed' or expected to take up. Even the difference between who crosses their legs and who doesn't - someone check this out at morning meeting tomorrow and see if my hypothesis rings true at CITYterm?
-Steph
clarification/disclaimer for Bob: my question is not about your intention, I'm not questioning that, but was instead about how you felt you were met and perceived by others - if there was any laughter, or if you thought people believed you were somehow making a joke?
ReplyDeleteclarification/disclaimer for Bob: my question is not about your intention, I'm not questioning that, but was instead about how you felt you were met and perceived by others - if there was any laughter, or if you thought people believed you were somehow making a joke? -S
ReplyDelete