After you've introduced yourself to the blog by commenting on my first posting, please post a lengthier comment here in response to this question:
Did I go too far in claiming that Hilfiger's ad exploited racism and sexism to sell clothes? Did I read too much into it when I claimed it told a rape narrative?
Really, what do you think?
Support your answer with evidence and explanation.
(if you wrote this in your journal, copy it now here.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't think you went too far on your analysis about the ad because each person has their own interpretation. If I were to come across the ad in a magazine I would just browse right past it. The main reason why I would do that is that I am simply not into that kind of stuff. Another reason is that I don't sit there and analyze ads. I'm sure that most people just look at an ad that is appealing to them, but don't pay much attention to the small details like it was discussed in class. After the discussion I looked at the ad in a totally different way. I could see that she looked too happy to be in a diner. Most people think diners aren't a good places to go. I can see what you meant about rape. The logo could've been placed anywhere else on the picture, but they decided to put it "between" her legs. This placement is the one that attracts more people's attention because it looks like she has no shorts on and in the eyes of an advertiser sex sells.
Every one has there own opinion and you got to respect that. I didn't think you went too far on you interpretation. I would have never thought what you thought about the add because when i see a add i ussualy just flip through it.After looking at the add as a class I do believe what you said was ture, saying that the picture conveys sex because of where the tommy hillfiger sign was and where the bottle was,her legs open and her shirt open, i do believe that the media uses sex as a way to hook viewers into their products. I will now look at add in a different way and make sure that i look at all of the details in the picture to really understand what an add is trying to say, a simple add can have a deep meaning behind it just as long as you look at the add in a more complex way and making sure of all the details.
I think the ad uses some of Jib Fowles' Fifteen Basic Appeals which includes
1.) The Need for Attention
2.) The Need for Sex and
3.) The Need for Affiliation.
My response to this is based on the clothes the model is wearing which portrays short/tight shorts and a collared shirt along with showing some skin. The way she is sitting at the lunch counter with her posture means she is putting herself out there to gain the audiences attention. The perfume also makes her smell good which makes her attractable. She wants to be noticed, looking for fun, sexual attention, and would just like to talk and meet new people. I also believe that Maxwell went a little to far with his analysis on this advertisement once the racial terms were said. I don't believe this advertisement is racial is anyway because of skin color or the surrounding objects seen in the ad. The average person wouldn't ever take the time to think about that type of observation unless they were getting paid or had a deep interest into looking into advertisements. That's my motif viewing point on this advertisement.
When i first saw the Tommy Girl ad, I didn't notice the observation Mr. Maxwell made. The first thing I noticed was that the woman was African American and was wearing really short shorts. Mr. Maxwell brought up the point the ad might symbolize rape. I think Mr. Maxwell might have taken it too far by making that point. I think that if the ad really symbolized rape then more people would be aware of that. I think someone would've taken a stand and said something about the ad. People get really defensive and disgusted with the issue about rape.
I do think you went too far on the analysis. I think that rape does not sell and even if it did it would do more bad than good. I also believe that when someone looks too close they might misinterpret what is really coming across. I think that they put the logo in between her legs because that's where most of us look whether we try to or not.
When i first saw the ad rape, racism, and oppression were not the first things on my mind. Instead I saw sex appeal, a product, and happiness being sold. I feel like Mr. Maxwell took it too far with his analysis of rape and racism being the underlying message of the ad. I don't understand how rape and racism could sell a product, however, sex sells and i do see that through the ad.
Post a Comment