Adbusters - initial analysis
Example of deliberately challenging, subversive and upsetting material =
. Why has this been concluded? What ideological message does this construct? To what extent is this unconventional for magazines?
This picture has been concluded to be deliberately challenging, subversive and upsetting due to the fact it shows the harsh reality of some people's lifestyles. It is subversive because the lexis beneath the photo portrays it to be an advert that readers would normally want to buy yet its showing that people have had to make flip-flops out of old water bottles instead. This image is deliberately challenging to the audience of the magazine because it makes them think about the differences in lifestyles and it brings to light the struggle.
The ideological message constructed through this image is that many people aren't aware of what some people have to live like and that consumers of adverts are unaware that they are able to buy expensive items from high-end brands whereas some people are less fortunate and unable to even have any proper shoes.
This photo is very unconventional for magazines because magazines are unlikely to show an image like this with a caption pretending it is an advert for the flip-flops that were made. They are showing them, making fun of adverts of high-end brands. Adbusters have deliberately gone against hegemonic norms of society to show the lifestyle of less fortunate people.
What elements of media language are used to construct representations of ethnicity?What is the dominant ideological message presented to the audience?
- The mise-en-scene of the clothing represents war and how the man is likely to be fighting due to his ethnicity. Because of the news we have seen men with similar features having been linked to people fighting in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq which further emphasises fighting in the war.
- His hand gesture is a binary opposition of happiness and anger yet because of his ethnicity many people see anger. With his fist clenched, it adds emphasis to him being angry and linking him to war or terrorism. His fist being clenched and facial expression reinforces the idea of an unfriendly mode of address to the audience.
- threatening mode of address and costume reinforces the idea of his ethnicity being an important part of the front cover. Because of representations seen in the media of men like the one pictured, it is left for the audience to assume his ethnicity and due to factors, Adbusters is making us assume his ethnicity could be linked to terrorism.
- Mise-en-scene of his dark hair and beard reinforces the idea of his ethnicity being a bad and dangerous thing. Many people within the Islamic and Muslim faith commonly have dark hair which can be seen within this photo.
- The dominant ideological message presented to the audience is the idea that ethnicity plays an important role in the construction of a photo, the man is from an ethnicity which creates this photo to be seen as threatening.
What representations of ethnicity are constructed here? What message is being presented to the audience?
- Representations of ethnicity = within both pictures the people who seem to be suffering or less fortunate are the black people which represents the idea that white people are more important, have more money etc.
- It is Cleary shown that because of their ethnicity, black people have less access to the clothes that white people can.
- With the images on the right, there is no anchorage due to the fact there is no text, which makes it unknown what Adbusters are actually trying to show.
- The mise-en-scene of the pink skirt connotes wealth and happiness to the white woman wearing the skirt showing her life to be better than the black people because she is wearing high-end clothing.
- The binary opposition of the black persons shoes and the white persons shoes represents the wealth of the white person compared to the black persons shoes that they have made. This represents ethnicity as being poor if you are black.
- The mise-en-scene of the location represents the different ethnicities because the location of the white person looks like a fashion runway connoting beauty, importance and wealth whereas the location of the black people is dry desert and bleak connoting sadness, impoverished therefore representing the black ethnic group to be less important than white people.
- The different ethnic groups are represented through lighting. Both of the pictures of black people has low key lighting further representing sadness.
- The message that is being presented to the audience is that their are still strongly held beliefs that there are differences between black and white ethnic groups and Adbusters is showing these beliefs to their audience.
What issues are there with the garment industry? Why is Adbusters so critical of the garment industry? If this article is true, then why is it legal to buy and sell clothes made in this way? Why does no one care?
The issues with the garment industry =
- India garment workers spend a lot of time trapped in the factories - a lot of woman and men work their and the children who live in India grow up to go and work in the factories
- Capitalism is involved - the painting La Costurera shows a woman stitching but the cloth is her body which some people believe is the first ever machine invented by capitalism
- It can be a very physically and mentally straining job - 12-16 hour shifts having to use your body and brain
- The people who work their have left their villages in desperate need of money
- People struggle to remain awake
- Poor working conditions - long working shifts, sleep deprivation, exposure to toxic substances, cloth particles and smoke.
- workers exposed to physical and verbal violence
- Unions have little power over workers (who are scared and poor therefore unable to fight for their rights) so the employees still have main control over them.
Adbusters is so critical of the garment industry because it is a form of capitalism, which adbusters have very strong views against as they are anti-capitalist, and the harsh conditions that the poor workers are put through on a day to day basis just so people can have more clothes and big companies can make more money. The body is believed to be the main machine within the garment industries where workers are using their arms, legs, hands and feet to make the products that people can wear for very little amount of money. Furthermore, unions have little power over the workers that are too scared to speak out to the employers which reinforces the idea of hierarchy being put in place within a capitalist society.
If this article is true, it is still legal to buy and sell clothes this way because many of the big brands are unaware of how the workers are treated or just don't care because they are making money from what they are doing. Because the brands are unaware or don't care about the way the workers are treated, they continue to promote the products that are being made in the garment factories because that is the way they are making the majority of their money. A lot of people who buy the products may also be unaware of the way the workers are being treated because it isn't reported about because the brands want to make money and don't want to put people off buying their products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes adbusters different?
- It doesn't have a lot of articles - doesn't have a clear demarkation between articles.
- It brings up topics a lot of magazines don't
- it has a lot of photos - majority of the magazine is photos - high-end fashion magazines also have a big emphasis on images - more similar to a high-end fashion magazine which is very ironic because it criticises high-end fashion magazines.
- sparse layout - connotes that life is boring
- it is polysemic (has many meanings) where as Woman magazine is simple and straightforward.
WOMAN AND ADBUSTERS ARE VERY DIFFERENT
Analysing these with only Roland Barthes and Claude Levi-Strauss' theories:
- Hermeneutic code = we don't know what is happening due to the lack of anchorage and context.
- Proairetic code of the people reaching between the fence which is reinforced of the binary opposition between the black and white colours
- Binary opposition between bright colours and the black and white photo.
- The wire is a symbolic code of danger and being trapped
- The parody Christian Louboutin presents a hermeneutic code to the audience. The high angle close up of the feet creates a hermeneutic code.
- Clear binary opposition between the battered bare feet wrapped up in rubbish and the Christian Louboutin logo (the logo is symbolic of luxury). This is a stereotype because we made assumptions that the person is African because they're black and it's dry ground.
- Clear binary opposition between rich and poor due to the camera angle.
- Binary opposition between the black persons shoes and the white persons shoes
- Clear referential code of Louboutin - insinuates that the audience is meant to know what the brand is showing that the target audience is middle class which is further emphasised through the cover price which is £11 = expensive. This is interesting because the primary ideology of this magazine is that adbusters hate advertising and capitalists.
- It is unauthorised because adbusters didn't ask to use louboutin's logo - the red logo is very similar to the comic relief's logo. This could be an issue because adbusters are using an image that we would often see on charity adverts with the Louboutin advert. They make heavy use of intertextuality and referential codes - it assumes that the readership are media literate.
- This is presenting an anti-consumerist ideology because it is criticising a high-end luxury brand - criticising people who buy Louboutin shoes by saying they are causing African children to wear milk bottles on their feet. The binary opposition of the brand and the image suggest that they are putting people in poverty which increases the inequality in the world - doesn't go into this in depth because we are lead to make this up for ourself. ADBUSTERS LACKS ANCHORAGE - NOTHING HERE TELLING US WHAT TO THINK.
- Adbusters is assuming their target audience have a fairly high level of education - it's made for teachers and students of media.
- The people in the second top image are possibly immigrants or refugees and the bottom one is a model in a fashion show - binary opposition between poverty an wealth.
- One of the many meanings of this is fashion is imprisoning people.
- The average consumer can't really comprehend what working conditions are like for workers who make the clothes and so we don't really care and buy the clothes anyway.
- The image is very emotional because we can see the different age groups behind the wired fence. A young child is hanging onto a fence.
- Top image there is a high contrast between the black and white colours which s a hermeneutic code which is quite emotional and much more dramatic and almost like a charity advert - no joy in this image just misery.
- bricolage = cut up and put together - the two images on the right side of the magazine have been cut up and put together in a bricolage - its very dramatic and very rough. Adbusters looks like it has very low production values.
- we need the image on the left to understand the image on the right - the message that luxury fashion is causing poverty which can be seen on both pages.
- mid shot high angle of the feet suggests that they have low power. the low quality also connotes that the black african person is poor.
- mise-en-scene of milk bottles suggests poverty
- close up high angle shot positions the audience above the person suggesting the audience are superior and white - close up suggests that we are in Africa near a childs feet = uncomfortable mode of address.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(image of flip-flops)
- Black african people are stereotypically represented as being poor, in poverty and as lower than the rest of the world. This is can be seen in this advert due to the person wearing a milk bottle as shoes, we would throw them away whereas this person has put use to them.
- The low quality image is symbolic of being poor because the it suggests low-quality life and a poor quality camera.
- Lots of empty space around the picture connotes the simplicity and dullness of the photo.
- mise-en-scene of the feet being dirty symbolises dirtiness and poverty.
- no shoes = being uncivilised
- high angle shot = represents that white people are above black people
- we are supposed to feel sympathy for the person. It assumes that the target audience are sympathetic and sophisticated as they can deal with it.
- It is an extremely stereotypical representation - it is used so more people can relate.
- shows the idea that black africans are helpless
- Louboutin logo juxtaposes with the image of the black african persons feet making fun of the company.
Commodity fetishism = is the process of ascribing magic, "phantom like" qualities to an object whereby the human labour required to make that object is lost once the object is associated with a monetary value for exchange.
- being obsessed with brands
- doing something because everyone else does it
Marxist ideology = Marxist's believe that there is a struggle between the working class and the ruling class and that the working class is being controlled by the ruling class. Marxists believe that the rich control the world and they do everything in their power to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
- "HIM" = it's a masculine tap, costs £1000 - ridiculously expensive but serves the exact same function as a £20 tap.
- The writing is about how some people struggle to get water yet the image shows how some people waste water (shown by the woman sat in the bath with the wrinkly skin)
- Binary opposition between rich and poor - people spend £1000 on sinks just to make it look nice.
- close up of woman. the image can be compared to the soap advert in woman magazine. However the soap advert is much more sexualised. In this image we only see hands, part of her knees and part of her face. This image could even connote sadness and depression as it is a high angle shot (looks small and vulnerable) and due to the position she is sitting in.
- wrinkly hands = not attractive which makes the image unconventional. The preferred reading is that we are supposed to ind this woman vulnerable.
- Adbusters is highly polysemic and lacks anchorage.
- The woman is in a position which looks like she is begging.
- She has tattoos which connotes that she might lack cultural capital.
- Image looks like it's been painted over - it's almost as if someone has tried to cover up this image.
- The three aspects on this double page extract (advert,extract and photo) are all hermeneutic codes, how do they relate to each other? Binary oppositions of luxury and poorness.
- It's a good example of detournement.
- Dominant reading and ideology of adbusters is guilty because they are reinforcing the idea that the audience have done the damage to the world.
- Adbusters lacks anchorage
- Adbusters is an unconventional magazine
COMPARE SOAP ADVERT FROM WOMAN AND THIS ADVERT
- shift in mise-en-scene = very bland and absolutely no attempts of a visual aspect of this article. They could add images, no secondary or tertiary images.
- The affect of this article having no images makes the audience have to concentrate a lot more because it is all text - it's adopted this mode of address to make you think and how everything you do in your daily lives is ruining the planet - they are blaming us for what is happening to the planet and to stop this from happening they are telling us to kill ourselves.
- The title is extremely attention grabbing and could essentially kill someone.
- IPSO regulate magazines and Adbusters are deeply going against the rules.
- This article is making us feel guilty about living because we are causing an environmental catastrophe.
-"chapter 1" is totally unconventional for magazines.
- Sophisticated lexis and mode of address - it's speaking to a more educated audience because it goes into a lot of depth about chemicals used.
- The title looks cheap, nasty, like rubbish, broken, ugly is a symbolic code which demonstrates the world we are living in is in trouble - connotes the world is breaking apart.
- In the penultimate paragraph the positioning (Positioning is where the audience are placed) in a guilty mind and that people don't want to take action because they feel powerless. We are so used to it so we aren't doing anything. It is a direct mode of address, talking straight to the audience ("you"). The language used is very very blunt and emotional. It is also nihilistic.
- The end paragraph tells you that you can make a change but doesn't say what or how - IT IS INCONCLUSIVE. It's very angry, hateful, powerful but it is it actually making the world a better place?
TO GET AN A IN MEDIA A-LEVEL YOU NEED TO HAVE AN ARGUMENT AND OPINION!!!
Our opinion on things:
> We are constantly being manipulated by an elite ruling class. It is better to try and forget about inequality and to just focus on living our own lives.
- Agree with first half.
- But do not agree with inequality part - we shouldn't just give up but one person can't just change the world.
> Consumerism is a distraction that keeps inequality in society hidden and invisible.
- Adverts are constantly shoved into our faces when doing most things making inequality a distraction as we are focussing on what we want to buy instead of problems.
- Going shopping when stressed.
- Buying things can take our minds off things.
- Agree
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In every media product, the ideology of the producer is encoded.
Belief in absolutely nothing = nihilism
Types of people represented in Adbusters:
- poor people
- depressed people
- upper class
- black people
- men
- woman
- old people
- young people
Issues represented
- poverty
- consumerism (buying stuff)
In woman magazine we have simple, straight forward representation. Woman magazine presents stereotypical representations of gender. They also present a gender binary. Stereotypical representations are that men go out to work and woman stay at home. Woman magazine consistently reinforces hegemonic values.
Adbusters consistently subverts stereotypical representations
- subversive image of a woman.
- She isn't stereotypically attractive
- representation of poor and homeless people.
- Lisbet Van Zoonen argued that the function of woman in media product is to sell the product to men which is an example of sexualisation.
- Don't really want to look at her because she isn't very clean, dirty, we feel guilty and she isn't stereotypically attractive.
- She is holding a coffee cup for money. This is a hermeneutic code because why is she homeless? how has she got into this situation? WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT LACKS ANCHORAGE.
- The audience are positioned on the street with her but slightly above her, the high angle shot creates a hierarchy and we are above her. She is the point of the focus and we are walking towards her and whether we give them money!
- the image is dull, boring and bland.
- the woman to the left of the homeless woman in the magazine is a model which is binary opposition between rich and poor, beauty and ugliness, excitement and boredom.
- representation of gender on this double page spread is that neither of them are stereotypical. Both of them are androgynous (they have aspects of both male and female) one of them is rich and famous and the other is poor and depressed.
- No clear preferred reading of this. SUBVERSIVE REPRESENTATIONS OF GENDER, RACE, ETHNICITY ETC. Adbusters doesn't present a definitive answer to the audience.
- The meaning is not always clear - LACKS ANCHORAGE
- her purpose is to subvert her gender stereotypes.
(second picture of model in double page spread)
https://www.huckmag.com/perspectives/activism-2/adbusters/
If you are a reader of adbusters you are likely to be anti-capitalist and anti-socialist.
"We have this culture jammers network" - he is suggesting that the people who read Adbusters are an active audience who want to change something. He reiterates how important the internet is and how it is very challenging.
With Woman magazine, they cultivate an ideology that already exists. They want the audience to continue as normal by wearing makeup, staying at home.
Whereas Adbusters want their audience to subvert themselves and be different.
. Why has this been concluded? What ideological message does this construct? To what extent is this unconventional for magazines?
This picture has been concluded to be deliberately challenging, subversive and upsetting due to the fact it shows the harsh reality of some people's lifestyles. It is subversive because the lexis beneath the photo portrays it to be an advert that readers would normally want to buy yet its showing that people have had to make flip-flops out of old water bottles instead. This image is deliberately challenging to the audience of the magazine because it makes them think about the differences in lifestyles and it brings to light the struggle. The ideological message constructed through this image is that many people aren't aware of what some people have to live like and that consumers of adverts are unaware that they are able to buy expensive items from high-end brands whereas some people are less fortunate and unable to even have any proper shoes.
This photo is very unconventional for magazines because magazines are unlikely to show an image like this with a caption pretending it is an advert for the flip-flops that were made. They are showing them, making fun of adverts of high-end brands. Adbusters have deliberately gone against hegemonic norms of society to show the lifestyle of less fortunate people.
What elements of media language are used to construct representations of ethnicity?What is the dominant ideological message presented to the audience?
- The mise-en-scene of the clothing represents war and how the man is likely to be fighting due to his ethnicity. Because of the news we have seen men with similar features having been linked to people fighting in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq which further emphasises fighting in the war.
- His hand gesture is a binary opposition of happiness and anger yet because of his ethnicity many people see anger. With his fist clenched, it adds emphasis to him being angry and linking him to war or terrorism. His fist being clenched and facial expression reinforces the idea of an unfriendly mode of address to the audience.
- threatening mode of address and costume reinforces the idea of his ethnicity being an important part of the front cover. Because of representations seen in the media of men like the one pictured, it is left for the audience to assume his ethnicity and due to factors, Adbusters is making us assume his ethnicity could be linked to terrorism.
- Mise-en-scene of his dark hair and beard reinforces the idea of his ethnicity being a bad and dangerous thing. Many people within the Islamic and Muslim faith commonly have dark hair which can be seen within this photo.
- The dominant ideological message presented to the audience is the idea that ethnicity plays an important role in the construction of a photo, the man is from an ethnicity which creates this photo to be seen as threatening.
What representations of ethnicity are constructed here? What message is being presented to the audience?
- Representations of ethnicity = within both pictures the people who seem to be suffering or less fortunate are the black people which represents the idea that white people are more important, have more money etc.
- It is Cleary shown that because of their ethnicity, black people have less access to the clothes that white people can.
- With the images on the right, there is no anchorage due to the fact there is no text, which makes it unknown what Adbusters are actually trying to show.
- The mise-en-scene of the pink skirt connotes wealth and happiness to the white woman wearing the skirt showing her life to be better than the black people because she is wearing high-end clothing.
- The binary opposition of the black persons shoes and the white persons shoes represents the wealth of the white person compared to the black persons shoes that they have made. This represents ethnicity as being poor if you are black.
- The mise-en-scene of the location represents the different ethnicities because the location of the white person looks like a fashion runway connoting beauty, importance and wealth whereas the location of the black people is dry desert and bleak connoting sadness, impoverished therefore representing the black ethnic group to be less important than white people.
- The different ethnic groups are represented through lighting. Both of the pictures of black people has low key lighting further representing sadness.
- The message that is being presented to the audience is that their are still strongly held beliefs that there are differences between black and white ethnic groups and Adbusters is showing these beliefs to their audience.
What issues are there with the garment industry? Why is Adbusters so critical of the garment industry? If this article is true, then why is it legal to buy and sell clothes made in this way? Why does no one care?
The issues with the garment industry =
- India garment workers spend a lot of time trapped in the factories - a lot of woman and men work their and the children who live in India grow up to go and work in the factories
- Capitalism is involved - the painting La Costurera shows a woman stitching but the cloth is her body which some people believe is the first ever machine invented by capitalism
- It can be a very physically and mentally straining job - 12-16 hour shifts having to use your body and brain
- The people who work their have left their villages in desperate need of money
- People struggle to remain awake
- Poor working conditions - long working shifts, sleep deprivation, exposure to toxic substances, cloth particles and smoke.
- workers exposed to physical and verbal violence
- Unions have little power over workers (who are scared and poor therefore unable to fight for their rights) so the employees still have main control over them.
Adbusters is so critical of the garment industry because it is a form of capitalism, which adbusters have very strong views against as they are anti-capitalist, and the harsh conditions that the poor workers are put through on a day to day basis just so people can have more clothes and big companies can make more money. The body is believed to be the main machine within the garment industries where workers are using their arms, legs, hands and feet to make the products that people can wear for very little amount of money. Furthermore, unions have little power over the workers that are too scared to speak out to the employers which reinforces the idea of hierarchy being put in place within a capitalist society.
If this article is true, it is still legal to buy and sell clothes this way because many of the big brands are unaware of how the workers are treated or just don't care because they are making money from what they are doing. Because the brands are unaware or don't care about the way the workers are treated, they continue to promote the products that are being made in the garment factories because that is the way they are making the majority of their money. A lot of people who buy the products may also be unaware of the way the workers are being treated because it isn't reported about because the brands want to make money and don't want to put people off buying their products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes adbusters different?
- It doesn't have a lot of articles - doesn't have a clear demarkation between articles.
- It brings up topics a lot of magazines don't
- it has a lot of photos - majority of the magazine is photos - high-end fashion magazines also have a big emphasis on images - more similar to a high-end fashion magazine which is very ironic because it criticises high-end fashion magazines.
- sparse layout - connotes that life is boring
- it is polysemic (has many meanings) where as Woman magazine is simple and straightforward.
WOMAN AND ADBUSTERS ARE VERY DIFFERENT
Analysing these with only Roland Barthes and Claude Levi-Strauss' theories:
- Hermeneutic code = we don't know what is happening due to the lack of anchorage and context.
- Proairetic code of the people reaching between the fence which is reinforced of the binary opposition between the black and white colours
- Binary opposition between bright colours and the black and white photo.
- The wire is a symbolic code of danger and being trapped
- The parody Christian Louboutin presents a hermeneutic code to the audience. The high angle close up of the feet creates a hermeneutic code.
- Clear binary opposition between the battered bare feet wrapped up in rubbish and the Christian Louboutin logo (the logo is symbolic of luxury). This is a stereotype because we made assumptions that the person is African because they're black and it's dry ground.
- Clear binary opposition between rich and poor due to the camera angle.
- Binary opposition between the black persons shoes and the white persons shoes
- Clear referential code of Louboutin - insinuates that the audience is meant to know what the brand is showing that the target audience is middle class which is further emphasised through the cover price which is £11 = expensive. This is interesting because the primary ideology of this magazine is that adbusters hate advertising and capitalists.
- It is unauthorised because adbusters didn't ask to use louboutin's logo - the red logo is very similar to the comic relief's logo. This could be an issue because adbusters are using an image that we would often see on charity adverts with the Louboutin advert. They make heavy use of intertextuality and referential codes - it assumes that the readership are media literate.
- This is presenting an anti-consumerist ideology because it is criticising a high-end luxury brand - criticising people who buy Louboutin shoes by saying they are causing African children to wear milk bottles on their feet. The binary opposition of the brand and the image suggest that they are putting people in poverty which increases the inequality in the world - doesn't go into this in depth because we are lead to make this up for ourself. ADBUSTERS LACKS ANCHORAGE - NOTHING HERE TELLING US WHAT TO THINK.
- Adbusters is assuming their target audience have a fairly high level of education - it's made for teachers and students of media.
- The people in the second top image are possibly immigrants or refugees and the bottom one is a model in a fashion show - binary opposition between poverty an wealth.
- One of the many meanings of this is fashion is imprisoning people.
- The average consumer can't really comprehend what working conditions are like for workers who make the clothes and so we don't really care and buy the clothes anyway.
- The image is very emotional because we can see the different age groups behind the wired fence. A young child is hanging onto a fence.
- Top image there is a high contrast between the black and white colours which s a hermeneutic code which is quite emotional and much more dramatic and almost like a charity advert - no joy in this image just misery.
- bricolage = cut up and put together - the two images on the right side of the magazine have been cut up and put together in a bricolage - its very dramatic and very rough. Adbusters looks like it has very low production values.
- we need the image on the left to understand the image on the right - the message that luxury fashion is causing poverty which can be seen on both pages.
- mid shot high angle of the feet suggests that they have low power. the low quality also connotes that the black african person is poor.
- mise-en-scene of milk bottles suggests poverty
- close up high angle shot positions the audience above the person suggesting the audience are superior and white - close up suggests that we are in Africa near a childs feet = uncomfortable mode of address.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(image of flip-flops)- Black african people are stereotypically represented as being poor, in poverty and as lower than the rest of the world. This is can be seen in this advert due to the person wearing a milk bottle as shoes, we would throw them away whereas this person has put use to them.
- The low quality image is symbolic of being poor because the it suggests low-quality life and a poor quality camera.
- Lots of empty space around the picture connotes the simplicity and dullness of the photo.
- mise-en-scene of the feet being dirty symbolises dirtiness and poverty.
- no shoes = being uncivilised
- high angle shot = represents that white people are above black people
- we are supposed to feel sympathy for the person. It assumes that the target audience are sympathetic and sophisticated as they can deal with it.
- It is an extremely stereotypical representation - it is used so more people can relate.
- shows the idea that black africans are helpless
- Louboutin logo juxtaposes with the image of the black african persons feet making fun of the company.
Commodity fetishism = is the process of ascribing magic, "phantom like" qualities to an object whereby the human labour required to make that object is lost once the object is associated with a monetary value for exchange.
- being obsessed with brands
- doing something because everyone else does it
Marxist ideology = Marxist's believe that there is a struggle between the working class and the ruling class and that the working class is being controlled by the ruling class. Marxists believe that the rich control the world and they do everything in their power to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
- "HIM" = it's a masculine tap, costs £1000 - ridiculously expensive but serves the exact same function as a £20 tap.
- The writing is about how some people struggle to get water yet the image shows how some people waste water (shown by the woman sat in the bath with the wrinkly skin)
- Binary opposition between rich and poor - people spend £1000 on sinks just to make it look nice.
- close up of woman. the image can be compared to the soap advert in woman magazine. However the soap advert is much more sexualised. In this image we only see hands, part of her knees and part of her face. This image could even connote sadness and depression as it is a high angle shot (looks small and vulnerable) and due to the position she is sitting in.
- wrinkly hands = not attractive which makes the image unconventional. The preferred reading is that we are supposed to ind this woman vulnerable.
- Adbusters is highly polysemic and lacks anchorage.
- The woman is in a position which looks like she is begging.
- She has tattoos which connotes that she might lack cultural capital.
- Image looks like it's been painted over - it's almost as if someone has tried to cover up this image.
- The three aspects on this double page extract (advert,extract and photo) are all hermeneutic codes, how do they relate to each other? Binary oppositions of luxury and poorness.
- It's a good example of detournement.
- Dominant reading and ideology of adbusters is guilty because they are reinforcing the idea that the audience have done the damage to the world.
- Adbusters lacks anchorage
- Adbusters is an unconventional magazine
COMPARE SOAP ADVERT FROM WOMAN AND THIS ADVERT
- shift in mise-en-scene = very bland and absolutely no attempts of a visual aspect of this article. They could add images, no secondary or tertiary images.
- The affect of this article having no images makes the audience have to concentrate a lot more because it is all text - it's adopted this mode of address to make you think and how everything you do in your daily lives is ruining the planet - they are blaming us for what is happening to the planet and to stop this from happening they are telling us to kill ourselves.
- The title is extremely attention grabbing and could essentially kill someone.
- IPSO regulate magazines and Adbusters are deeply going against the rules.
- This article is making us feel guilty about living because we are causing an environmental catastrophe.
-"chapter 1" is totally unconventional for magazines.
- Sophisticated lexis and mode of address - it's speaking to a more educated audience because it goes into a lot of depth about chemicals used.
- The title looks cheap, nasty, like rubbish, broken, ugly is a symbolic code which demonstrates the world we are living in is in trouble - connotes the world is breaking apart.
- In the penultimate paragraph the positioning (Positioning is where the audience are placed) in a guilty mind and that people don't want to take action because they feel powerless. We are so used to it so we aren't doing anything. It is a direct mode of address, talking straight to the audience ("you"). The language used is very very blunt and emotional. It is also nihilistic.
- The end paragraph tells you that you can make a change but doesn't say what or how - IT IS INCONCLUSIVE. It's very angry, hateful, powerful but it is it actually making the world a better place?
TO GET AN A IN MEDIA A-LEVEL YOU NEED TO HAVE AN ARGUMENT AND OPINION!!!
Our opinion on things:
> We are constantly being manipulated by an elite ruling class. It is better to try and forget about inequality and to just focus on living our own lives.
- Agree with first half.
- But do not agree with inequality part - we shouldn't just give up but one person can't just change the world.
> Consumerism is a distraction that keeps inequality in society hidden and invisible.
- Adverts are constantly shoved into our faces when doing most things making inequality a distraction as we are focussing on what we want to buy instead of problems.
- Going shopping when stressed.
- Buying things can take our minds off things.
- Agree
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In every media product, the ideology of the producer is encoded.
Belief in absolutely nothing = nihilism
Types of people represented in Adbusters:
- poor people
- depressed people
- upper class
- black people
- men
- woman
- old people
- young people
Issues represented
- poverty
- consumerism (buying stuff)
In woman magazine we have simple, straight forward representation. Woman magazine presents stereotypical representations of gender. They also present a gender binary. Stereotypical representations are that men go out to work and woman stay at home. Woman magazine consistently reinforces hegemonic values.
Adbusters consistently subverts stereotypical representations
- She isn't stereotypically attractive
- representation of poor and homeless people.
- Lisbet Van Zoonen argued that the function of woman in media product is to sell the product to men which is an example of sexualisation.
- Don't really want to look at her because she isn't very clean, dirty, we feel guilty and she isn't stereotypically attractive.
- She is holding a coffee cup for money. This is a hermeneutic code because why is she homeless? how has she got into this situation? WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT LACKS ANCHORAGE.
- The audience are positioned on the street with her but slightly above her, the high angle shot creates a hierarchy and we are above her. She is the point of the focus and we are walking towards her and whether we give them money!
- the image is dull, boring and bland.
- the woman to the left of the homeless woman in the magazine is a model which is binary opposition between rich and poor, beauty and ugliness, excitement and boredom.
- representation of gender on this double page spread is that neither of them are stereotypical. Both of them are androgynous (they have aspects of both male and female) one of them is rich and famous and the other is poor and depressed.
- No clear preferred reading of this. SUBVERSIVE REPRESENTATIONS OF GENDER, RACE, ETHNICITY ETC. Adbusters doesn't present a definitive answer to the audience.
- The meaning is not always clear - LACKS ANCHORAGE
- her purpose is to subvert her gender stereotypes.
(second picture of model in double page spread)
https://www.huckmag.com/perspectives/activism-2/adbusters/
If you are a reader of adbusters you are likely to be anti-capitalist and anti-socialist.
"We have this culture jammers network" - he is suggesting that the people who read Adbusters are an active audience who want to change something. He reiterates how important the internet is and how it is very challenging.
With Woman magazine, they cultivate an ideology that already exists. They want the audience to continue as normal by wearing makeup, staying at home.
Whereas Adbusters want their audience to subvert themselves and be different.
Comments
Post a Comment