The first two images are both derived from two consecutive issues of The New Yorker in late 1968. The thematic tension between the two suggests a hypocritical duality of American perceptions toward gender roles in the 1960s. Certainly, image A attempts to appeal to America’s idealistic, privileged younger generation by co-opting the language and imagery of the prominent counterculture they had come to embody. In this advertisement for Toshiba’s line of portable electronics, five twentysomethings pose in a cartoonish vessel charted for the land of “portable people.” The text below this representation describes young Americans as “your kind of people. Mod. Fun. Restless.” The image also depicts the subjects as lacking distinguishable gender roles: the young women appear almost androgynous. Their hair is cut very short (one woman dons a hat to obscure it altogether), and their height equals that of their male counterparts. The figures lean forward confidently in postures exuding progress, gazes fixed on a metaphorical common destination. The scene is reminiscent of Leutze’s “Washington Crossing the Delaware,” even replicating the presence of a symbolic flag. Thus, the image celebrates the revolutionary ambition of America’s youth, associating it with the principles of the American Revolution.
Conversely, image B reveals a more conservative perception of sexualized gender roles redolent of the environment of the 1950s. The cartoon is purely editorial rather than commercial, and thus the credibility of its depiction of American culture is questionable. Is the cartoon a less adulterated representation because it lacks the commercial motivations of an advertisement? Or is less socially indicative because it conforms more to the political opinions of the particular artist than to the demographic calculations of an advertising firm? Regardless, it serves to illustrate that the liberal cultural revolution of the 1960s did not engender a complete realignment of American values, so much as introduce elements of dissent and criticism to the hierarchal gender roles deeply entrenched in American culture. In this artist’s portrayal of the business world, women’s role in the workplace is predicated on their physical attributes. They are sexual fixtures––tantamount to office furniture––performing menial tasks, present only to amuse their male colleagues. Fittingly, they are relegated to the bottom of the artist’s billboard, indicating that women still occupy the lowest position in the corporate hierarchy. The successful businesswoman is regarded as threatening and thus less attractive, having removed subordination from her relationships with her male counterpart.
Considering the sources from which these images are derived, it seems image A is more representative of the contemporary social atmosphere of the late 1960s. Although a vocal movement in favor of women’s rights and a growing political discourse of gender roles in America were under way at the time, indications of these trends are almost entirely absent from the mainstream media outlets I have analyzed. The sponsors of Time and The New Yorker espoused values more in line with Richard Nixon’s “silent majority.” Political dissent and radical counterculture were in direct conflict with the capitalism and consumerism upon which commercial business was grounded, and any attempt to co-opt the “hippy” identity in advertisement would have attracted far fewer consumers than it likely would have alienated.
The final image, image C, is an advertisement for the mink pelt industry printed in The New Yorker in November of 1980. It depicts an effete woman adorned with pearls, makeup, fine leather gloves, a lace shirt and a large mink coat, interlocked with a much older man. The man’s attire is comparatively modest and conservative, yet combined with his domineering posture, suggestive of power and authority. Considered alone, the visual image offers merely subtle thematic undertones of the objectification and superficial idealization of women. Yet when one considers the caption, imploring the reader to “Wrap yourself in something special,” the advertisement takes on much deeper meaning. The object of this invitation––man or woman––is intentionally vague and sexually suggestive. The woman is clearly the visual object of the image, but for purely superficial reasons. The man, conversely, exhibits a possessive attitude toward his younger counterpart, as if to portray her as an objectified status symbol. The innuendo of the caption’s language (the decision to use the verb “wrap” as opposed to “wear” was certainly a conscious one) reinforces the sense that the man is indeed the recipient of “something special.”
Considered as a whole within its historical context, image C reveals several cultural elements that distinguish the social trends of the 1980s from those of the late 1960s. The ad most apparently highlights the materialism of the 1980s, with the growing emphasis placed on status symbolism engendered by the fur industry. It also suggests, though history proves this hypothesis only partially, that the eagerness of the baby boomers to reinvent gender consciousness, indicated in image A, has been compromised in the twelve years that followed, replaced by a sense of complacency following the decade’s successes and the realignment of American priorities. A more likely hypothesis is that these movements had little effect on the demographics targeted by the makers of fur coats, expensive perfumes and other superfluous symbols of material success. Just as in the catalogued issues of Time, Life, and The New Yorker from the 1960s, so too does the New Republic of the 1980s overrepresent the values and concerns of this particular subset of American society, resulting in a distorted perception of contemporary cultural trends and patterns.
No comments:
Post a Comment