Art as a critique of the fashion and beauty industry - How consumerism and capitalism shape the notion of femininity
In this essay I will be considering ways in which society shapes our ideas and ideals of what it is to be feminine, what femininity and beauty are. A brief discussion on the views on biological and social influences. I will look at the rise of the beauty and toy industries, as well as a more general look to other influences including the media in general and how it all fuels consumerism & capitalism.
I will then discuss how the artists Barbara Kruger, Cindy Sherman and Vanessa Beecroft critique some of these issue within their practice.
It was Simone de Beauvoir who famously said, ‘a girl is not born, she is made a woman’. But looking at today’s social messages it seems that this is no longer a trend (the belief it is nurture not nature that shapes gender). There has been a shift in beliefs around this nature, nurture argument in explaining the differences between masculine and feminine. Natasha Walter discusses in her book ‘Living dolls’, how society has moved from the view back in the 1970’s and early 80’s that gender differences were explained by social conditioning to the seemingly wide spread view today that believes more in the biological explanation. The belief that boys and girls are born fundamentally different, that boys will exhibit aggression and pull toward liking cars and soldiers whereas girls are sweet natured and prefer to play with dolls and fantasize of becoming princesses. Natasha Walter explains:
‘…And this new traditionalism is taking on extra strength by the renaissance of biological determinism: the theory that the differences we see between boys and girls are not created by social influences, but laid down for them by the time they are born by genetic & hormonal differences. In the 1970’s, during the heyday of second-wave feminism, biological differences between boys & girls were often questioned & explanations from social influences became more popular. It became generally accepted among educationalists then that Simone de Beauvoir had a point, & that if we wanted to move towards greater equality we had to be prepared to challenge the ways that femininity & masculinity were encouraged among girls & boys by influences around them.’ (P:137 Natasha Walter. Living Dolls- The return of sexism. Virago. First published. 2010. Great Britain.)
This divide between girls and boys can be seen, as Walter gives examples, in the media, schools and the high street. When walking into a well known toy store in London, Walter explains how coming to the ‘boys section’ she was met by a sea of blue and sludge colours, soldiers, toy weapons and cars compared to ‘the girls’ section which is pink, fluffy and filled with sparkly princess outfits.
As I see it, this fuels and justifies the mass production of gendered toys being seen as a necessity rather than influencing difference.
We have seen the rise of ‘the Disney princesses’ since the 1990’s with the opening of the Disney store across the globe. The re-releasing of classic Disney tales onto DVD has brought to life again these traditional gender roles that we see in fairytales, stereotypical ideals of the masculine and feminine. Little girls see themselves in the roles of these softly spoken, beautiful princesses with long flowing hair waiting for their prince to save them, whilst the boys are brave princes who sleigh dragons and save their princesses. ‘Disney’, as are other media, reinforcing to a younger audience the notions of what it is to be masculine and feiminine in todays society.
In regard to the role of women and her appearance in today’s media, there has been this shift from the 1980’s ‘power woman’, the 90’s ‘working mum’, to a return of a more tradition woman, ‘the wife, mother and cake baker’. The working mother seems to have become unfashionable in today’s society. The medias preference is toward the stay at home ‘yummy mummy’. In reality this is not so, among the average family in today’s global economy women are needing to return to work, to juggle home and work and so the media are sending out message’s to these women that they are not ‘good enough’.
This trend toward the traditioninal role of the homemaker, can be seen on TV, specifically food adverts, in which most are showing mum in the kitchen providing for the family. Cooking programs such as those with Nigella Lawson (her book titled ‘The domestic Goodess’) are sending this traditional role message out into our homes. Lawson isn’t ‘model perfect’, she may present physically as an average size 12-14 woman but she has a privileged lifestyle and wouldn’t need to go out to work. Beneath this guise of being ‘just another wife and mum’, Lawson is saying a woman should be gracious, well mannered but have a level of seductive passivity (Lawson makes comments on looking after her family and having good manners along with images of her in a silky nightgown, revealing a little cleavage, whilst indulging seductively in chocolate pudding along with close up shots of her putting food in her mouth, rather reminiscing of soft porn in some rather comical way! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTndhzAJVs8&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL2DAF9397900159B8).
So although Lawson is not physically ‘perfect’ she is presenting us with another ideal to aspire to, that of femininity being in the role of homemaker.
The pressure on women to conform to these social unsaid rules of what is femininity starts from a very young age, even since ‘the princess’ age of childhood and has increased in intensity over the past 50-60 years. Trends have changed in fashion and beauty but in general we are still molded around the idea of beauty being ‘princess like’, slim, pretty, flowing hair and suggestive but conservative dress. We are surrounded by images that tell us how we should be, from pretty princess to young seductive woman to graceful older woman (but it is defiantly not on trend to grow old gracefully!).
The fashion and beauty industry has been growing bigger since its first surge in the 1950’s. In the global market, figures have risen heavily, especially in the past 20 years, the market sales have mostly more than doubled. In his book, ‘Beauty Imagined’, Geoffrey Jones gives a table of figures for world retail sales of beauty products (P: 367. ‘Beauty Imagined. Geoffrey Jones). For example In the U.K figures soared from 4.7($bn) in 1989 to 15.2($bn) in 2010, and the US from 25.5 to 59.7($bn) but probably most interesting and also very telling is the far east and non European countries, such as China, who’s figures jumped massively from 2.5($bn) in 1989 to a massive 23.6($bn) in 2010. This would back up the notion that the ideal image of femininity is that of the western woman, and in these non-western countries this is being sold as perfection, and not their own physicality. Products that promise lightened skin, blonde hair, cosmetic procedures that give bigger breasts, smaller noses, western style features are in great demand. New products and technology are producing more all the time and so aiding this obsession for perfection. The obsession with the white western woman as being the ideal of Femininity has pushed these products onto the global market feeding women’s insecurities to create mass consumerism.
Interestingly, Geoffrey Jones explains, the well known brand leaders, cosmetic companies such as Coco Chanel, Elizabeth Arden etc, who are named after and originally set up by women are now owned by huge corporate companies under male directorship. So, we see that consumerism and capitalism is now, as ever, largely male lead, and so it is the male view that shapes our notion of femininity and beauty.
‘Feminist art challenges the ideas central to a patriarchal society by recognizing that throughout history, the depiction of women has been constructed for a male audience.’ (http://hsc.csu.edu.au/visual_arts/requirements/case_studies/feminist_issues/MDOC5Feministissues.html)
When looking for artists that consider these questions of femininity, consumerism and capitalism in a patriarchal society I have identified three. I am going to discuss the work of female artists Barbara Kruger, Cindy Sherman and Vanessa Beecroft.
Barbara Kruger, a feminist artist who worked as a designer for Conde Naste (a large publishing house of magazines including fashion magazine’s like ‘Vogue’) in the earlier part of her career. Kruger has used this experience of working within this industry to critique the way in which it (the industry) has created an ideal form of femininity that she sees as destructive to women.
What Kruger recognized was the power that the image-makers of the industries had, she adopted this accessible way of communicating, this visual language. By using the styles, materials, symbols and visual language of advertising, Kruger creates a familiar image for us, but with the introduction of text that appears to have an opposite meaning she creates an unsettling response in her viewer. Her aim is to make her viewer question the messages that the fashion and beauty industry feed women. She is not only questioning the idea of femininity but the power structure behind it, consumerism.
Cindy Sherman approaches the subject of femininity and female role in a different way by using many different identities of numerous female stereotypes. Like Kruger, Sherman creates images that are familiar to the viewer, we have seen these women, even though not this actual woman, we are comfortable with her, until of course we realize it is actually Sherman masquerading in the role. This masquerade creates an unease, does the viewer now trust what he/she see’s. Sherman is showing how we act out these stereotypes in society and what messages we get from them. She shows us how we can masquarade in many different ways to please or rebel against societies views of femininity.
In her essay ‘Images of “woman”- The Photography of Cindy Sherman’ (1983), Judith Williamson talks about Sherman’s ‘Film stills’ and later ‘Untitled’ photographs, she says:
‘Image’ has a double sense, both as kind of woman fantasized (is your ‘image’ aggressive, cute, femme fatale, dumb blonde etc), and as the actual representation, the photograph. What Sherman does is to make you see the type of ‘woman’, of femininity, as inseparable from the literal presentation of the image – lighting, contrast, composition, photographic style. ‘The Film Stills’ are the most obvious example of this.’ (P: 453 ‘images of “woman”: The photography of Cindy Sherman’ (1983) Judith Williamson (Feminism-Art theory-An Anthology 1968-2000. Edited by Hilary Robinson. Blackwell publishing. 2001. (Originally from: From screen, 24 (8) (1983): 102-106; Reprinted in consuming passions: The dynamics of popular culture (London: Marion Boyars, 1986).
So Kruger and Sherman are both confusing the viewer by challenging what they know about female identity and image. What women know of an accepted view of what beauty & femininity are.
Disrupting the viewer’s ideas of what is normal’ and accepted’ is also the aim of Vanessa Beecroft. She has used the fashion industry as a starting point for her work by using actual models within her performances. She confuses, as Kruger & Sherman do, the viewer into thinking he/she is looking at a familiar image but as with Kruger & Sherman, there is a twist. In the case of Beecroft, this is, for example, the models who at the beginning create that familiar image of femininity, of perfection, but as the performance goes on, the models begin to fade in composure, they become ‘real’. This is said in Sally O’Reilly’s book ‘The Body in contemporary art’:
‘…Performance such as VB.56 (2005) and its accompanying series of photographs in which long-limbed slim beauties lounge among Louis Vuitton handbags, would raise the hackles of feminists and anti-capitalists alike, since Beecroft appears to be in league with both the fashion and beauty industries and the art market. However, over the course of these live installations, which often last for hours, the models wilt perceptibly, giving the lie to their image of perfection. The constructed ideal cracks so that the real body becomes apparent.’ (P:43. The Body in Contemporary Art. Sally O’Reilly. Thames & Hudson World of art. 2009. London)
So to conclude, The trend within our society today seems to have stepped back to a more traditional gender role, that of the woman as homemaker. This message is seen in advertising and the media in general and is being pushed at a younger audience, which is evident in the fairytale worlds of toyshops and such like as Disney marketing.
I can see from the figures presented by Geoffrey Jones (Beauty Imagined) that this push from the media has got consumerism shooting through the roof, aiding the growth of the beauty industry over the past 20 years, feeding into women’s insecurities and obsession with becoming ‘perfect’.
The works of Barbara Kruger, Cindy Sherman and Vanessa Beecroft all show a critique of these issue within their practice. They all in their own way show how we
are familiar with the images they present because they use similar methods to the advertising and media industries but all disrupt this, they distort the notions of
Femininity and what it is to be female and to be considered ‘perfect’ by society, this patriarchal society that is lead by consumerism.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: -
BOOKS: -
-Beauty Imagined - A history of the global beauty industry’. Geoffrey Jones. Oxford University Press. 2010. Great Britain.
-Feminism - Art theory - An Anthology 1968-2000. Edited by Hilary Robinson. Blackwell publishing. 2001.
(Essay: ‘Images of “woman”: The Photography of Cindy Sherman’ (1983) Judith Williamson. (Originally from: From screen, 24 (8) (1983): 102-106; Reprinted in consuming passions: The dynamics of popular culture (London: Marion Boyars, 1986)
-Living Dolls- The return of sexism. Natasha Walter. Virago. First published. 2010. Great Britain
-The Body in Contemporary Art. Sally O’Reilly. Thames & Hudson World of art. 2009. London
WEBSITES: -
http://hsc.csu.edu.au/visual_arts/requirements/case_studies/feminist_issues/MDOC5Feministissues.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTndhzAJVs8&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL2DAF9397900159B8
No comments:
Post a Comment