Todays visual culture class was pretty interesting. I thought Ali, Jennifer, Alex and Koren did a great job in researching and developing questions based on this weeks reading.
A particular aspect that I found interesting, and one that related to my semiotic ad analysis, was that of the authentic as it pertains to visual quality. This was question no.2 of the group discussion. What does visual quality suggest to viewers about the truth?
This sets us up for the aesthetic criticism; If something is highly produced (glossy, high production cost) is the reality striped from it? and is "grittiness" considered more truthful/ direct/ authentic?
I analyzed an American Apparel ad for my semiotic analysis assignment, and while I did'nt comment on the low budget or homemade (gritty) aesthetic ( the particular ad I chose did'nt exactly denote or conotate this sign) I did notice that many other American Apparel ads use this styalistic stratagem.
I believe we talked about this for a brief moment in class as well when we were discussing question 2. The question is why? American Apparel is a $200 million/year company. And you can bet that they spend a lot of $ on advertising research and development.
As a young and progressive company , they have qued into the fact that their target market (20's) is underestimatedly sophistocated and media suave. And using this low budget, quasi porn style most likley does invoke a strong sense of immediacy and rawness.These ads are edgey and fast, like the culture they are targeted for. This is an advertising statagey that I believe is pretty ground braking and I would say, highly innovative. I really havent seen a series of ads like this before, or to the extent that it is so provocative.
Right or wrong, exploitive or gregarious, they are very successfull in terms of what an advertisment's objective is. The question remains weather this style of "grittiness" will evolve or push further boundries of provocation. How will this stratagem be used by other advertisment agencies and in what further form will it take?
I could probably go on, but it's late , I'm tired, but if any one wants to add somthin, please do.
4 comments:
In regards to the idea of grittyness = real and polished/glossy = unreal, i think it is generally accepted as true. The cover of any magazine is slick and photoshoped.
But with the AA ads, their low quality grittyness is contrasted by some very contrived and awkward poses. This probably is to exentuate the idea of exploitation.
I'm just wondering if people think it would be a more successful ad if the poses weren't so contrived? If they played up the "natural" or "real" element.
posted by Justin T
Would these ads be more successful if the poses weren't so contrived?
I don't think they would be. Last year in our advertising theory class we had a class long discussion and debate about these ads, at the end of the day, like them or not, it was generally agreed that these ads were successful and it is because of the controversy surrounding them.
Compared to other high polished, photoshoped advertisements, these ads are shocking, they break the norm, and they even disgust people. Because of all those results, people talk about them. And word of AA is spread further then perhaps the ads alone could reach.
I think the contrived, often awkward poses enhance the gritty, semi-pornographic feel of the images, increasing the controversy and thereby the success of the ads.
posted by Tyler W
I think the fact that the poses are so contrieved is what makes the AA so successful. I am stating this agreeing with Tyler, that the main reason the ads are so successful is the fact that they are so contriversal.
The overly contrived poses suggests that the models are being told exactly what pose to contort themselves into, placing a large amount of control into whoever is behind the camera. Also, alot of the female models appear to be very young (17-21 years old, I would perceive) which I believe stirs some alarm in the viewer, considering that the person behind the camera has the most control and may be in a position to 'take advantage' of the model in the ad.
This may lead the viewer to believe that they are not just looking at an ad for clothing but rather a candid photo capturing a private moment that they may not feel comfortable viewing.
So, yes...there is alot going on in these ads! I can see why the are discussed so much.
Melissa Skowron
i think the main thing here is that none of the ideas we are given here were given any consideration while these adds were being generated.
I doubt an advertising firm very articulately came up with the concept and discussed the pros and cons of natural or contrived poses.
I get the impression it was a very general idea to make it looks smutty. The simple fact that these adds were clearly produced by the individuals who would by the clothes themselves, it resonates as being honest, which is a rare thing in advertising, and everything happening is a circumstance of the time, place and energy of the photo shoot. I predict that as soon as someone does this in an effort to illegitimately capture that same energy, it will be uncomfortable and apparent.
-Connor W
Post a Comment