I thought the article was very interesting in showing that women were gaining some power with consumerism and such. While they were still expected to carry out domestic chores, they could still go out and make an appearance in the public sphere as well. Many advertisements for goods at department stores were geared to get women to go out and buy the products they sold.
Not only that, but they also used women in the advertisements to attract men to buying certain alcohol or other goods. It's the same thing with some of the advertisements you see today. If women see an advertisement of an attractive woman with a certain product, women will feel like owning that product will make them be as attractive as this woman. Men will be attracted to the woman in the ad, and perhaps encourage their wives to go out and purchase the product. Or if it's something like a cigarette ad or an alcoholic beverage, perhaps the men will feel that he will appeal to women if he drinks that beverage or smokes that brand of cigarettes.
It is interesting to me that there was such a parallel between women becoming consumers while still being marketed as a commodity themselves. I completely agree with Aspen about women in advertisements as a way to entice both men and women to purchase a certain produc. To me, this begs the question of whether or not the practice of consumerism for women empowered them or set them back even further. After all, is it not a stereotype today that all women love to go shopping?
The birth of consumerism, marketing, and advertisement, as well as the insertion of women and femininity into that chasm is something that I am sensing from the article. Another point I found interesting is a disagreement in Bar at the Folies-Bergere, in which through my eyes, I do not see a mirror at all. It looks like a double sided bar, and the woman talking to the man is a different woman than the one facing us. Perhaps just an inaccurate perspective in a mirror, I thought I would share that observation. The field glasses is what really gets me, how disturbing. (Perhaps I should bring some to class and stare at everyone through them.) Even the women were doing it. How obsessive. Perverts! Commodity and consumer intersecting does seem to be an aspect that was evolving with the whole consumerism market, especially with women's clothing, as in Emile Bayard's Le Bon Marche: Au comptoir de ganterie. Mirrors, field glasses, and windows. Perhaps the birth of self objectification?
I really like the vein of where this and the past few articles have been heading, especially the gendering of impressionism. It seems to me that these articles post viewpoints that are oddly unpopular interpretations of art and art movements. They seem to be reasserting a "different" (to our time) point of view. The fact that this new, strange point of view is actually arising out of the context of the time is absurd. It should not be an alterior interpretation to try and understand art within its own time and contextual framework. The very fact that these opinions are not the ones most wisely accepted exposes a huge flaw within our current way of approaching art history.
The articles attention to societal currents as well as other influences( such as displays, posters, and magazines) seems to me to be the most pure way of understanding art. The fact when interpreting art such as the Folies Bergere, we as contemporary students of history have placed our own, modern interpretations on these works to the point that this interpretation is the most widely accepted is wrong, as it gives us a warped view of the art and its intended meaning. This is not to say that individual interpretation is not valid, only that the "accepted" interpretation of artworks should be the ones that emerge out of studying the time period they came from.
I agree with both aspen and chloe about the women in advertisement and how it relates to todays advertisement. I ended up reading the other two readings first and then realized that this one that we are having to discuss on the blog is a wider view of what was going on and said more of the male point of view too. The history of these bazaar like places was really neat. This article covered a lot of ground and i like that it kept giving history of what was going on at the time then telling information about Monet and impressionism.
" to understand Manet's painting and modernity, we must extend the circumference of out interests from the immediate history of the cafe-concert, and the retoric of pleasure, leisure, and entertainment, to broader discourses of mass consumption." mass consumption if a modern ablility of man the idea of purchasing things and the power of the consourmer is being fully realized at this time and not only the purchasing of object but of the ablitiy to gain power through the purchasing of these objects.this painting has a buffet of objects for sale as well as the female ogject who could also be considered to be for sale her figure and dress mimic the bottles in the foreground and background.
Chloe and Aspen nailed it for me. At first the idea that women are used to attract BOTH sexes was strange to me, but when I thought about it, it made absolute perfect sense. I mean, look at places like Victoria's Secret. The men walking with there significant others will glance at the scantily clad women, and then in turn the woman they are with will aspire to become like those models through buying the lingerie. It's an interesting thought- women buying things in order to fulfill the male fantasy.
But if we look at some other television commercial, like say, a yogurt commercial, then we see women objectified for women. The women are slim, happy. They have perfect houses, a loving husband, and they are always smiling. By giving these yogurt women perfect lives, women thus, want to buy yogurt to get perfect lives. It won't happen of course, but hey thats advertisement.
All in all, this was a really interesting read, looking forward to talking about in class.
Like everyone above, I agree that women are used in advertisements to lure both genders into buying their products. Men desire the woman in the ad, she becomes another object to be bought; submissive to the man's desire. On the other hand, a woman can place herself in the ad, imagining herself in the ideal.
That was an interesting point. we really don't realize how women in advertising cater to women who see advertising just as much as to men. Women become the tool to get everyones attention. That brings a question, what about men in advertising? Have they not had the same power as women in capturing the attention of the viewer. I would like to discuss that in class, why is it that women become more of a tool, for both sexes, could a nude man not capture women's attention as well as other women?
I just thought it was interesting that the painting acknowledged the male gaze with the quick brushstrokes or indication of the male patron in the corner. So already you are put in the place of the man propositioning this woman. That you can have a shot of whiskey as much as you can have a shot at the bartender. And I don't remember which article talked about this or not but I think the Mary Cassatt painting of the man looking at this woman with the spectacles is a witty play on the fact that "She" the other is placed at the central possession of this male gaze whether it's for entertainment or in the distribution of goods, she's not put into the role of being able to also possess the man looking at her from across the bar unless it's to lead to an inferior submission, so her in her gaze back at this man it's only a temporary bout of agency. All very interesting.
Apparently my comment did not post last night. I also thought the article was interesting. I am fascinated by concepts in advertising (I am obsessed with Mad Men). It is interesting that using women to sell products to both genders seems to be a timeless tactic. I also wonder, why do women sell so well? Is this just something we have socially constructed?
I thought the article was very interesting in showing that women were gaining some power with consumerism and such. While they were still expected to carry out domestic chores, they could still go out and make an appearance in the public sphere as well. Many advertisements for goods at department stores were geared to get women to go out and buy the products they sold.
ReplyDeleteNot only that, but they also used women in the advertisements to attract men to buying certain alcohol or other goods. It's the same thing with some of the advertisements you see today. If women see an advertisement of an attractive woman with a certain product, women will feel like owning that product will make them be as attractive as this woman. Men will be attracted to the woman in the ad, and perhaps encourage their wives to go out and purchase the product. Or if it's something like a cigarette ad or an alcoholic beverage, perhaps the men will feel that he will appeal to women if he drinks that beverage or smokes that brand of cigarettes.
It is interesting to me that there was such a parallel between women becoming consumers while still being marketed as a commodity themselves. I completely agree with Aspen about women in advertisements as a way to entice both men and women to purchase a certain produc. To me, this begs the question of whether or not the practice of consumerism for women empowered them or set them back even further. After all, is it not a stereotype today that all women love to go shopping?
ReplyDeleteThe birth of consumerism, marketing, and advertisement, as well as the insertion of women and femininity into that chasm is something that I am sensing from the article. Another point I found interesting is a disagreement in Bar at the Folies-Bergere, in which through my eyes, I do not see a mirror at all. It looks like a double sided bar, and the woman talking to the man is a different woman than the one facing us. Perhaps just an inaccurate perspective in a mirror, I thought I would share that observation.
ReplyDeleteThe field glasses is what really gets me, how disturbing. (Perhaps I should bring some to class and stare at everyone through them.) Even the women were doing it. How obsessive. Perverts!
Commodity and consumer intersecting does seem to be an aspect that was evolving with the whole consumerism market, especially with women's clothing, as in Emile Bayard's Le Bon Marche: Au comptoir de ganterie. Mirrors, field glasses, and windows. Perhaps the birth of self objectification?
I really like the vein of where this and the past few articles have been heading, especially the gendering of impressionism. It seems to me that these articles post viewpoints that are oddly unpopular interpretations of art and art movements. They seem to be reasserting a "different" (to our time) point of view. The fact that this new, strange point of view is actually arising out of the context of the time is absurd. It should not be an alterior interpretation to try and understand art within its own time and contextual framework. The very fact that these opinions are not the ones most wisely accepted exposes a huge flaw within our current way of approaching art history.
ReplyDeleteThe articles attention to societal currents as well as other influences( such as displays, posters, and magazines) seems to me to be the most pure way of understanding art. The fact when interpreting art such as the Folies Bergere, we as contemporary students of history have placed our own, modern interpretations on these works to the point that this interpretation is the most widely accepted is wrong, as it gives us a warped view of the art and its intended meaning. This is not to say that individual interpretation is not valid, only that the "accepted" interpretation of artworks should be the ones that emerge out of studying the time period they came from.
I agree with both aspen and chloe about the women in advertisement and how it relates to todays advertisement.
ReplyDeleteI ended up reading the other two readings first and then realized that this one that we are having to discuss on the blog is a wider view of what was going on and said more of the male point of view too. The history of these bazaar like places was really neat. This article covered a lot of ground and i like that it kept giving history of what was going on at the time then telling information about Monet and impressionism.
" to understand Manet's painting and modernity, we must extend the circumference of out interests from the immediate history of the cafe-concert, and the retoric of pleasure, leisure, and entertainment, to broader discourses of mass consumption." mass consumption if a modern ablility of man the idea of purchasing things and the power of the consourmer is being fully realized at this time and not only the purchasing of object but of the ablitiy to gain power through the purchasing of these objects.this painting has a buffet of objects for sale as well as the female ogject who could also be considered to be for sale her figure and dress mimic the bottles in the foreground and background.
ReplyDeleteChloe and Aspen nailed it for me. At first the idea that women are used to attract BOTH sexes was strange to me, but when I thought about it, it made absolute perfect sense. I mean, look at places like Victoria's Secret. The men walking with there significant others will glance at the scantily clad women, and then in turn the woman they are with will aspire to become like those models through buying the lingerie. It's an interesting thought- women buying things in order to fulfill the male fantasy.
ReplyDeleteBut if we look at some other television commercial, like say, a yogurt commercial, then we see women objectified for women. The women are slim, happy. They have perfect houses, a loving husband, and they are always smiling. By giving these yogurt women perfect lives, women thus, want to buy yogurt to get perfect lives. It won't happen of course, but hey thats advertisement.
All in all, this was a really interesting read, looking forward to talking about in class.
Like everyone above, I agree that women are used in advertisements to lure both genders into buying their products. Men desire the woman in the ad, she becomes another object to be bought; submissive to the man's desire. On the other hand, a woman can place herself in the ad, imagining herself in the ideal.
ReplyDeleteThat was an interesting point. we really don't realize how women in advertising cater to women who see advertising just as much as to men. Women become the tool to get everyones attention. That brings a question, what about men in advertising? Have they not had the same power as women in capturing the attention of the viewer. I would like to discuss that in class, why is it that women become more of a tool, for both sexes, could a nude man not capture women's attention as well as other women?
ReplyDeleteI just thought it was interesting that the painting acknowledged the male gaze with the quick brushstrokes or indication of the male patron in the corner. So already you are put in the place of the man propositioning this woman. That you can have a shot of whiskey as much as you can have a shot at the bartender. And I don't remember which article talked about this or not but I think the Mary Cassatt painting of the man looking at this woman with the spectacles is a witty play on the fact that "She" the other is placed at the central possession of this male gaze whether it's for entertainment or in the distribution of goods, she's not put into the role of being able to also possess the man looking at her from across the bar unless it's to lead to an inferior submission, so her in her gaze back at this man it's only a temporary bout of agency. All very interesting.
ReplyDeleteApparently my comment did not post last night.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the article was interesting. I am fascinated by concepts in advertising (I am obsessed with Mad Men). It is interesting that using women to sell products to both genders seems to be a timeless tactic. I also wonder, why do women sell so well? Is this just something we have socially constructed?