When it comes to most of our senses, humans are poor seconds to most other mammals. Our range of hearing can’t capture the high pitches a dog’s can — and as for smell, there the comparison worsens: dogs, who have stereoscopic smell (thanks to two independent olfactory nerves, one for each nostril) can quickly sense both the smell and its location, might justifiably regard us as scarcely able to smell at all. Yet when it comes to sight — to vision — humans are in their element; though owls may see better at night, the centrality of our visual cortex seems to focus our entire mind.
In part for this reason — but also because, from Neolithic times, humans have made art, from cave paintings to figurines to jewelry — the visual element of human culture is perhaps its most significant element. And yet, until fairly recently, this central aspect of our humanity has been relegated to art history courses, which themselves have often been regarded as the least interesting of classes, even by art students. Perhaps the students aren’t to be blamed, as most such classes consisted of slide after side of rapid-fire, identify-the-period images — what was missing was the the interconnectivity between image, form, text, and culture, not just isolated movements — and this is what the emerging field of visual culture aims to do.
The field has had its growing pains. At times, its juxtapositions between the visual and the cultural can seem glib, or like stretching things too far, After all, how much can a cheery child’s face in a advertisement tell us about the cultural construction of gender or domesticity? More than one might think, of course, but only when placed in the fullest possible context of other cultural images and practices. With the Victorian era, we’re immensely fortunate that so much of its imagery — as well as its books, newspapers, and ephemera — has been preserved, and (thanks to the copyrights having expired) digitized and made freely available.
In so many ways, we remain the inheritors of Victorian impulses: the era saw the birth of mass consumer culture, the invention of the fax machine, the telegraph, the telephone, photography, and film — and our fascination with “virtual” reality was already full-blown by the early nineteenth century. Victorians lined to take “virtual” trips by means of “moving panoramas”; they stared into stereopticon viewers at 3D imagery of exotic locations around the world; the mounted cameras on the front of trains and watched the resulting film with as much interest as we do some Go-Pro footage of a bungee jumper. They wished to expand their world by pictorial means, and they did so — and we are in and of that world today.
So, as a sort of practice — take this advertisement for Chivers jellies. Read it, using all the different perspectives you can muster: semiotics, gender theory, and even just free association. Use Google’s image search function to see similar imagery, and look for parallels in our own time. Blake could see the world in a grain of sand: what can we see in a candy wrapper? Post your thoughts below.
In part for this reason — but also because, from Neolithic times, humans have made art, from cave paintings to figurines to jewelry — the visual element of human culture is perhaps its most significant element. And yet, until fairly recently, this central aspect of our humanity has been relegated to art history courses, which themselves have often been regarded as the least interesting of classes, even by art students. Perhaps the students aren’t to be blamed, as most such classes consisted of slide after side of rapid-fire, identify-the-period images — what was missing was the the interconnectivity between image, form, text, and culture, not just isolated movements — and this is what the emerging field of visual culture aims to do.
The field has had its growing pains. At times, its juxtapositions between the visual and the cultural can seem glib, or like stretching things too far, After all, how much can a cheery child’s face in a advertisement tell us about the cultural construction of gender or domesticity? More than one might think, of course, but only when placed in the fullest possible context of other cultural images and practices. With the Victorian era, we’re immensely fortunate that so much of its imagery — as well as its books, newspapers, and ephemera — has been preserved, and (thanks to the copyrights having expired) digitized and made freely available.
In so many ways, we remain the inheritors of Victorian impulses: the era saw the birth of mass consumer culture, the invention of the fax machine, the telegraph, the telephone, photography, and film — and our fascination with “virtual” reality was already full-blown by the early nineteenth century. Victorians lined to take “virtual” trips by means of “moving panoramas”; they stared into stereopticon viewers at 3D imagery of exotic locations around the world; the mounted cameras on the front of trains and watched the resulting film with as much interest as we do some Go-Pro footage of a bungee jumper. They wished to expand their world by pictorial means, and they did so — and we are in and of that world today.
So, as a sort of practice — take this advertisement for Chivers jellies. Read it, using all the different perspectives you can muster: semiotics, gender theory, and even just free association. Use Google’s image search function to see similar imagery, and look for parallels in our own time. Blake could see the world in a grain of sand: what can we see in a candy wrapper? Post your thoughts below.
When I look at this advertisement for Chivers' Jellies the first thing I notice are the words "A child can make them!" and the image of the child depicted. She happens to be a girl, which doesn't surprise me. What does interest me however is the fact that the mother is also a part of this advertisement. At first glance, perhaps they are bonding, but what is typical in ads of this kind, and judging from the style of the ad, the time in which this ad came out; they are not simply "bonding". My immediate instinct is to look at this ad with from a gender standpoint. The mother is sealing her daughter's future as a domestic housewife.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm looking at it too deeply and symbolically, but when I read "The Family Doctor" quote I see a play on the phrase "A child can make them!" The words "pure" and "free from adulteration" emphasize the idea that this is a fun product for children. But, it may also be an ad to condition young girls to think that domestic life is the only life that is fun for them.
A similar ad I found was for Sclitz beer. It is an image of a woman crying and her husband reassuring her that at least she hadn't burned the beer. Though it is missing the child element, it still speaks to gender roles, to a woman's fear of disappointing her husband, and to the intelligence of a woman that she did not, most importantly, burn the beer. Even in modern media, we see the degradation of women though it can sometimes be subtle, it is pretty evident. I think I am just understanding while writing this what Rogoff meant when she writes, "What are the visual codes by which some are allowed to look, others to hazard a peck, and still others are forbidden to look altogether?" I think this speaks to one's understanding and perspective when it comes to imagery of any kind.
After reading Irit Rogoff's "Studying Visual Culture" I tried applying what I read to this ad in particular by not speaking "about" it but "to" it. I'm trying not to criticize what I see rather I'm trying to understand what it could mean. As Trinh T. Min-ha is quoted saying, "Tale, told, to be told." It may be a simple ad at first glance but there is definitely a story behind it when we see who we see and who we do not see in this story.
A great response, Ruba! And yes, this speaking "to" and not "at" is vital; in a way, we have to approach things in an almost unfocused way, in order to "see around" the outer meaning, to what it may mean in a different mythological system. I also notice, as I look at this ad again, the fascinating gesture of the mother's hand: is she admonishing her daughter, pointing the way (to better jellies), or just feeling overwhelmed by the joy of seeing her daughter make them?
DeleteThe first thing that came to mind for me when looking at this ad is that it plays on the common view (at the time) of the wife/mother as a homemaker. We’ve all seen older ads with ecstatic women praising their new dishwasher or laundry detergent. Although this may not have been a completely accurate portrayal of women at the time, the ads (which were created by men) did reinforce society’s gender expectations for women. These ads showed women what they should value and how they should feel about the role that society had for them.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this ad is not so blatant about it, there are clear gender expectations present. The mother (one can assume) is checking her daughter’s progress in making desert. The daughter is slowly lifting the mold. Both look keen to see the results of their work. The idea here is that it is the mother’s job to teach her daughter the ways of domestication, and it is the daughter’s role to learn it. The mother looks on with what I perceive as a nurturing look of expectation. The success of the Jellie is as much the mother’s as it is her daughters. This product is not just food, but a bonding experience for the two. By only half revealing what’s underneath the mold, the audience can also share in the anticipation.
What’s interesting about this ad is how its use of the child obscures how it is still selling to the mother. Yes, the children will be excited that even they “can make them,” but what this line also means is that the children (specifically female) can take on some of the mother’s work. It may as well be saying, “Hey Mom, here’s a desert that you don’t have to make yourself.
In search of similar ads, I googled “mother daughter baking ads” and was presented row after row of fifty-year-old magazine ads. It was much tougher to find modern ads of a similar style because it’s become less acceptable to portray women in this way. When I broadened my search to “mother daughter ads,” I did manage to find this one from an article on offensive ads. https://ik.qualitylogoproducts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/bad-ad-2.png. For those who might not be able to see it, the ad is of a mother cleaning a window or wall with a Mr. Clean Magic Eraser as her daughter looks on and points out its “magic.” The ad says, “This Mother’s Day, get back to the job that really matters.” I’ll give Mr. Clean the benefit of the doubt that this ad is not implying that it’s a woman’s job to clean, but it does show some pretty glaring oversight on their part, especially considering the history of women in these types of ads. I believe the point they meant to make is that mothers spending time with their children is what is most important, but it is interesting how this ad is so similar to the Chiver’s jelly in how it portrays a mother spending time with her child through feminine tasks.
Focusing more on the design of the ad, I have to ask why the black outline of the ad is such an odd shape. They go for the square on the left but then the circle on the right. It’s kind of an awkward fit, but I wonder if they were trying to capture the “purity” of their Jellies by using an organic shape to represent the fruit that is used to create them. The ad does mention how it is “flavoured with Ripe Fruit Juices” and underneath it has a quote mentioning how it is “absolutely pure and free from adulteration.” If I really wanted to reach, I’d say something about how the ad mentions that children can make these, which could lead to some connection between the innocence and purity of children and that of the Jellies.
Yes, I think that's quite right: children are as innocent as the jellies (what we could call Jell-O), and just as sweet and light. One image that comes, unreckoned, to my mind is that of all the Bill Cosby Jello-O ads, which started in 1975 and ran through the early 1990's. Now knowing Cosby as a serial criminal, it's very strange indeed -- and strangely noticeable -- how his image as "America's Dad" was linked to these flavored bits of gelatine!
DeleteIt's funny that you bring up Cosby, because I looked into "The Family Doctor" and, at least according to Wikipedia, it was known for containing reader letters about sexual fetishism. I also was able to find a few pictures of its articles and there were many women in corsets. This is no where close to Cosby, but it does seem to run counter to the wholesomeness of the ad that they're going for.
DeleteAfter reading the post and the comments from my colleagues I feel as though everyone seems to have a handle on the gender issues with this add. Clearly the Jellies are being advertised to attract the attention of a female (mother) and a female (daughter) because of the whole "a woman's place is in the kitchen" stereotype. So I want to take a different look at this here...
ReplyDeleteWhat about the quote here from "The Family Doctor" ? If you zoom in, it says "- We have nothing but unqualified praise, for they are absolutely pure and free from adulteration."
Ok, so wait, who is this "Family Doctor" here? No one knows. However, being a mother out shopping and seeing this add that is clearly being promoted by a doctor, well, that certainly must mean it's good for my family and so I must buy it! What a great technique for the company to use. The "unqualified praise" also gets me too, because he is LITERALLY saying that he isn't qualified to say anything about the jellies. The ad company just chooses to use this quote because it's from a "Doctor" and who can disagree with that?!
On another note, when you google Chivers' Jellies ads, the children in the pictures vary in gender. However, only the girls are making the jellies, while the boys are just shown eating them.
https://marilinabedros.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/mrclean.jpg
Here is an image of a recent ad that was "gender" specific from Mr. Clean. Ridiculous to us here, I'm sure. But clearly something wrong with societies gender differences, even today.
-- Danielle Lund
Danielle, great response -- I'm glad you had a look at others of the ads for Chivers jellies. And Mr. Clean is certainly a similarly over-gendered figure, although he also cross-dressed on occasion -- see "Brides Love Mr. Clean" at this site.
Delete