We're on about a topic that has seen some significant attention in my tiny blog circle. Buck's got a post going that I think he really didn't want me to run away with, but I am selfish to the last, and I also think it produced the seeds of a pretty good discussion. And the question is this:
Does the media shape and define for us what we find attractive, or does our ever-changing definition of attractive shape what the media gives us?
My position is basic economics. They find out what we want, they provide it in massive quantities with the blaring of horns and flashing of lights. It's how they make money. How we come to deciding what we are attracted to is another thing entirely - I am simply saying that if we collectively indicated (via our wallets, as ever) that we preferred fuller-figured girls, that is exactly what would be all over the magazines and TV. The shift would be damn near instant. It's all money.
The other side says that the fashion industry and the media and advertisers choose what they want us to be attracted to, dish it out egregiously, and ultimately tell us what they think we should want. Being fairly easy to persuade as a collective (which I will not deny), we take the bait.
Any takers? And remember, this isn't about whether you personally prefer one type over another. Let's put that aside for this one. I just want to know what you think the media's role is in this: Are they responding to our desires, or are we responding to their influence?
16 comments:
I’ve often thought about this issue Andy. One are that many people haven’t considered is the environmental impacts have on our likes/dislikes, in general – especially wrt what we deem physically beautiful. I’ve seen it over and over again in small towns. When all you know is one thing … where the core values of a town and family are rooted in simple honest ‘ways of living’ – things like size and outer beauty seems to not exist. You are attracted to what you know… and usually what is in your immediate and ‘developmental’ environment influences that dictate much of those beliefs.
In larger metropolis cities and areas – media dictates much of our ‘developmental’ environmental beliefs – perhaps even interrupt and disrupt our beliefs. I’m not convinced it’s based on demand by the people but rather it’s based on commercialism. All about the money… even something as simple and personal as perceived beauty.
The thing is … the beautiful women shown on Buck’s blog – most back in their hay day WERE the standard beauty – and no one called them plus-sized, unhealthy, ugly, unattractive etc… And yet… two or three generations later – here you have it. Anyone bigger than a size 4 comes attached with her many negative connotations… most of them are driven by the media, and adopted by the masses as ‘normal’ and beautiful. Again… environmental.
Larger metropolis cities around the world tend to be incredibly superficial. Smaller town mentalities are much more grounded into simpler and honest beliefs that are not muddled by the media. Priorities are different. Beliefs are different.
And the older I grow, I tend to appreciate the ‘small town’ mentality and allow myself to be comfortable with myself and my own beliefs, rather than let mass media blitz based on commercially viable commodities tell me what I ought to believe.
Just my two cents. Hope it made sense.
"I’m not convinced it’s based on demand by the people but rather it’s based on commercialism."
But that's what commercialism is - they give us what we want to buy. If some guy who owned a shoe company used a bunch of symbols of things that consumers demonstrated they didn't care for, he wouldn't sell any shoes. He finds out what the customer is into, and then uses that in his advertising.
But that's what commercialism is - they give us what we want to buy.
I don't necessarily agree (nor 100% disagree) with that. I think that they (media) tell us what we want to buy. It's not an accurate assessment of what the people NEED or require. No. They tell us you WANT this ... therefore, you MUST have.
It's rarely about need or necessity.
It's 99% what Andy said, with some occasional scheming opportunists thrown in now and then. Man-bashing feminists, communists trying to take over the country, do-as-I-say enviro-weenies, fat women who are jealous of skinny women.
They CAN tell us what we want, and they do. We are not that immune from the power of suggestion. We're wide open to it.
Of course we aren't immune Mark! That's why it works. But at some point in a persons life, we can't blame media for not being authentic about what we want or believe. What saddens me is that most people don't ever go deep enough to be aware of what their true beliefs are... which is, in my books, to be partially blamed on the media.
The psychology behind marketing and media is very interesting and almost fascinating. Especially in their merchandising of beauty. I don't agree with it but it does fascinate me to no end.
Word verification that seems very apropos: slyzesy
Wow, KC. That earns a heartfelt "holy shit" from me. That is one of the most depressing descriptions of human sheepishness and ineptitude that I have ever heard. I don't even know what to say. So if I had a reset button, and it was pressed, I wouldn't know what to believe in until a commercial told me?
Hang on - show about building the Bugatti Veyron is coming on. I don't need anyone's help telling me I want one of those.
HA! My perceptions are different than yours obviously. But I know far more sheep than shepherd. And while you are saying NOT ME!!! I know more people including very immediate people in my life that dictate what they desire in their lives based on what they see in media... rarely based on an honest assessment of what they need or require in their life.
What can I say, Andy? I make a simple observation of those around me and the environment in which I live in... not far from your own... and yet you perceive it differently. I blame a very superficial artificial environment that is the metropolis that I live in... enabling many and most to be superficial and artificial... much less honest. (And I say this from living in all of the BIG cities in Canada and visiting many of the US ones.... and I perceive them all to be the same way - superficial, artificial and media driven)
Being a guy that only watches television in the western world about 1 hour every three months I have noticed something interesting about the advertising that you guys are subjected to.
1. 1/3 of a television show's run time is dedicated to advertising.
2. Most of it is really in your face kind of stuff, and is in no way a "here's our product, here's how it can help you" approach. More like a "YOU ARE NOT COOL IN ANY WAY UNLESS SAID PRODUCT / PROCESS IS IMMEDIATELY PURCHASED BY YOU!!!!!!" thing.
3. 2/3 commercials are about friggin FOOD. What the hell? I was trying to watch Discover and now I want to eat a goddamn burger half the size of Hulk Hogan's balled fist.
THANKS.
Oh yeah, and thin sexy people eat said burgers that are about the size of their heads. I hate to be the bearer of fine truth but I have never seen a super model-esque woman in a Hardee's. Quite the opposite actually...
-Just making an observation.
Beauty is always defined by two things - health and fashion. Both are moveable feasts. But the latter is highly subjective and runs through libertines with an extraordinary influence on society. Decades ago beauty was mostly presented to us as demure or chaste, and hell we could at least appreciate a woman with some clothes on. These days sadly its presented to us a whorish. A pity. I just cannot get it into my head that we somehow arrived, unaided and uninfluenced at a point at which beauty is linked to how little a woman is wearing. As for shape and form, I’ll leave it with what I said over at Bucks as to who influences that much and why. The media industry is more than simple marketing. It's a cultural influence.
I think there is plenty of room for a different appreciation of beauty but I know from having worked in the industry that even a healthy market for that doesn’t matter to the powers that be. Survey after survey tells them women at least want normal models in them and would likely buy more of the magazines not less. The result? Nothing. It’s an industry steeped in a sense of power and delusion.
Honestly when I look at a naturally photographed fully dressed Loren Monroe and co over there, beautiful and yet replete with their little imperfections, it’s that which holds my fascination. And frankly depresses the hell out of me. It’s a generational thing as Buck asserts. I was clearly born in the wrong age.
Pfui. It's push, not pull. Look at the newspapers and other "news" outlets. Two examples: John Edwards and "climategate".
Look, dammit, the whole point of their existence is scandal. Scandal sells newspapers. Scandal gets eyeballs which then look at the ads.
The Edwards business is a scandal. Furthermore, it's a sex scandal, and one that (unusually for Washington) involves people whose nudity wouldn't gag a goat. Do they cover it? NO! In fact, they do their damndest to cover it up.
Climategate doesn't have people screwing in the sexual sense, but it's juicy anyway. Corruption and bribery, collusion and contempt, and enough subterranean connections to keep every reporter on the planet in a job for the next twenty years; makes Enron look like a squabble over lunch money. Do they cover it? NO! Again, they do their best to cover it up.
Kate at Small Dead Animals says "...not waiting for the asteroid..." That's a great way to put it. Anybody who wants Democratic or LibDem party propaganda can get all they want, free, from their friendly local Community Organizer, without paying for a subscription or suffering through the Depends ads. If all we can get from the babble box is more of the same with "optics", there's no reason to turn it on. Do they notice that? NO! They kvetch about the Internet and remind us how incredibly intelligent they are, and leave money on the table to preserve their didactic purity.
The conclusion is at least partway clear: they either don't give a damn about the money, or they're too f*ing inept to figure out where the money is. What possible reason is there to expect that they're any better on the subject of sex?
For confirmation, go have a look (if it's available in Seattle) at one of the Country&Western channels on cable. The women aren't fat by any means, but neither do they look like twelve-year-old boys with water balloons down the front of their shirts. Appreciation of women with female figures is alive and well. You just won't see 'em on teevee.
Regards,
Ric
If you think of the group pictured at Buck's place, then fast forward a few years you'll see that the shift in the perception of a woman's beauty began with Twiggy.
She's an icon to be sure. And her naturally gamine frame started a new wave of viewing a woman's body that really never has changed.
Think about all the cultural and fashion icons since Twiggy - none of them approached the pure curve power of Marilyn or Sophia.
Jennifer Lopez? Please the woman is a size 6 with a slightly larger butt. Kate Winslet? Size 8.
Stick insects with water balloons down the front of their shirts are the norm these days and it's not necessarily because we the public want them.
It's what the deluded industry that spawns them thinks we want. And thanx to the buying power of the tween set it does sell. They are the only ones who would aspire to look like a Katie Price or Calista Flockhart or Renee Zellwegger.
And as I said at Buck's place - it's also spawned a few generations with profound eating disorders and self-esteem issues.
As Alison says - the industry has been told many times what we, the public, wants. But they'll never see it.
When a magazine can airbrush a model to the point where her head is wider than her waist - and print the image worldwide - then we aren't talking about anything the public wants. We are talking about an indsutry that only serves itself.
I know you are trying to zing me on the "Not Me" thing, KC, but it just don't hold up here. This is just a "here's my take on this, what's yours" kind of deal.
I just get this sense from the "media makes me like things" side that it is a condemnation of human beings. For thousands of years we were capable of forming our desires through honest and noble means, but as soon as a gay dude decided to put a scarf on a skinny chick our ability to think independently vanished? Really?
I know we are persuadable creatures, but we aren't dead.
"Stick insects with water balloons down the front of their shirts are the norm these days and it's not necessarily because we the public want them."
It's an exaggeration or amplification of what the public wants. Sticks with water balloons provides an immediate visual contrast, and registers more profoundly than boobs, belly, hips and thighs that are all roughly the same size. You are more likely to look twice at the stick with water balloons.
Do men feel paranoid about their looks at all? Serious question. I ask because there is a new magazine that started up over here which refuses male models which don't fit into their criteria. It's billed as THE magazine for women. But it doesn't include my taste in the male form at all! I do know that when men see images of buff guys and women look at those images admiringly the fellas go all "ugh but they're so gay". Funny how men and women like this one upmanship thing but essentially we all feel a bit peeved that we don't make "the grade".
(...) I just get this sense from the "media makes me like things" side that it is a condemnation of human beings. (...)
No. Never said that. I have seen over and over that many a person gets caught up in what is fed to us via all forms of media. Accurate or not. And that GREATLY influences our ideals and we form certain beliefs off those images.
Like I said in previous comments - at some point, people come into their own and stop making decisions based on what other people tell them to like or dislike. But for some, it takes a long time, while others get there much sooner than others.
But we are all greatly influenced by media. It plays on our emotions - in both positive and negative manners. Take for example the Olympics. I am watching TV (media) waiting to leave for my shift at the Athletes Village. The media is playing up all of the aspects of the torch and instilling national pride. On my way to work, I will see advertisements all along the way that will continue to feed that feeling of pride and belief in the event. Commercials, music, magazines, newspapers, radio, TV ETC... all emphasizing one thing: and therefore, trumendously impacts the beliefs and plays on the emotions of the masses.
Am I able to decide for myself? ABSOLUTELY. But am I greatly influenced by media? ABSOLUTELY. The media is pumping out how AMAZING the upcoming event is (personally I believe it is even without the media telling me, but that's me)... and people are feeding off it.
Its not any different when it comes to the commercialisation of beauty. You see it enough. Be it touched up, photoshoped, perfected digitally - it is what we are fed over and over again, especially in metropolis areas... People will be impacted by it. And if that is the environment in which our developmental years are based upon - how can it not impact the generations that is to come or that are in the here and now?
You'd have to be made of steel to not be impacted by it. And from what I have come to known of you, I know you aren't!
We all have our preferences. I'm not debating that. I have mine and I stand by them... as many a man and woman have theirs. But many a man and woman's preferences appear to be based on what media feeds them as desireable and beautiful... rather than an honest assessment of who that person is as an individual.
I'll stop now.
Wow. I'm late to the party, but what a great run here!
re: your original question ("Does the media shape and define for us..."). Both. The degree which we're susceptible to media influence varies greatly. I'll not deal in stereotypes but I've had girlfriends who DEFINED shopaholic (for brief periods before we cut them loose) and I've fought battles with certain people close to me trying to get them to change what I view as destructive, materialistic behavior. Those examples aren't part of the beauty perception question, but they ARE examples of media influence. In my second example, the Beauty Industry had a negative effect on the person who is close to me self-image, but she was insecure to begin with. It was ug-lee once upon a time, but she's older and wiser now.
I tend to fall down on KC's, Alison's, and Kris' sides. Especially Alison's personal experience with the image makers... she validates what I've long suspected. I'll offer up another example of an industry refusing to change: Holly-frickin'-wood. There's NO lack of criticism on the themes the movie industry feeds us today, the lack of quality, yadda, yadda. Box office receipts reflect the prevalence of turkeys these days, but do they change? No. It's the same ol', same ol'. In Hollywood's case Marshall McLuhan was right: The medium IS the message. One could make a similar case for the beauty industry, no?
re: Do men feel paranoid about their looks at all?
Yes. Once again, not all... but a great number. Witness the rise of the frickin' metrosexual. And then there's that buff thing, as in we all gotta be Tarzan. Thank God I'm a geezer now and don't have to deal with it. ;-)
Thanks for the link and the cocktail party, Andy. This was a great good time.
Post a Comment