Woman magazine is very conventional whereas Adbusters is extremely unconventional in most ways.
Adbusters lacks adverts; it appears to use adverts throughout the magazine however it uses them to be critical about them; they're fiercely against advertising.
Advertisers care about something called brand association; they want to make themselves look good, so for example they'd pay more money in order to not be next to an article which could be seen as controversial. Adbusters is trolling to put it simply; they're operating in a legal grey area. They end up getting sued after every episode and spend most of their money on legal arguments.
The magazine picks up on controversial topics, subjects other magazines would be too scared to talk about. The magazine uses a direct mode of address while talking about these topics which guilt-trips you, makes you realise the many ways the world is failing and you personally are making it worse.
Adbusters is unconventional in the sense that it uses its old drafts that they were planning to use for covers; the production values are rough which makes it look as rough and horrible. A lot of effort went into doing that because they're criticising the pristine photoshopped images in fashion magazines; it's trying to be unique and stand out from other magazines, it's deeply polysemic.
Adbusters lacks anchorage
The format and structure of the magazine is unconventional, it doesn't cover it in the editors name and there is hardly any text. There are very few stories and instead it uses images instead. The magazine is divided into chapters which makes it feel like a book, adding to the unconventional tone. It doesn't have a conventional brand identity, the masthead changes every episode, and not every episode uses chapters.
Consumerism - Basing your life on buying something
Roland Barthes: Theory of codes
Proairetic - You get the sense that something is going to happen
Symbolic - The deeper meaning of something
Hermeneutic - Gives a question to the audience through a mystery
Referential - Intertextuality; when a product makes reference
Claude Lévi-Strauss: Structuralism
The use of binary oppositions in order to create contrast to make it more interesting.
The binary opposition used through Christian Louboutin advert in how the brand is known to be a very high end fashion brand and when the image used is of someone using empty plastic bottles in which they've made into shoes; this creates a large impact through the sense they're making something out of something we consider rubbish making the reader feel guilty to buy something potentially high-end to just look good; maybe a symbolic code that we as the audience are selfish and don't really take the time to realise how lucky we are.
The name of the brand used in the advert is spelt wrong which probably shows the legal battles the magazine has to constantly think about with the release of every episode. The mise-en-scene of the plastic bottles connotes poverty and works as a symbolic code suggesting to the audience that the model is poor. There is a powerful hermeneutic code which asks us as the audience, what country is this? We come to the assumption that the photo was taken in Africa through the use of stereotypes which helps us jump to this assumptions. The Referential code to charity adverts which uses the image of a starving child to make the audience feel bad. The lexis "Red soles are always in season" which is a reference to Loubouton which is known for having red soles on their shoes. While there are people who spend £500 on a pair of shoes to get dirty a few times after wearing them. The black comedy used through the caption isn't meant to make us laugh but instead make us stop buying stupidly expensive fashion items, by raising awareness for a few minutes but realistically we as readers will see this, feel bad for a while and then continue going on about our lives. Stuart Hall's theory of stereotypes can be used through the choice of image used; the image is of a poor black African person's feet wearing plastic bottles for shoes. This represents people of Africa in a way where we assume everyone who lives in Africa is poor, even though we know differently it gets the point across which is what Adbusters wanted to do. We're positioned uncomfortably close to the person's feet, the high angle close up shot positions the audience to look down on them, putting us in a superior position. The quality of the image is generally quite bad which in comparison to modern fashion adverts which are luxurious and high definition, creating a binary opposition with how bad quality and effortless the Louboutin ripoff advert looks. We're made to feel bad about them, guilt-tripping us into not buying these high end products; reinforcing the anti-profit/capitalist ideology of Adbusters. The magazine constantly gives us unanswered questions through every image through hermeneutic codes. The logo is juxtaposed with the image of black person's feet in shoes made with two squashed plastic bottles which communicates an anti-consumerist ideology. The black person wearing makeshift shoes, standing on parched earth, gives connotations of poverty and famine.
The advert which uses the image of the man putting his hand through a barbed wire fence also uses a binary opposition to stand out, just like many other images in the magazines which appear to be adverts but instead use controversial images to guilt-trip the audience into thinking differently about high-end mainstream fashion. In this example you could possibly get connotations of a concentration camp from the image of the people dressed in striped uniforms in a fenced pen area, to then use the legs of a model walking along a catwalk creates a huge binary opposition. Because of how disturbing the top image is, it attracts the audience's attention again to that in comparison to what is actually trying to be originally advertised which adds to the idea that adbusters want to be unconventional in comparison to other magazines like this. Adbusters lack of anchorage leads to a range of polysemic readings. The Image looks unprofessional and possibly looks as if a child has just stuck them over each other, with the bottom image looking water damaged. The connotations of a cat walk is expressing yourself through freedom which symbolises wealth and power, possibly connoting you need wealth to be free by using the binary opposition between the enclosed people above who appear to be migrants in comparison to the model walking freely. The bricolage of the two images used which don't belong together gives us the idea that wealth is a barrier, even seeing the barbed wire that traps the people above. The representation of ethnicity
Commodity Fetishism - When you're obsessed with the brand, not the products. Buying something for the brand, and if you don't wear/buy the product then you won't fit. The process of ascribing magic phantom-like qualities to a product, whereby the human labour required to make that object is lost once the object is associated with a monetary value for exchange.
Marxism - We as the working class are being oppressed by the ruling class, but when the time comes when we've had enough there will be a revolution. We are slaves in a capitalist system. Everything the rich do is making us poorer.
Adbusters lacks adverts; it appears to use adverts throughout the magazine however it uses them to be critical about them; they're fiercely against advertising.
Advertisers care about something called brand association; they want to make themselves look good, so for example they'd pay more money in order to not be next to an article which could be seen as controversial. Adbusters is trolling to put it simply; they're operating in a legal grey area. They end up getting sued after every episode and spend most of their money on legal arguments.
The magazine picks up on controversial topics, subjects other magazines would be too scared to talk about. The magazine uses a direct mode of address while talking about these topics which guilt-trips you, makes you realise the many ways the world is failing and you personally are making it worse.
Adbusters is unconventional in the sense that it uses its old drafts that they were planning to use for covers; the production values are rough which makes it look as rough and horrible. A lot of effort went into doing that because they're criticising the pristine photoshopped images in fashion magazines; it's trying to be unique and stand out from other magazines, it's deeply polysemic.
Adbusters lacks anchorage
The format and structure of the magazine is unconventional, it doesn't cover it in the editors name and there is hardly any text. There are very few stories and instead it uses images instead. The magazine is divided into chapters which makes it feel like a book, adding to the unconventional tone. It doesn't have a conventional brand identity, the masthead changes every episode, and not every episode uses chapters.
Consumerism - Basing your life on buying something
Roland Barthes: Theory of codes
Proairetic - You get the sense that something is going to happen
Symbolic - The deeper meaning of something
Hermeneutic - Gives a question to the audience through a mystery
Referential - Intertextuality; when a product makes reference
Claude Lévi-Strauss: Structuralism
The use of binary oppositions in order to create contrast to make it more interesting.
The binary opposition used through Christian Louboutin advert in how the brand is known to be a very high end fashion brand and when the image used is of someone using empty plastic bottles in which they've made into shoes; this creates a large impact through the sense they're making something out of something we consider rubbish making the reader feel guilty to buy something potentially high-end to just look good; maybe a symbolic code that we as the audience are selfish and don't really take the time to realise how lucky we are.
The name of the brand used in the advert is spelt wrong which probably shows the legal battles the magazine has to constantly think about with the release of every episode. The mise-en-scene of the plastic bottles connotes poverty and works as a symbolic code suggesting to the audience that the model is poor. There is a powerful hermeneutic code which asks us as the audience, what country is this? We come to the assumption that the photo was taken in Africa through the use of stereotypes which helps us jump to this assumptions. The Referential code to charity adverts which uses the image of a starving child to make the audience feel bad. The lexis "Red soles are always in season" which is a reference to Loubouton which is known for having red soles on their shoes. While there are people who spend £500 on a pair of shoes to get dirty a few times after wearing them. The black comedy used through the caption isn't meant to make us laugh but instead make us stop buying stupidly expensive fashion items, by raising awareness for a few minutes but realistically we as readers will see this, feel bad for a while and then continue going on about our lives. Stuart Hall's theory of stereotypes can be used through the choice of image used; the image is of a poor black African person's feet wearing plastic bottles for shoes. This represents people of Africa in a way where we assume everyone who lives in Africa is poor, even though we know differently it gets the point across which is what Adbusters wanted to do. We're positioned uncomfortably close to the person's feet, the high angle close up shot positions the audience to look down on them, putting us in a superior position. The quality of the image is generally quite bad which in comparison to modern fashion adverts which are luxurious and high definition, creating a binary opposition with how bad quality and effortless the Louboutin ripoff advert looks. We're made to feel bad about them, guilt-tripping us into not buying these high end products; reinforcing the anti-profit/capitalist ideology of Adbusters. The magazine constantly gives us unanswered questions through every image through hermeneutic codes. The logo is juxtaposed with the image of black person's feet in shoes made with two squashed plastic bottles which communicates an anti-consumerist ideology. The black person wearing makeshift shoes, standing on parched earth, gives connotations of poverty and famine.
The advert which uses the image of the man putting his hand through a barbed wire fence also uses a binary opposition to stand out, just like many other images in the magazines which appear to be adverts but instead use controversial images to guilt-trip the audience into thinking differently about high-end mainstream fashion. In this example you could possibly get connotations of a concentration camp from the image of the people dressed in striped uniforms in a fenced pen area, to then use the legs of a model walking along a catwalk creates a huge binary opposition. Because of how disturbing the top image is, it attracts the audience's attention again to that in comparison to what is actually trying to be originally advertised which adds to the idea that adbusters want to be unconventional in comparison to other magazines like this. Adbusters lack of anchorage leads to a range of polysemic readings. The Image looks unprofessional and possibly looks as if a child has just stuck them over each other, with the bottom image looking water damaged. The connotations of a cat walk is expressing yourself through freedom which symbolises wealth and power, possibly connoting you need wealth to be free by using the binary opposition between the enclosed people above who appear to be migrants in comparison to the model walking freely. The bricolage of the two images used which don't belong together gives us the idea that wealth is a barrier, even seeing the barbed wire that traps the people above. The representation of ethnicity
Commodity Fetishism - When you're obsessed with the brand, not the products. Buying something for the brand, and if you don't wear/buy the product then you won't fit. The process of ascribing magic phantom-like qualities to a product, whereby the human labour required to make that object is lost once the object is associated with a monetary value for exchange.
Marxism - We as the working class are being oppressed by the ruling class, but when the time comes when we've had enough there will be a revolution. We are slaves in a capitalist system. Everything the rich do is making us poorer.
Comments
Post a Comment