(Image)

(Image)

Alicia:

I'm not quite sure I get the point of this ad. Is it supposed to be us seeing through the mask or the eyes of the exotic native who is admiring our jeans? The latter seems to make more sense because why would the fact that we have this exotic mask on change add significance to what we see? Talk about frames -- the mask literally frames what we are seeing- but also in a weird way because we are not looking through the eyes of the mask but through the mask from afar. I'm not sure about the juxtaposition of the images though- is the mask suppossed to be an image of age, fun, coolness, or static death. I'm not sure quite how we are suppossed to read the mask except for that it's cool and different and thus by association so are the jeans.

Alicia:

I just looked at the ad again and realized that it was on a table in the room and that makes it make a bit more sense. I am also interested in the way they use race in this ad. I mean- not every use of a black person in an ad has to be some hugely deliberate and elaborate racist plot- but it is planned and intentional. And the juxtaposition of this cool exotic artifact with a black man I think only emphasizes the kind of exoticism of the other that is in so many advertisments.

Jessica:

My first impression of what this ad was trying to say was "look at the world in a different perspective" (look through the eyes of the carved statue thing on the table). But it is weird, like you said Alicia, that we're not looking through the statue's eyes, but rather like we are sitting inside the statue.

This ad has a lot to do with perspective. It sways us to see the world as the Other would, through the eyes of this exotic statue. This statue pretty much shows every characteristic our culture likes to associate with the Other: nonalienated labor, exotic ceremony, untouched by modern industry and mass production. The Other become a voyeur into our culture, not able to be intigrated but only able to silently observe. What about the issue of surveillence?

Claire:

About the little statue man.... I think Alicia definitely has a point about the use of black men (or women for that matter) in advertising. At first I just saw the statue and was thinking about what it represents. I didn't come up w/ anything really, that you all hadn't thought of. I think it is interesting how what is different/foreign becomes exotic/sexy/erotic because it is different. You could go even further to understand this, like where does a statue like this come from? from someplace south of the equator most likely...somplace hot and steamy maybe where women are heavy breasted and bare chested. It smacks of the eroticism of Nat'l Geographic. The images that come to mind in association w/ a statue like this are plentiful and I think are subtext to the primary use of the statue as a kitchy 'retro' art du jour. The statue symbolizes the exotic and the funky but is selling something as commonplace as jeans ...

So, I'm looking at the picture through the statue's eyes thinking not only of its foreign exoticism but also about the rush (often sexual or pretty damn close to it) of voyeurism. The connotations of Other and the rush associated w/ voyeurism are juxtaposed behind/underneath as subtext to this funky/campy advert of three (apparently way cool people) sitting in this hip lounge that resembles the Gypsy in more ways than one. ok. I noticed the woman on the couch right off the bat, the way her legs are casually positioned but slightly open, her slouch. I don't know about you guys, but to me hers is a come hither position....whether or not it's for the guy in the picture or the guy who is watching inside the mask, I don't know. Likely, I'd say guy watching.

Alicia:

Yeah, but her eyes are looking at the black guy. The one girl is screaming at the guy while the girl on the couch is already on the prowl. In this way, this ad both exoticizes and normalized because while the black guy is situated in a room and dressed in clothes that normalize him or abstract him from any context of black culture, I also read these white girl's attraction at him to be some form of exoticism.

Lynn:

I guess I saw this ad slightly differently. I thought that perhaps instead of being the face behind the mask looking at the cool people, maybe it was rather that we (the viewers) were looking into the mask and seeing this image inside. The use of the EXOTIC OTHER -- first we have this exotic and strange mask and then we have, well, Levi's. What is up with that? When the exotic gets appropriated for something as meaningless as jeans, what should we be thinking? To start with, everything is a commodity, or has the potential to be a commodity.

Just one more thought -- maybe it goes something like this: Exotic is Different, and Different is Better and difference sells and it is also more authentic, or it sells because it is more authentic, or appears to be. Which leads me to the grand conclusion that Levis are the Real Thing.

Jessica:

I agree Lynn, it is interesting to see how our notion of authenticity plays a part in understanding this ad. The idea of the untouched authentic other (presented as a statue) is sutured to a pair of jeans. The jeans become, like you said, the "real thing". I don't know if this is stretching it, but in putting these two images and worlds of meaning togther, the jeans can come to have the qualities we like to associate with the Other----untouched by the stain of mass production, exotic and real, different, something to posess, etc... It is interesting-- the statue has been recontexualized, ripped from the origins of its meaning, twice. It is first redefined in other frames of meaning as it sits on the table and once again as it is paired with jeans for this ad. It's kinda creepy how easily it happens.

Lynn:

I'm wondering, does history become irrelevant? I don't know if it's so much that history becomes irrelevant, as much as it becomes decontextualized, abstracted. History just comes to mean -- signify? -- old and that is it. Here with the Levi's ad, the same thing is going on. I mean, the statue is exotic, it comes from another time and place, and in this sense, it is historical. Or at least it is the unknown. Well, only insofar as it is different -- because it can be "known" through its cheesy appropriation. Difference becomes everything -- and if history sells commodities then it is important? Difference is marketable and so often difference is associated with other people, places, things and times. Ahh the lure of the Other...

Lynn:

I was thinking about difference as both a signifier and a signified... I mean, for example in this ad -- the mask is exotic, but like we said in class, we don't really know where it's from. But more importantly, it doesn't even matter where it's from. It is simply a signifier of difference. Does the Levi's ad speak to the myth that Roland Barthes refers to? It seems to me that (somehow!) the mask is turned into a second-order signifier. If I think about it, the mask at one point was a symbol -- that is, it had a collective meaning for a group/community. This, of course, is assuming that the mask is an actual artifact. But as soon as Levi's appropriated it, it ceased to be a symbol and became, instead a (second order?) signifier. Its difference, its exotic qualities, are made into an equivalence with the brand Levi's. So is this a myth? The mask is stripped of its original meaning, but given another. It is decontextualized and refit into another system of meaning. So then WHAT is the myth pointing to?

I guess I would like to explore how 'difference' is represented, appropriated, commodified to fit into commodity brands and market value. What are the consequences of abstracting difference? Does everything then just become a free floating signifier?