This campaign fascinates me. Especially given that we've been talking about the Marxian critiques of media, specifically the Frankfurt School and Althusser, I think it provides an interesting debate. Can Dove, which is undoubtedly in the business of beauty, define what *real* beauty is?
So, the Campaign for Real Beauty should be searched through carefully. While we watched the "film" in class, as I was sifting through the site, the actual ideology of the campaign seems to emerge for me. What is Dove's concept of "real" beauty and how does it mesh with what you necessarily think of as real beauty. In trying to answer that question myself, I started wondering whether I am able to develop an idea of my own of what *real* beauty is without using the references provided to me by Dove. Why is that so hard? Is the an effect of mass media or is it that *real* beauty really cannot be defined?
Making things even trickier is their new campaign, a contest for a "regular" woman who could win the new commercial ad in the campaign for real beauty. The finalists can be found here. How does this change the campaign...now we have "real" women producing "real" beauty...does this get us further away from the trappings of mass media or more deeply ingrained in them? Also check out the intro by Amy Brenneman, the celebrity version of a *real* woman.
What might Althusser say about all of this? What is the meaning of that which is not pictured in this campaign for real beauty and how might his analysis differ from that of Adorno and Horkheimer?
And then there's this video, part of the Campaign for Real Beauty:
I just get a sinking feeling watching these. While ultimately, they are supposed to clearly indicate an change in ideology about beauty, can we (and should we) buy into what this is selling, especially given that it is produced by a company who is selling beauty products. While our knee-jerk reaction may be to applaud Dove, does our doing so only serve to enforce a very specific kind of beauty (just one that doesn't support plastic surgery and pills)? What are these images of beauty missing? And if they're missing something, doesn't that mean that the new ideology is still problematic?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I keep thinking about this Campaign for "Real" Beauty. I just think no one can define "real" beauty, while someone can establish it's not certain things...how can it be certain other things? Dove saying that "real" beauty isn't what is constructed by the media (plastic surgery, pills, air brushing, etc.) and deeming "real" beauty as something else (I don't really know what) is just another construction of a different kind of beauty. I'm not saying that I don't agree I just think that no one can claim or renew what "current" beauty versus "real" beauty is, without it being socially constructed.
I don't like being a cynic, but...
Dove is just trying to make money by tapping into women who feel there needs to be a change in how beauty is perceived. The campaign is trying to create a reality and change in beauty that they feel women will appeal to. I would applaud the attempt, but I don't think the interests are sincere.
I think I have to agree...in fact, it might be uber-manipulative. By tapping into a sense of "real" beauty which makes it sound natural and essential to every person, I personally think much nicer thoughts about Dove as the company who's trying to foster "my own real beauty" as opposed to Lancome or something that's creating an image of beauty that I feel like I cannot attain. Dove suggests they're an "enhancement" which makes it so much easier for me to buy their stuff...which is clearly what they want. Damn them.
Post a Comment