Pic Barbie Kneeling Before Ken Adult Funny
BY OWEN MCCUE
Sitting in class earlier this week and listening to the conversation on Barbie, I was hoping to find a topic for my blog. Then someone threw out the phrase, 'Barbie World' and something clicked. "I'm a Barbie girl, in a Barbie world"[1] … I'd heard that line before.
The line comes from the Danish dance-pop group Aqua's 1997 song 'Barbie Girl.' Though the song was voted the worst song of the 1990s by Rolling Stone magazine's Readers Poll in 2011, the catchy tune is one I'm sure almost everyone knows.[2] I remember hearing it and singing along quite a few times growing up.
"Playfully naughty Euro-dance ditty," is how Billboard's Chuck Taylor described the song in August 1997.[3] Take a look at the music video, and I think that would be a good description. The song and the video are both cartoonish in a way, yet very, very sexualized.
The music video is full of pink. The female, who is supposed to be Barbie, has lots of makeup and several different outfits throughout. The band obviously does not see Barbie as some type of symbol for feminism or an innocent children's toy. In fact, it's quite the opposite. This was all lost on me as I grew up listening to it, but examining the lyrics now… Yikes.
You can brush my hair, undress me everywhere.
I'm a blond bimbo girl, in a fantasy world. / Dress me up, make it tight, I'm your dolly.
Make me walk, make me talk, do whatever you please . / I can act like a star, I can beg on my knees.[4]
Those are all lines sung by a female member of the band, playing the role of Barbie in the song and video. The male voice, or Ken, is even less subtle with his sexual innuendos, starting the song with the line, "Do you want to go for a ride?" which is supplemented with a wink in the video.[5] I don't think he is asking Barbie if she wants to hop in his car. That's made pretty obvious with the later line, "You're my doll, rock'n'roll, feel the glamor in pink . / Kiss me here, touch me there, hanky panky."[6]
The way Barbie is portrayed in this song reminds me of Barbie's origins. She was a knock off from the "Bild Lilli" doll, a German doll for adult males that was essentially a "three dimensional pin-up."[7] This song to me feels like a sarcastic take on the American Icon, highlighting all the damaging stereotypes Barbie portrays.
One of the most interesting parts of this song is that Mattel originally sued the band for copyright infringement.[8] The makers of the children's toy were not so happy that their product name was being associated in this sexual manner. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. It was ruled that the song was parody and therefore did not violate any copyright laws.
The reason I may remember having heard it so much growing up is that Mattell actually used the song in one of its marketing campaigns in 2009.[9] Though the lyrics were certainly altered a bit, the hook remained the same: "I'm a Barbie girl, in the Barbie world / Life in plastic, it's fantastic." I can understand the idea of having a catchy song associated with your product, but that just screams all kinds of weird. I think the saga of the 'Barbie Girl' song fits right into some of the other interesting chapters of Barbie's "playfully naughty" history.
[1] Aqua. "Barbie Girl." Released May 1997. InUniversal, MCA.
[2] "Readers Poll: The Worst Songs of the Nineties." Rolling Stone. August 31, 2011. Accessed March 29, 2018. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/readers-poll-the-worst-songs-of-the-nineties-20110831/1-aqua-barbie-girl-0315695.
[3] Taylor, Chuck. "Danish breakout group Aqua toys with U.S. pop success with its 'Barbie Girl.'(Air Waves)(Column)."Billboard, 30 Aug. 1997, p. 92+.Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A19845280/AONE?u=temple_main&sid=AONE&xid=595116d9. Accessed 29 Mar. 2018.
[4] Aqua. "Barbie Girl."
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Lord, M. G.Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. Fredericton, N.B.: Goose Lane Editions, 2004.
[8] Elliott, Stuart. "Years Later, Mattel Embraces 'Barbie Girl'." The New York Times. August 26, 2009. Accessed March 29, 2018. https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/years-later-mattel-embraces-barbie-girl/.
[9] Elliott, Stuart.
According to Mirror Mirror: Eating Disorder Help, if Barbie was a real woman, she would be 5'9" and weigh 120 pounds[1]. Her body fat percentage would be so low that she would not be able to menstruate.[2] So, if we allow children to play with such dolls, are we supplying them with unnecessary ideals of the female body?
Many Barbie dolls take on the average character of the happy cheerleader or shopping Barbie as seen above. In M.G. Lorde's Forever Barbie, "For every fluffy blond cheerleader who leaps breast forwards into an exaggerated gender rule, there is a recovering bulimic who refers to wear dresses and blames Barbie for her ordeal." [3]In a way, Barbie has set up these gender roles and standards for women of all ages. Women feel the need to be skinny based on the standards that society and the media lays out for them. I also feel that, Barbie has enforced this idea that pink is only a girls color, as seen in her many outfits and in your local Barbie toy aisle. So, it is extremely frowned for any boy to like the color pink, because it would automatically make him 'girly.'
In one study, girls who played with Barbie reported lower body image and a greater desire to be thinner than girls who played with other toys. It all come down to the question if Barbie is teaching children that to be liked, you have to be thin, white and blonde.[4] Personally, I never felt the need to look this way, but I did feel inferior to people who were white and have blonde hair. The reason for this was because I didn't look like the popular toy that other girls played with, so I had no representation out there that showed the color of my skin had beauty in it too. I am glad now that Mattel is introducing dolls that have different body types and skin tones, but is this representation of diversity better late than never?
There are perhaps hundreds and thousands of girls and even women that dream of looking like Barbie. Of those those thousands, there are probably hundreds of females that have tried. In the video above, this is just one of the many cases where women have undergone many surgeries in order to look like the famous doll. She event states that people have called her plastic and fake, but she doesn't care what they think as they are all just "jealous." She has also set up a savings account of $20,000 for her daughter in case she wants plastic surgery as well. I am not for or against plastic surgery, as I feel that if you are not satisfied with the way you look, you have every right to change it. However, when it comes to looking like a plastic doll, I am not sure where the line
[1] "Barbie and Body Image," Mirror Mirror Eating Disorder Help, last modified 2016, accessed March 29, 2018 https://www.mirror-mirror.org/barbie-and-body-image.htm
[2] Ibid.
[3] Lord, M. G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. Fredericton, N.B.: Goose Lane Editions, 2004. 14.
[4] "Barbie and Body Image," Mirror Mirror Eating Disorder Help, last modified 2016, accessed March 29, 2018 https://www.mirror-mirror.org/barbie-and-body-image.htm
VS.
Just last month, Chloe Kim became the youngest gold medal winner in Olympic women's snowboarding history at 17 years old. She won first place in the women's halfpipe event and brought the gold medal from PyeongChang home to the United States. This achievement was apparently significant enough to raise her status to Barbie-worthy. Kim is now featured as part of the Role Models line of Barbie dolls, alongside other female professionals like conservationist Bindi Irwin, model and body activist Ashley Graham, and historic aviator Amelia Earhart.[1] In bold pink letters on the Role Models page at barbie.mattel.com, one can read the statement "Imagining she can be anything is just the beginning. Actually seeing that she can makes all the difference." The idea that Barbie can show young girls all they can possibly become is nothing new. Barbie has always set out to teach girls "independence" and "all that [they] could be."[2] It was a major point for Mattel that the Barbie doll did not "teach [girls] to nurture"[3] or do housework, but rather to pursue careers outside the home and become strong women. But why was there a need or want for a toy to teach children this lesson? Well, that's because many other toys girls were playing with were painting a much different picture of women's place in society.
Many a childhood, especially those of the female population, included toys like kitchenware, vacuums, baby dolls and the like. I, for one, played house many times in my day. For nearly a century, toys that simulate or depict domestic chores and housekeeping items, the "rough housework"[4] Barbie didn't do, have been marketed to American girls. For example, an article by Elizabeth Sweet, a sociologist, wrote an article for The Atlantic that highlights Sears ads from 1925 and 1965 that market domestic tools like brooms and sewing machines and cookware, claiming, "Every little girl likes to play house, to sweep, and to do mother's work for her."[5] These types of toys worked to make a young girl into a "little homemaker"[6] rather than "to inspire the limitless potential in every girl" as Mattel claims to do with Barbie.[7]
Similar to the way toys that simulate housework convey the expectation that women are intended for taking care of the home, babydolls portray the expectation of a woman as also taking care of children. Take the Betsy Wetsy doll by Ideal that M. G. Lord refers to as "clinging, dependent."[8] One television commercial for Betsy Wetsy opens with a little girl thinking to herself, "When I grow up, I want to be a mommy." Luckily for her, she "can play mommy right now, with Ideal's Betsy Wetsy."[9] This advertisement clearly states that the ideal life a little girl should imagine for herself is that of a mother. With countless other babydolls filling toy store shelves, Betsy Wetsy was only a small piece of this expectation-setting. With the way domestic toys and babydolls portrayed the capabilities and goals of women, it is easy to see where Barbie could swoop in and be the more ambitious alternative.
I certainly fell into the idea of "girls' toys" and "boys' toys" growing up. But growing up with a little sister meant pulling my weight in the playhouse and leaving time for the Power Rangers and Polly Pocket to have a picnic after saving the world. It is only now at 21 years old that I have really tried to understand what some of our toys could represent or teach us. Looking at toy vacuums and babydolls as potentially at odds with Barbie dolls instead of all under the umbrella of "girls' toys" is a new critical lens that I don't think I could now ignore if I tried. For what it's worth, my sister, who played with all of these types of toys, is now an aspiring artist that cooks and cleans for herself and does not dote on any freeloading men.
[1] https://barbie.mattel.com/en-us/about/role-models.html (also follow this link for first Barbie Role Models image)
[2] M. G. Lord,Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll (Fredericton, N.B.: Goose Lane Editions, 2004), 9.
[3] Ibid., 9.
[4] Ibid., 10.
[5] Sweet, Elizabeth. "Toys Are More Divided by Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago." The Atlantic. December 09, 2014. Accessed March 29, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/toys-are-more-divided-by-gender-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/383556/. (also see this source for first Sears ad, 1925)
[6] Ibid.
[7] https://barbie.mattel.com/en-us/about/about-barbie.html
[8] M. G. Lord,Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll (Fredericton, N.B.: Goose Lane Editions, 2004), 9.
[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R9iUdk3EYs
Barbie is perhaps the most complex and most discussed children's toy in American history. The doll's social and cultural symbolism has been endlessly picked apart since Mattel first introduced Barbie in 1959. Pearson and Mullins write that Mattel has tried to "structure the meaning of Barbie in very distinct ways which reproduce particular versions of domesticity" [1] through her careers and housework, clothing, and accessories in various reproductions of the doll throughout history.
Her relationship status also plays into the image of domesticity she presents. Barbie was originally a young, single professional until Mattel gave into intense consumer demand and created Ken in 1961 as a "subservient male doll" with the sole purpose of being Barbie's escort [2]. Throughout the Sixties Ken's wardrobe, career options, and overall role in the Barbie world expanded; simultaneously, Barbie's domesticity increased and she was placed in more subordinate labor positions while Ken's activities displayed his influence over and masculine independence from Barbie [3].
In my mind I relate the gender dynamics in Barbie and Ken's relationship, as analyzed by Pearson and Mullins, to the (utterly disgusting and sexist) phrase "a woman's place is in the home/kitchen." One clear function of Barbie is the message she conveys about how society views women, and based on her track record, one could say that a dominant message is that women should beautify themselves, take care of housework, and do other forms of labor in service to men. Photographer Dina Goldstein presented a subversive take on Barbie and Ken's picture perfect home life with her 2012 photographic series In the Dollhouse.
Goldstein employed two actors to portray incredibly doll-like, life-sized versions of Barbie and Ken. The story takes place within the pink walls of the couple's dollhouse and follows them as Ken, "who has been trapped in an imposed marriage for over three decades," [4] discovers his gay sexuality, while Barbie's gradual insecurity over it turns into a mental breakdown that ends with her cutting off all her hair in a last-ditch effort to be what he wants.
In an interview for The Huffington Post in 2013, Goldstein said that she drew inspiration for the project from observing her two daughters role-play with the dolls. She personally sees Barbie as representative of "the concept that Beauty is Power and necessary to attain happiness" and to attract a partner. But when Ken expresses his individuality as a gay man, the value of beauty is stripped away and nothing Barbie is or does can make him stay. [5] I find In the Dollhouse to be a genius subversion of Barbie's symbolism. Not only does it toy with the longtime allusion to her beloved boyfriend being gay (Earring Magic Ken, anyone?), but it is also a play on the concepts of domesticity and nurturing that have been such a central part of the Barbie myth — and the female myth.
Traditional gender roles place pressure on women to be the ideal homemakers and girlfriends or wives for the sake of the men's satisfaction and benefit. In Goldstein's photo series, Barbie does everything right, from keeping up an outer appearance of beauty to cooking dinner for Ken, only to fail and lose him…in the end she is left with nothing but an empty facade of the life she thought she knew, the life she spent trying to satisfy Ken.
To me, this ties in well with the correlation between the Ken doll's growing roles and Barbie's limiting roles during the Sixties. With Mattel's introduction of Ken and his soaring popularity over the years, Barbie, who was once the star of her own show, was reduced to the nurturing, submissive girlfriend in certain scenarios and iterations.
Women bear the physical and emotional labor of creating and maintaining a perfect world in the home and in their relationships, and Goldstein's Barbie photo series goes where Mattel won't dare to: it shows the foolish nature of these expectations and the reality that is waiting to be exposed.
- Pearson, Marlys, and Paul R. Mullins. "Domesticating Barbie: An Archaeology of Barbie Material Culture and Domestic Ideology." 228-29.International Journal of Historical Archaeology3, no. 4 (December 1999). http://www.jstor.org/stable/20852937.
- Ibid, 236.
- Ibid, 240.
- "In The Dollhouse." Dina Goldstein. https://www.dinagoldstein.com/in-the-dollhouse/.
- Rudolph, Christopher. "Dina Goldstein, Photographer, Shares 'In The Dollhouse,' Barbie Discovering Ken's Gay Affair (PHOTOS)." The Huffington Post. May 16, 2013. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/dina-goldstein-in-the-dollhouse-barbie-ken-gay_n_3279824.html.
One of the important aspects of Barbie is not just the doll itself but how it is shaped (and has influenced) society and gender roles. In 1996, The Simpsons inspired by Mattel's release of 'The Teen Talk Barbie' released the episode Lisa vs Malibu Stacy. This is one of many examples of satire and critique in the realm of the television show. It is also one of the best examples of a critique of sexism within the series.
The Simpsons from the beginning provided social commentary on numerous aspects of American life. Matthew Henry writes, "Importantly,The Simpsons most commonly offers its satire from a leftist political position, and it works from this position to lambaste, among other things, the universality and normativity of so‐called 'traditional family values'…" [1] The Simpsons' dysfunctionality itself is a broad example of upsetting notions of traditional family values. In this episode specifically, it is Lisa's crusade against sexism that is the major aspect of this "leftist political position" the Simpson writers established.
The satire mirrors real world aspects surrounding Barbie and sexism as well as the corporate nature of the doll. The "Talking Malibu Stacey Doll" mirrors the real life "Teen Talking Barbie" and the episode homages the real-life tactics used to call out the sexism of the talking doll by activists. "the BLO [Barbie Liberation Organization] saw potential for social commentary and began switching the voiceboxes of the Teen Talk Barbie and the Talking Duke G.I. Joe and then placing them back on store shelves for unsuspecting consumers…"[2] The episode features one of the dolls quoting Spider-Man.
On top of that, the tactics used by the corporate Malibu Stacey execs compare to that of Barbie's in the 80s. Jill Barad, a former CEO at Mattel has said, "In marketing what you want to do is, you want to flank your brand… so there's very few areas of access for competitors"[3]The end of the episode ties into this notion, as Malibu Stacey cannibalizes sales from Lisa's talking doll simply because "she has a new hat" This scene in itself ties into the Simpsons critique of sexism, emphasized with notions of consumerism. It also mirrors the tactics used by Mattel in the 80s.
The response to the real life talking Barbie featured backlash after one of the phrases was "math is tough"[4] One of the major critics of the doll was The American Association of University of Women. "We are pleased that Barbie has finally been given a voice. But it is a shame that Mattel didn't give her a more confident one"[5] It was the activists with the AAUW that caused Mattel to remove the phrase from Barbie's voice box due to its stereotypical language. The AAUW points out that since this controversy Barbie has released other dolls encouraging women to excel in science and mathematics. This action reveals how Barbie continues to change from its early roles in domestic field. The "I Can Be Computer Engineer" doll does not discount the issues of body image and sexism controversy that surrounds Barbie and our culture views on Barbie.
Barbie is a challenging American Icon as at it's core "In many ways, this makes Barbie a toy designed by women for women to teach women what…is expected of them by society"[6] The role Barbie plays in emphasizing expectations has been challenged in the past despite the doll's popularity. Its longevity and continued popularity has opened doors for satire and criticism on top of intellectual discussion. This continued discussion makes the doll, cultural one of the most complicated American Icons
[7] figure 1 Screenshot from Simpsons episode
[8] Real Life talking Barbie doll
[1] Henry, Matthew "Don't Ask me, I'm Just a Girl": Feminism, Female Identity, and The Simpsons 7 March 2007 The Journal of Pop Culture Vol 40, issue 2 https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.libproxy.temple.edu/doi/full/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2007.00379.x
[2] Ibid.,
[3] The Toys That Made Us Documentary; Barbie, directed by Tom Stern Nacelle Productions
[4] "COMPANY NEWS: Mattel Says It Erred; Teen Talk Barbie Turns Silent on Math" The New York Times 1992 The Associated Press
[5] Hill, Catherine "From Discouraged Math Student to Computer Engineer: One Doll's Story" https://www.aauw.org/2013/12/11/barbies-story/ 11 Dec 2013 American Association of University Women
[6] Lord M.G Forever Barbie, William Morrow and Company, INC pg 8
[7] Oakley, Bill & Weinstein Josh "Lisa vs Malibu Stacey" 17 Feb 1994 Fox Television
[8] Teen Talking Barbie image Mattel Google images
I first saw this advertisement in my Mosaics II class as we were reading Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman . My first thought was about how these little girls were inspired by Barbie to become what they want to be. However, after a lengthy discussion with my classmates and several more times viewing the ad, I found it to be beyond problematic.
First of all, the reactions of the adults in the video are extremely troubling. Everyone is laughing at these little girls. Sure it is cute and a little bit silly, but they are completely discrediting the possibility that these girls are extremely intelligent and can lecture about the brain or can lead a tour about dinosaurs.
Assuming that the dialogue of the girls was scripted and the reactions of the adults were genuine, I find another flaw in the ad. These little girls say some of the most ridiculous, off the wall, and unintelligent lines. In the scene where the girl is a veterinarian she says something about her cat being able to fly. That is completely damaging to everything Barbie claims to stand for. How can this girl be taken seriously if she is portrayed as being unintelligent and incapable of performing her job?
As far as my critique of what is shown in the ad, I have one last problem to address. At the end of the ad, the girl is still playing with her Barbie dolls. This strikes me as problematic because it is as if she was just playing pretend the whole time she was pursuing her dreams. It's as if she will always be pretending. It would have been way more effective to show women in the careers depicted as well instead of just making the thought of being a soccer coach or a professor seem like a pipe dream.
Today we are living in a world where gender identities are fluid. This advertisement completely ignores that notion. Sure, we are living in a time where Barbie is seen as a sign of empowerment for females, but in a society with non-binary genders it is important to recognize that anyone can feel empowered by Barbie. There is even DNA evidence to prove that more than two genders exist. [1] And of course I cannot forget to mention that Barbie in the ad and historically speaking has features that are humanly unattainable. [2] The girls in the ad are only playing with thin, traditionally shaped Barbies (though there is an African American one in the mix). The current advertising style and feminist ideals of Barbie are quite antiquated and unrepresentative of the population she currently inspires.
[1]Lord, M. G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. Fredericton, N.B.: Goose Lane Editions, 2004. 14.
[2] Ibid.
Gordon Parks made a huge statement with his photograph of Ella Watson, naming itAmerican Gothic.A clear critique of the state of the country in 1942, Parks attempted to capture a screenshot of life in Washington, D.C. Parks claimed to experience bigotry unlike anything he had witnessed before while working in that city and felt very passionately about the issue.[1] Ironically, Parks was commissioned to work for the Farm Security Administration when he took this picture with the goal of bringing attention to the poverty among white farmers in the Midwest and West.[2] This photo that Parks took has the same effect that the administration was hoping for, just with a different demographic in the spotlight. Parks highlights the struggle of black citizens during this time. Ella Watson is portrayed as hard working, but her expression and the set-up of the picture speaks volumes about the situation she is in.
Photography can be an immensely moving platform for fighting for a cause, and a modern-day example, very similar to Parks' work is shown in Colin Kaepernick's photo-shoot with GQ for winning "Man of the Year". Colin Kaepernick is famous for fighting for equal rights through his popularity as a quarterback in the NFL. A huge supporter of Black Lives Matter, Kaepernick drew national attention as he silently protested by kneeling during the national anthem before his games. He was shown massive support from teammates and other players around the league, but was heavily criticized by many white Americans, being told to stay in his place and shut up and play football.
People called him a hypocrite for protesting for equal rights when he was making millions of dollars a year, but the GQ photo-shoot speaks volumes for Kaepernick's cause. He is shown in Harlem, among the people that he was fighting so heavily for.[3] Just like American Gothic by Parks, the photo shows Kaepernick and the people of Harlem in "natural" settings that are meant to portray their lives and their situations. This photo-shoot was meant to highlight Kaepernick and his cause, but I feel that it also does a very good job of bringing attention to people in bad situations who need help, similar to the goal of the Farm Security Administration. If Grant Wood's painting was the first American Gothic, and Parks' photo was the second American Gothic, I think that these photos of Kaepernick can be considered the third installment of the American Gothic series.
[1] "American Gothic, Washington, D.C., 1942," Arts MIA. https://collections.artsmia.org/art/100557/american-gothic-washington-d-c-gordon-parks
[2] "Farm Security Administration," Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_Security_Administration#Photography_program
[3] Martin Schoeller, "Colin Kaepernick Will Not Be Silenced," GQ. November 13, 2017. https://www.gq.com/story/colin-kaepernick-will-not-be-silenced
By Owen McCue
Grant Wood's 1930 painting, "American Gothic" is probably the most intriguing American icon we've studied this semester in that it is so different from the rest.
There is no doubt the image is universally recognized. As Wanda Corn describes, it "pervades our culture."[1] She mentions its use in greeting cards, political cartoons and advertising.[2] It continues to have an impact in pop cultural today, especially through social media.
Like the statue of Liberty and Betsy Ross, the likeness of "American Gothic" has been merchandised and widely circulated, one of Martin Kemp's qualifications for an icon, but why?[3] Unlike Ross and Lady Liberty, there is no clear American value the image evokes. The Statue of Liberty has tied to it values of freedom and opportunity. Ross' tie to the American flag celebrates the patriotic woman and evokes the patriotism tied to the American Revolution.
So what about two stern looking Midwesterners posing in in front of their house? You could point to the pitchfork and say the painting carries with it the American value of hard work or look at the farmers in front of their house and make a claim people get a feeling of the individualism of the Heartland when they look at the image. However, as Corn explains, even those who studied the work at that time felt Wood's work was a piece of satire directed at his upbringing.[4]
With all apologies to Wood, I think whatever the original intent of his image was, that message has been lost. His use of the gothic window, his painting of the potted plants on the front porch are no longer, or even is decision to substitute a rake for the pitchfork seem trivial when the pitchfork is now being replaced with light sabers and golf clubs.[5]
American Gothic doesn't carry it with the sacredness or holiness, as Martin Kemp describes it, of the other American icons, which makes it OK to distort.[6]You can see how liberally people use the image above.
The reason the image is so iconic today is simply due to it's … wait for it … simplicity. Because it is so simple, the painting can easily be manipulated for a quick joke or political and/or cultural jab. Add a prop in the man's hand or paste some faces on the bodies, and suddenly you've got yourself a viral image. There is even an American Gothic meme generator.
It doesn't sound academic, and I'm sure Wood would roll over in grave if he saw his work of art is being used today, but I believe the reason that's the reason it continues to be an image recognized by so many Americans.
[1] Wanda, Corn. The Birth of a National Icon: Grant Wood's American Gothic. The Art Institue of Chicago, 1983.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Kemp, Martin. In Christ to Coke: How Image Become Icon. Oxford University Press, 2012.
[4] Wanda, Corn. The Birth of a National Icon: Grant Wood's American Gothic. The Art Institue of Chicago, 1983.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Kemp, Martin. In Christ to Coke: How Image Become Icon. Oxford University Press, 2012.
The "American Gothic" by Grant Wood is for sure an American Icon. Almost everyone in America recognizes the painting of these people, although most don't really know where or when the picture is from. As advertising companies and other companies and political cartoonists tend to use icons in their work, they also do that for this painting.
In advertisements, this very known painting is used many times so that people can recognize the image the are seeing, and associate the product with the painting. Nescafè, a coffee brand, uses this painting with the two people in the picture shown with especially wide eyes, showing that they are wide awake due to Nescafè's product that they are advertising, the Instant Espresso. Another example is when Naked Juice released an advertisement with two people with a pitchfork in between them, playing off of this painting. Another blog talked about the link between this ad and the painting, and has a hard time with it because the entirety of the ad is pretty much flipped around in the Naked ad [1]. I find this interesting and goes back to when we talked about how the subway advertisement with the Statue of Liberty created a lot of backlash for the negative connotations it had for Americans. It is interesting that this ad sexualizes the iconic painting and changes its meaning from hard workingness, etc to a lackadaisical nature, and yet it still has not caused an uproar, and I actually had to do a little bit of digging to find this. It shows that while this is an icon, it is not up to the caliber of the Statue of Liberty in terms of being recognized as a symbol for the American people.
Forbes used this painting in a very similar way that Subway used the Statue of Liberty too, showing that the country is getting fatter by showing these two figures, but adding a significant amount of weight to them. Interesting depictions of the painting show the two people replaced by different characters, such as Kermit and Ms. Piggie, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Barack and Michelle Obama. I like how it associates pairs that people always think about, and in a way it shows other people who are hardworking, such as Barack and Hillary. 
These different depictions of "American Gothic" by Grant Wood, as stated by Wanda Corn [2], don't always get Wood's point of view and idea for what he wanted to get across to come, but it is inspiring to see different ways and what it means to other people in America.
[1] rstanf3. "Let's Critique a Naked Juice Ad!" Insert Name Here [Blog], 9 Mar. 2014, rstanf3.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/semiotic-criticism/.
[2] Wanda Corn, The Birth of a National Icon: Grant Wood's American Gothic (Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1983) 253.
The painting American Gothic by Grant Wood is one of the most recognizable images in American history, despite not many people even knowing its name. Though, what exactly granted the image its iconic status? This question is still being asked today, as not many people understand why it is so memorable. It is not the most intricate piece of art in the world, nor does it feature the most beautiful subjects. I believe it is able to continue to remain a notable piece of art because of its ability to have its meaning interpreted in numerous ways, thus be continually discussed throughout time. Wood originally painted the portrait "to be a positive statement about rural American values, an image of reassurance at a time of great dislocation and disillusionment," yet it is still "often understood as a satirical comment on the Midwestern character".[1] Regardless, its satirical background is what stuck, along with a variety of other explanations, and it became a staple of American art. Another notable American piece of artwork with an ambiguous message is Edward Hooper's Nighthawk (pictured below).
Like American Gothic, it can currently be found in the Art Institute of Chicago, as well as being absent of any spectacular components, for it is a simple diner with four inhabitants on a street corner, yet millions of people still gravitate towards it. Some do note "Hopper's understanding of the expressive possibilities of light playing on simplified shapes gives the painting its beauty."[2] I believe that what makes it stand out from any other painting, similarly to Wood's piece, is the lack of any explicit message being conveyed. Even if there was something on the mind of the artist while creating it, people can still translate the image in their own way. I am not even too sure about why I like Nighthawks so much, but it still manages to resonate with me and be one of my favorite scenes. Another huge contributor to the two artworks' fame are the parodies created inspired by these two paintings. Their iconic statuses are so prevalent that they are often recreating using cartoon characters, celebrities, or even political figures to signify topics ranging from pop culture to the political climate. Boulevard of Broken Dreams by Gottfried Helnwein, which reimagines Nighthawks with Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, Humphrey Bogart, and James Dean, is iconic in its own right. People today seeing their favorite figures inserted into these classics keeps their memory alive. While it can be argued that parodies degrade the value or significance of the paintings, it should be seen as an act of flattery. The originals are still acknowledged for their importance to this day, so people see them as worthy of being spoofed.
[1] "American Gothic." Art Institute of Chicago. http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/6565
[2] "Nighthawks." Art Institute of Chicago. http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/111628
Source: https://sites.temple.edu/americanicons/2018/03/
0 Response to "Pic Barbie Kneeling Before Ken Adult Funny"
Post a Comment