WWW.HAUSSITE.NET > SCRIPT SECTION
Title: Buy baby, buy
Author: Sarah Mansell (London)
Sarah Mansell in conversation with Rick Poynor, 1999
Buy baby, buy
Sarah Mansell
"Loaded's priorities reflected those of a younger generation of men cowering
in the shadow of a female liberation they were unable or unwilling to understand.
The concerns of the new lads were beer, football, drugs and, with a dashing
touch of whimsy, biscuits. And women, or at least birds."
Caroline Roux, Eye, n.24
British
lifestyle magazines for men, such as Arena, GQ, Loaded and
FHM, are using images of female flesh to sell. The new
social reality? Revenge of the lads? Or just a good joke?
Sarah Mansell: You come from the position of journalist, with
knowledge gained through working for a number of years in the
field of design and the visual arts. As a writer and an
editor, can you give a description of British magazines aimed
at the male market in the early to mid-1980s?
Rick Poynor: in the early to mid-1980s in England, there were
no general interest newsstand magazines aimed at men, apart
from the established "top-shelf" pin-up titles such
as Mayfair or Playboy - an American import -
and the more provocative semi-porn publications such as Whitehouse.
With so many men's magazines selling so well in the 1990s,
it's easy to forget what a breakthrough it was when the
publishers of The Face launched Arena, aimed
especially at young men, in 1986. They took an educated guess
and discovered there was a readership for the male equivalent
of a women's magazine. A British edition of the American
title GQ, published by Conde Nast, soon followed in
1988. But in the late 1980s both magazines shied away from
showing female flesh. They tended to put inspirational males
- architects, actors, sportsmen - on the covers.
S.M.: I know that a backlash against feminism and the
representation of women occured in the late 1980s, but I
wonder where this stemmed from and also how it translated
into creating a space for the birth of a new breed of men's
magazines?
R.P.: I'm not sure that this "backlash" was quite
as emphatic at that stage as you make it sound. As I say
these magazines were actually quit ecautious at first. When Arena
ran its first "Girls!" cover story about its
"100 favourite women" in the Winter 90/91 issue, it
took regular readers by surprise, restrained as it now looks
in comparison of what followed. It simply wasn't done to
drool over pictures of semi-naked women at that point - not
publicly anyway. That was something for the top-shelf
brigade, and no one would readily admit to belong to that
group, even if they were one-handed readers in private. The
phenomenon we're actually talking about dates from the
arrival of Loaded in 1994. Loaded dared to say:
yes we are like this in private, actually. We're tired of
having to put on a front and pretend we're not. We like it
this way, so get used to it. They did this with tremendous
journalistic invention and wit, and made it hard to object -
or you would look like a stuffed shirt, a bore, a prude.
Before long Loaded was being celebrated everywhere as
the magazine of the moment, everyone was reading it, and
other publishers quickly followed suit. As the nipple count
rose the sales ensued.
S.M.: Magazines such as Loaded, GQ, FHM and Maxim
although supposedly appealing to different audiences, whether
uppermarket or lads, all sell themselves on a commodification
of flesh, female flesh. The agenda to present women as
passive objects or highly charged sexual in their stance
seems dedicated to the pleasure of men. What concerns and
interests me is that these creations were, I presume, created
by men for men. How do you think this would have been
different if the industry were run by more women, especially
women working as editors or designers, or possibly both?
R.P.: Arena was edited by a woman in the 1990s -
Kathryn Flett - and the swimwear imagery significantly
increased during her editorship, though Arena was a
model of taste and restraint compared to some other titles. Maxim
one of the crassest, was also edited by a woman, Gill
Hudson. In the Eye article, when asked about her
responsibility, as a female editor towards the role of women
in society, she says: "I'm not trying to benefit
mankind. I'm trying to sell a magazine." You could say
these women are actually giving a male industry what they
perceive it wants, but that still doesn't explain why they
have chosen to put themselves in that role.
S.M.: There is no law stating that as a professional woman
must deal with feminist issues in your work. Yet if you are a
woman, that fact is inescapable. I think that in an
environment dominated by men, and by predominantly male
attitudes, there can be a pressure, accepted by many women,
to either play therole of the sexually desirable object, or
"if I can't beat them, join them" and behave like a
lad or "man" in a man's world. This is where the
premise of the "ladette" seems to stem from. You
see it in everything from late-night Channel 4 series The
Girlie Show to ITVs Babes in the Wood - the female
equivalent of Men Behaving Badly, a British TV series
about two men who are undoubtedly lads - and in the love/hate
relationship that media has with stars such as ex-TV weather
girl and now presenter Ulrika Jonsson. She's a
Guiness-drinking babe who appears to have it all: blonde
hair, bubbly, beautiful and with no strings attached. Some
women are trying to emulate a very male set of
characteristics rather than resist them. Can they not be both
at the same time? Or do you think that this is also a media
falsification?
R.P.: For a while it seemed so as if some young women wanted
to become lads themselves - dizzy blonde TV presenter Zoe
Ball bragging about her drinking exploits etc. it's sad to
see an audience of young women fall into line with these
images, which do them no favour. As role models these people
seem so vacuous and uninteresting - so unimaginative. But
it's your generation, how do you explain it?
S.M.: I think that these women's behaviour (as it is
presented in the media) is also connected to the notion of
"cool" or being "cool". Tabloid column
inches are continually devoted to the party details of
celebrity couples. This is the information deemed important
for the nation to digest. Yet these people are followers of
fashion, who don't seem too concerned about the effect of
their behaviour on impressionable teenagers. They choose to
live in a cocoon rather than to be individuals and stand
apart and face the possibility of not being cool, for what
they believe.
This is where the fantasy begins to shape our social
behaviour, as it filters into society through every level -
music, television - and eventually becomes the norm. Today we
are supposed to be beautiful, wear the right clothes. The
media also sugests that we must be willing to take them off
when required. What concerns me even more is the conformity
of opinion, that this is all acceptable. The popularity of
such series as Baywatch has added to the
standardisation of such depictions, but I wonder if we could
have predicted the revival of the "Miss World
Contest"? These examples are both about viewing
beautiful women with few clothes on. What are the social
implications of the popularity of a media-created celebrity
such as Melinda Messenger, the English equivalent of Pamela
Anderson? Both of them are the epitome of a specifically male
Barbie doll sexual fantasy, with large silicone implants, a
pretty face and big blonde hair. We see them both as images
that don't answer back. These are the sweetwomen who make
money by keeping their mouth shut. This is not even about the
idea of a life based on nothing more than simply looking
good. Melinda became a television presenter through her
presence in mainstream media. How many other young women will
feel that the only way to become a celebrity is to have
implants and make sure that they are seen with the right set
of people? Of course, certain imagery within magazines will
be approved of, or disapproved of, by some, but when you are
expected to take your clothes of to become a celebrity surely
something is wrong?
R.P.: The way you put it seems to imply that it's a natural
point for all young women to want to become famous, in the
celebrity sense. But the pervasive desire for media
celebrities is a symptom of precisely the kind of distorted
expectations we are accusing Loaded and these other
magazines of. The tabloid media are perfectly aware of the
exploitation and self-referentiality, they can even turn the
hunger for stardom into a "story". Recently we've
started to see items on TV and in the press about media
fixated women desperate to become celebrities at all costs.
Taking your clothes off for the camera is the very essence of
this form of celebrity. If you want it thats the name of the
game and some women would say they have benefitted from the
transaction. So what we'r asking for is not other ways of
becoming a celebrity - a contradiction in terms - but other
ways of realising and validating yourself as an achieving
individual woman.
S.M.: Loaded has claimed that its stance is post-modern and
that it delivers an ironic view of contemporary culture.
However it seems to lack a critique of that
"culture" it is representing. As readers we are
offered no alternative to the idea that sex sells. Designer
clothes will offer the opportunity for sex and everyone
involved in that scenario is beautiful, and of course rich.
The representation of men and women in such publications is
false in my opinion.
R.P.: There are inherent problems in such magazines, as
editorial creations, that precede the question of sexist
imagery. They are consumer titles which exist to sell
advertising. Their editorial embodies the same values and
their advertising and supports that end. So its no surprise
that they are prepared to commodify images of women if these
will sell magazines. Magazines like this are no place for
critical discussion. That's why the notion that women
managers and editors might serve here as a support of women
seems to me unlikely. If a group of women felt strongly about
it there is nothing from stopping them to launch a
female-directed title aimed at men, apart from market
realities. I can't see it happen can you?
S.M.: No, I can't, but what is interesting for me is that you
see beyond this imagery as illustration. This is not about
being simply sexist. It is about selling material objects
through the device of a magazine. The crux is that whoever is
in control, advertisers or editors, is prepared to use
whatever means are required to sell their products. This
currently takes the form of using sex, but who knows what
might be exploited in the future. Loaded seems
carefully constructed by its use of images. Their styling,
clothes featured, the fantastic make-up and even the models
way of addressing the camera. The layout of these masquerades
supported by tabloid style headlines produces a single layer
of meaning in the publication. I feel that I am offered only
one view of the best way to live my life, and more
importantly, that as consumers we should all be something
aspiring to. Real women who are strong, confident high
achievers are excluded from these magazines. Loaded
portrays a James Bond lifestyle for men, which includes tacky
erotic encounters, expensive travel and designer clothing and
accessories, without a worry of any kind. I wonder what an
average sixteen-year-old gains from this representation of
women.
R.P.: I agree with you on the narrowness of these magazines'
worldview. They treat life in the most materialist terms.
They seem unaware of - or openly mock - other possibilities.
They reinforce a myopic conformity under the guise of a
hedonistic consumer freedom as the path of self-fullfillment.
But what is about these magazines in your view that readers
find so irresistable?
S.M.: I think that they allow "men to be boys" in
an adult world. In an environment where we are encouraged to
be titillated by the equivalent of the lingerie pages in a
catalogue and aspire owning the latest designer toys. Who
would want to argue with a publication that simply encourages
us to want, want, want. However I don't think that the
average readers see the actual message: buy, buy, buy. In
patronizing a publication such as Loaded you made the
first step of owning the objects presented within it. This
mythical lifetsyle is not limited to the magazine culture.
The British pop star and celebrity Robbie Williams has
suffered both drug and alcohol abuse along with making highly
publicised comments about the sexuality of other people in
media yet he sells millions of records and is celebrated as
the man that any woman would be glad to present to her
mother. The popularity of the series Men Behaving Badly
encourages prejudices and shallow thinking, especially about
women and sexual encounters, while also swearing and
promoting beer drinking.
R.P.: Well again general reaction to Men Behaving Badly
(which admittedly is at times very funny) seemed to be: ah!
what a relief, at last a TV sitcom that dares to tell the
truth about men. As with Loaded we were invited to see
the male psyche and behaviour revealed by the programme as
deeply flawed, but all the more loveable for that. Why don't
these two women leave this pair of idiots? In the programmes
warped universe we are made to believe that this is as good
as it can get.
S.M.: The exploitation of flesh and the stereotypical
representation with which we are presented have become
normalised in the race to sell magazines. In doing so a
social model has also been changed. These images are not
questioned but simply laughed at. Their general acceptance
has allowed the advertising industry to adopt a similar
attitude. If the widespread reality that "women's
breasts sell copies", as Caroline Roux puts it, how will
we ever move to a new agenda? Doesn't this immediately make
it more difficult to change the visual culture of these
magazines?
R.P.: Yes, there is a real problem. The visual culture of
these magazines is an expression of social forces and in turn
- a kind of feedback loop - helps to reinforce those trends.
The restrain that previously existed in British publishing
which some people would now ridicule as political
correctness, was the result of intense campaining and a huge
amount of media discussion by the 1960s/70s generation of
feminists. By the early '80s when I started to work in
magazines a non-sexist attitude had been internalised by
British journalists. Whatever the private views of
individuals, this was the collectively agreed, official view
of the National Union of Journalists. I remember seeing a
male editor reject an advert intended to support hardware,
because it made useof a scantily dressed woman. The
advertising people had to go back and tell the advertisers
that we wouldn't run the ad in that form. This kind of
self-policing was still around when Arena was
launched. And that is why they were even wary putting clothed
woman on the cover. I don't think we will see any more
careful aproach to imagery unless very strong campaigning
women (like the earlier feminists) force this issue to the
top of the agenda again.
S.M.: We are talking about mainstream publishing and magazine
design, but in my opinion the use of highly stylised,
sophisticated and constructed imagery containing a specific
attitude towards the depiction of women can be seen as the
accepted form of pornography. These women, specifically
chosen for their limited talents, are shown in a variety of
scantily clad poses. However these features are legitimised
by the supporting presence of a supposedly more serious
interview or article in which the starlet or singer talks
about her work or lifestyle. Both are achieved through humour
and the endorsement of well-known brandnames and advertising.
We are presented with a set of familiar faces associated with
television or radio, rather than pornography, but the message
(continually reiterated in every issue) is that these women
are willing to remove their clothing for a photograph or two.
As though this was natural and inevitable for them to do so.
By presenting a sexual content through the use of one-liners
such as "pure sex" and "she rocks", we
are reminded that as with pornography, sex sells. In this
case designer clothings and luxurious lifestyle. I find this
controlled and systematic approach less honest than that of
actual pornographic magazines. This subterfuge allows Loaded
to be not only seen as acceptable but also as cool purchase.
While pornography is something "other" that is
still not considered acceptable.The implications of this
hypocrisy for contemporary culture are disturbing.
R.P.: Pornography is, of course, one of the regular
inspirations for these men's magazines. As we showed in Eye,
their reportoire of model poses is borrowed from the softer
end of porn publishing. A favourite men's mag ploy is to send
a journalist to the US porn industry awards, to get the
"story". This allows the magazines to sample and
appropriate porn's atmosphere and sense a forbidden
excitement. The effect of this to normalize porn itself. I
share your feeling that there is something more
"honest" about pure porn without this second
mediating layer, though the issue is incredibly complex, with
the porn libertarians, many of them academics at permanent
loggerheads with anti-porn campaigners like Andrea Dworkin
and Catherine MacKinnon who find all pornography abusive and
unacceptable.
S.M.: To end with a rhetorical question: can design be ever
harmless fun?
R.P.: Of course. But in this very knowing and sometimes
cynical age, highly skilled at concealing its real purposes
below engaging, attractive, seductive surfaces. The critical
challenge is discovering when "harmless fun" masks
something in realty far from amusing.
Rick Poynor: (rpoynor@dircon.co.uk) Based in London, Rick
writes for design magazines all over the world. He is
currently a visiting professor at the Royal College of Art in
London.
Sarah Mansell, based in London, is interested in a critique of visual culture and continuosly questions the stereotypes embedded in contemporary design.