Avant Guard, comparing two examples

Avant Garde

http://blog.eyemagazine.com/?p=543

In approximately 300 words discuss the concept of the 'Avant Garde' in relation to two examples of Graphic Design. Include pictures and full references to the works you are discussing.

Avant Garde defined,  “Any creative group active in the innovation and application of new concepts that are radically new or original, by using techniques in a given field.”

To summarize, Avant Garde is a state of creating the new, by experimenting above others before you. Its aim is to be individual and revolutionary, making a stand against the usual, thinking outside of the box. Due to this desire of creating work so against the norm, it is usually not understood. When understood, it is believed to no longer be Avant Garde. This stimulates feels of failure mostly in Artists and Musicians when their unique and soulful work becomes mainstream and common, creating the phrase “they just don’t understand”.

This piece of design is taken from the front cover of the third issue of ‘Avant-Garde’, May 1968, the magazine focused on a feature entitled ‘Revaluation of the Dollar where 19 Artists Designed a New One-Dollar Bill.’ Artists all clearly trying to create work against the grain, but by publishing their work in a popular magazine made it accessible and out there. The bright colours relate to the time period following the ‘Free Love’ movement questioning the use of Avant Garde, as to me all of these designs on the cover and inside conform to the style of that time period and defiantly do not feel out of place. Maybe the term is applied to technique of changing a dollar bills design, but the design itself is not Avant Guard.

I found it very hard to try and find bad examples of Avant Garde, or maybe they are good examples because I do not understand? So instead I have looked at Ad Busters. Ad busters I well know for going against the gain and fighting against corporate consumption. In my eyes I understand its work, I know why they are doing it, so how can it possibly be Avant Garde? For people with knowledge on the subjects they understand but to a civilian they are baffled by the imagery and confused by the smite against their materialistic world.

In conclusion I believe Avant Garde depends on the viewer, some of the audience will understand the design, whereas others will like it, never truly grasp its meaning. I feel like Avant Garde can never truly exist in Graphic design or in Art. As to purposely set out to be unattainable and never understood, does that not give you an excuse to fail on purpose?

'Advertising doesn't sell things; all advertising does is change the way people think or feel' (Jeremy Bullmore). Evaluate this statement with reference to selected critical theories

It is nonnegotiable Advertising is everywhere! Undeniably the most influential design media in the Western world. “In our urban world, in the streets where we walk, in the buses we take, in the magazines we read, on walls on screens, we are surrounded by images of a alternative way of life.” (John Berger, Ways of seeing 0.20 pt1). It is everywhere, it is in escapable and it’s purpose is to sell a product, but the way it executes itself suggests that all it really does it change people’s feelings, in order to make a NEED for the product. Not only will I look into the method of advertising but also specifically how it works by idolising the “prefect” and belittling the audience into buying products to console their insecurities.

John Berger makes some interesting comments on this subject in the series of “Ways Of Seeing”; he makes his points clearly and outlines the industry rules. Berger posses the argument that all Adverts are images that are selling the audience an alternative life. Within our media filled lifestyle, publicity works are the process of making attraction due to the birth of envy. These adverts always show a life of glamour engraving this into our brains as an apparitional goal. “Glamour is for everyone who believes they can be glamorous or perhaps for everybody who finds they cannot afford not to be glamorous. Now the model has taken the place of the Goddess.” (John Berger, Ways of seeing 3.48) Advertising prays on the insecure and targeted them as a way of securing their self-worth in products. Making people feel inadequate is an unfailing method used to promote products. Due to the celebrity and publicity world and we live in, people secure their interests in the latest and greatest gadgets and objects to be owned.  Pier pressure is a massive part of the need people feel to own the best of the best. This fuels people’s needs of always wanting to be the best and owning the newest and glamorous objects.

Some wise words “Publicity proposes to each of us that if we change our lives by buying something more, this more will make us in someway richer, although we will be poorer by having spend out money. And Publicity persuades us of this transformation by showing us people that have apparently been transformed, and are as a result enviable. This state of being enviable is what constitutes glamour.” (3.00) Reading this puts things into perspective. Why do people see the necessity in buying into the adverts, buying the products and hoping for the lifestyle promoted. Buying into this thinking defies who we are as a person, our processions end up defining us, not our personality. This is as if they can buy themselves character and merit. It’s a fact that our culture demands us to buy products to gain, and keep social status; it’s ridiculous that advertising can affect us so easily. Yet it is so true, everyday people judge each other on cloths, branding, and appearance, etc. measuring them up to the “perfect” idealistic god/goddess represented in adverting, the desirable lifestyle. “We feel a need to belong, to have a social ‘place’.” (Decoding Advertising, Judith Williamson, pg 13, 1978) It is clear we use commodities as shortcuts of knowing who people really are, we observe their appearance and draw conclusions in seconds on a glance.  We buy products to make ourselves more like these dream characters, who could never exist in the real world. We lie to ourselves and to each other, leaving the question of can we really blame advertising for our way of thinking, or is this our own selfish need to be the best. Advertising is used similar to the way that art was only for the rich and well educated years ago, advertising is projected onto all of us showing us the rich and allete life we ‘could’ have.

“Instead of being identified by what they produce, people identify themselves through what they consume.” (Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844)) It creates the feeling that newer is better, even when things work perfectly fine there is always something that appears newer and instantly more desirable than ‘older’ commodities. The newer models feel more magical and somehow we forget about the real nature of the product. A great example of this are the latest iphones, apple clearly had the technology to produce the first iphone with a camera, HD video recording screen, webcam calls and high-resolution screen. But they realised the iphone1 with minimalistic extras, to gain hype and create more revenue from people purchasing all the upgraded versions to stay ‘on trend’. Apple can afford to do this because people are happy to buy into the brand, as its desirable and glamorous seen across product placements to street credit. It was interesting to find out that ‘7% of our wealth is owned by 84% of our population.’ Making people buy things they don’t need. Raising the inevitable question why do we let ourselves feel inferior, just so we will buy into this idea and in turn make the companies richer and us poorer.

Looking further into advertising and its relationship of using sex to sell products. Where women are labelled as either Housewives or whores. Easily sexualised creating bad stereotypes that still surround them even after all of these years of fighting.

Sex appeal is a fact. Nudity always interests. But, its not shocking anymore, so adverts are no longer judged on exposure, but hotness of the body. Adding to the pressure to be ‘beautiful’. “All ideology has the function (which defines it) of “constituting” concrete individuals as subjects” (Judith Williamson, decoding advertising. Louis Althusser, Reading Capital 1970). In other words, the models sell the product; they become objects in the process, creating a fake unattainable dream.

Not only does advertising change the feelings of the target audience they also influence people who are unintentionally consuming them. “A 14 year old girl asked if she could shave off her pubic hair. Why? The poor, misguided girl thought there was something wrong with her body because no on has any hair down their on ads or catalogues. And you thought advertising featuring sexy hairless models was a relatively harmless was of showcasing a product? They’re selling something else aren’t they? Something unattainable? Oh but it’s attainable, you say . . .You’ll look just like the models. You’ll be prefect” (pg 104). A great example of how advertising is seen as realistic and normal. It’s sad that children think that they are abnormal, proving that advertising can damage people’s perception of themselves, and influences the vulnerable.

Which leads onto the point that is advertising damaging our way of living, changing our perceptions about the world and ourselves without us realising. ‘History will see advertising as one of the real evils of our time. It is stimulating people to want things, want this, want that, there is no end to it’ (Malcom Muggerridge). From a young age SEX makes advertising interesting, half naked models are plastered everywhere. Some sees these images as inspirational, but this could be argued that their aspiration is to be screw able. Sex sells, or that’s what the cliché says, but this cannot be a good message to send to all people. Young teenagers see these adverts everyday, (the impressionable part of society). They are most likely to believe that to be anything they MUST look like that, dress like that and behave like that ‘perfect’ woman/man. In relation to adults, they should know better, but women believe in sexualising themselves, influenced by magazine articles and images to be “beautiful” and trick gullible men (to be an adonace). Leaving me to wonder, does this really work. It all becomes a matter of why people want to impress strangers. To spend all your time earning money to buy these objects and to live that lifestyle, unless it makes you truly happy, you’re living a lie.

Clothing ads and perfumes are notorious for sexualising women, but also males. Idolising the “prefect” body, adding to the pressure to be the best, even at cost to them.

A brilliant example of Advertising objectifying women comes from the LEE JEANS “Lolita” Spring/Summer campaign 2006. Photographed by well-known artist Terry Richardson whose work is commonly crossing the boarders between photography and pornography. Some view this campaign as sexy inspiratational and buy into the fact that the screw able model could be a template for what they could look like with a pair of LEE jeans, while others referees to this as paedophilic and pornographic. Containing clichés of soft porn: next to no clothing, suggestive stances, wide spread legs and lolly pops being sucked, etc. Lee Jeans claimed it “tongue in cheek, kitschy and over-exaggerated portrayal of classic denim poses“. Where as others claimed Richardson’s images clearly objectify woman prying on their insecurities and selling a dream of being that desirable. Once again allowing women to be sexualized objects adding to the ideal world of the male.

Calvin Klein notorious for sexy underwear ads where questioned when they realized a campaign about children underwear, provoking the thought about the ethnics behind advertising. Voicing photographs of potential pedophiliac stances. Whereas Klein makes the point that selling children’s underwear seems natural to take photographs of the target audience wearing the product. These photographs connote that the underwear is making the children happy. Clearly the children are happy because for most of your childhood you spend playing and running around smiling. The photographs are a snapshot for some adorable children doing what they do best, playing. This makes the audience happy and links to the parents of children, grabbing their attention. For most parents this add would be a trigger to buy the underwear to give their child that social class of wearing ‘branded’ clothing. The children would not care, but these garments are a chance to accessories their children, to label them as ‘perfect’.

Calvin Kleinn always uses models, actors and sportsmen

In conclusion, Advertising is constantly influencing your life, weather you realise or not. The idealistic are placed on pedal stoles and generally adverts work on the basis of envy and wanting to have that “perfect” lifestyle and look. Although I have mentioned a lot of underlying issues with advertising, it does bring a mass number of employment and people buying products keeps our economy a-float. I really can’t see a world without it. I feel that some people take advertising too seriously and need to revaluate their morals and reasons for living. But I’d say most people understand that poster models are there to sell a product and are meant to be ‘beautiful’ beyond what is humanly possible. The question is, will you buy into the dream that advertising creates.

Websites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmgGT3th_oI John Berger-Ways of Seeing.

http://adland.tv/content/lee-trying-calvin-klein-kiddie-porn-campaign-idea-down-oz LEE Jeans Campaign image.

http://www.ratedesi.com/video/v/VCQni0XmZfE/CALVIN-KLEIN-UNDERWEAR-FINALISTS-FOR-9-COUNTRIES-COMPETITION Calvin Klein model research

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/handouts/ethics/calvin_klein_case_study.cfm Calvin Klein Image

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html History of Advertising.

Books Studied:

Sex Appeal, Steven Heller, 2000.

Decoding Advertising, Judith Williamson, 1978,

Media, Gender and Identity An Introduction, David Gauntlett, 2002.