Initial Image Analysis essay

Image Analysis

The gender representations in advertising have proven too often not be reflective of the realities of female body shape in the UK. Advertisements use female models that do not reflect the average female body shape, creating unattainable social desires of a woman. Focusing on the three advertisements sourced during research, the analysis will focus on the messages that the companies are portraying, how the design approach communicates these and whether or not ‘physically attractive individuals are perceived by most to be socially more desirable than those that are perceived as being unattractive’.

Each of the advertisements present women in very different ways, despite all attempting to sell beauty and fashion related products. The model in figure 1 is shown to be suggestively laying on the floor and is perfectly groomed, very slim and dressed in tight, provocative clothing; all elements that do not reflect the average size 16 female in the UK. Jansson-Boyd says that ‘physically attractive individuals are perceived by most to be socially more desirable than those that are perceived as being unattractive’ and this is very clearly evident in this advertisement. In contrast to this, the woman in figure 2 is surrounded by children and not predatory men, but the idea that a physically attractive woman is seen to be socially more desirable is still very much present. The advert aims to show the ideal family, but the model is not a size 16 or anywhere near, once again reflecting an inaccurate representation of the average female body and implying that physically attractive individuals should be seen as more socially desirable.

‘The journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour’ says that the typical body image being sold as socially desirable by the advertising industry is ‘young, thin, white, and heterosexual.’ Figure 3 presents a number of women with various body sizes all lined up in attempt to show how every woman is unique and that there should be no body shape that is more socially desirable than another. In contrast to figure1, the choice to only use female models in figure 3 is effective because it does not present sexual attraction as more important than the message. The lack of males in this advert implies that “physically attractive individuals are perceived by most to be socially more desirable” as this campaign focuses on the imperfections of physical ‘beauty’.

Naomi Wolf says that women are made to feel as though they need to embody the characteristics of the women presented in advertising so that they can be considered attractive to themselves and others in society. But this comparison may not be made when women see advertisements such as figure 3 as there is an explicit focus on ‘real women’, highlighting that this body size is not usually seen to be the most socially desirable. Botta (1999) believed that social comparison theory explains that comparisons to those that are similar to them, may make them strive to be thinner as there is greater self-awareness of their own bodies.

Theoretically, the purpose of advertisements is to sell products and to do so the models are used to create comparisons and form desires. ‘According to Groesz, Levine, and Murnen’s (2002) meta-analysis, women are significantly more body dissatisfied after viewing thin-and-beautiful media images versus average-size, oversize, or nonbody images’.  So by taking advantage of the insecurities that can be created, Dolce and Gabbana use models that do not reflect the realities of the UK’s female body shape in the hope that it will increase the sales of the products they are selling. Advertisements display idealistic scenarios leading people to believe that the purchasing of the product will also provide them with the “desired family lifestyle” presented in figure 2 or the sexual attraction the model in Figure 1 is shown to have.

The use of type in the advertisements is different in all 3, but equally lacking the same presence as the image. With those living in urban centres being exposed to an average 5000 ads per day, the companies appear very explicitly show the socially constructed ideals of the female body shape. Figure 1 uses only the recognisable ‘Dolce & Gabbana’ logo as the type on the poster, assuming that the viewers will already have an understanding of the products that are sold and the artistically use of suggestive scenes will represent nothing but the lust that will be attained following the purchase of the products. The typeface used is a modified version of Futura, a geometric sans-serif typeface that is known to appear very bold and brave, similar to the choice of controversial scene. Figure 2 also has the image as the main element of the advertisement, suggesting that the social constructed ideals should be the aim for those who can afford the luxury products. Presenting this family in a setting that allows us to assume they are of a high class exposes the ideas that wealth and size zero female body shapes result in happiness and fulfilment. When in reality, ‘Beat’ published that over 725,000 people in the UK are affected by an eating disorder which often results in “social anxiety, depression, eating disturbances, and poor self-esteem” (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002), confirming that the inaccurate reflection of the average female body size does not provide more happiness, nor can the products that the companies are selling.

In conclusion, the analyses of the advertisements have supported my previous research into the inaccurate representations of the average female body in the UK. The size zero model in figure 1 is shown to be desired by men, supporting the idea that ‘physically attractive individuals are perceived by most to be socially more desirable than those that are perceived as being unattractive’ as it is not the average size 16 female being surrounded by the men that are surrounding the size 0 model. The use of models that do not reflect the realities of female body shape, creates unrealistic expectations for the average size 16 females in the UK, leaving with a negative body image.

figure 1

figure 2

figure 3