Image analysis essay free essay sample

â€Å"It is worth emphasising that there is no single or ‘correct’ answer to the question, ‘What does an image mean? ’ or ‘What is this ad saying? ’. Since there is no law which can guarantee that things will have ‘one, true meaning’, or that the meaning won’t change over time, work in this area is bound to be interpretative – a debate between, not who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’, but between equally plausible, though sometimes competing and contested, meanings and interpretations† Hall, S. (1997) Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices Using visual analysis, discuss Hall’s statement below in relation to your chosen photograph This essay will be looking at this image from the controversial Make Love Not War editorial by Steven Meisel for Vogue Italia in 2007. The aim is to expand on Hall’s theory that an image does not have one absolute meaning. Figure one is an image of Raquel Zimmerman and Travon Hill on a bed, Hill sleeps while Zimmerman looks traumatised and deep in thought. From the context of the editorial the viewer gathers that they are at war, although they are never seen in battle. It was published in 2007 so it almost unanimously assumed –although not specifically shown- that it is based on the Iraq war troop surge of 2007. The image is taken is from a tilted aerial angle which makes it seem more intimate and voyeuristic. The ambient lighting also adds intimacy and is created by two light sources; A hard light that hits the wall, part of Hill’s torso and Zimmerman’s face, as well as a soft fill light coming in from the other side of the image. Hill wears a traditional army capi and Zimmerman wears a khaki green evening dress. It is not clear whether or not Zimmerman or any of the other female models are soldiers from the clothes, although in other images such as fig 4, the models wear some army uniform accessories. The army cap worn by Hill automatically creates a detachment from the image. As Alison Lurie said in a language of clothes â€Å"The uniform acts as a sign that we should not or need not treat someone as a human being, and that they need not and should not treat us as one. † This means that the images are being seen and judged in a different way to if it were an image of any other civilian. ii Fig 1 was faced with much criticism and was accused of glamourising and sexualizing the war. New York magazine rated the editorial number one in a list of Vogue’s most â€Å"tone deaf editorials† amongst others such as Haute Mess and State of Emergency also shot by Meisel. iii The Guardian’s Emine Saner says that Zimmerman is shown crying and that hill is asleep with a â€Å"post-coital† bliss, then adds that this means the image is showing a raped Zimmermaniv. She also went as far as saying the images were ‘the most nauseatingly tasteless fashion pictures ever. ’ She claimed that the women were prostitutes and that that undermined the editorial’s title, as it was closer to rape than making love. Saner’s ironically sexist remarks seem to disregard all the evidence that debunk her fallacious statements. Firstly, the styling of the female models in the majority of the images could imply that they are soldiers not prostitutes, either with the use of accessories or by maintaining the military inspired colour palette. Secondly, Saner speaks of the models featured in the editorial in a way that insinuates that they are victimized. As John Berger has said â€Å"To be born a woman has been to be born, within allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men. † v However, the women are consistently shown as being powerful. For example in figure 5, Raquel Zimmerman is arm-wrestling another soldier and has a strong expression. In figure 2 and figure 3, the female models are on top of the male models and the images seem friendly and warm, the images do not to seem to represent rape at all. There are two images (figure 4 and figure 6), which may support Saner’s points. Figure 6 is a group shot, and Raquel Zimmerman is shown straggling a soldier whilst being filmed, and the other model is dancing in front of a projection of Zimmerman. They are dressed in clothing that stands out in this image and seems to be more luxurious. However, this image is likely inspired by the Armed Forces Entertainment; an organization that provides entertainment for military personnel overseas. The image may also be inspired by the iconic image of Marilyn Monroe performing for the troops. vi Yes, the image is overtly glamourised, but that is probably due to the fact that it exists within a fashion editorial. Yes, the image is overtly sexualised but that is completely relevant to the tongue in cheek basis of the editorial; Make Love Not War. The title â€Å"Make Love Not War† is a famous anti-war slogan, and it alludes to what Meisel may have wanted to say through the editorial. In an interview with 032c Meisel said ‘I hate war. I wasn’t trying to glamourise it†¦I am trying to make a statement and yet everybody says that I am for it? Basically, if you put something in people’s faces they might see it, which in this case means â€Å"Don’t do this! Stop this! †Ã¢â‚¬â„¢vii Taking this into account, it can be argued that Meisel used the context of a fashion editorial to protest against the Iraq war. The editorial can be seen as ironic in the way that it features soldiers, but it in no way condones violence as it does not feature guns or war scenes. Fig 1 in particular shows Zimmerman showing remorse, the viewer must ask why. War is traumatizing and this image shows this. Is Meisel featuring a dream sequence in which he promotes the ideological notion of the title he’s given it? Or assuming they are â€Å"prostitutes†, can Meisel be making a statement against the historical presence of the prostitution phenomenon and how militaries have been ensuring soldiers access to prostitution in all times and cultures as stated by George S. Patten in War As I Knew itviii? If so, is there something wrong with the fashion industry addressing an issue as serious as war or the presence of prostitution in war? Meisel is known for his controversial work, where he juxtaposes fashion and politics. His controversial work is usually published in Vogue Italia, not in the more conservative US Vogue. This means that he offers and showcases his commentary to a wider international audience, however this could also be because US Vogue does not allow for shoots of this paradigm in its issues. A lot of his work features commentary on current events relating to western or more specifically American culture. At the time of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, a Meisel editorial titled State of Emergency was published in Vogue Italiaix and it showed models portraying terrorists and highly trained police-men. Another editorial of questionable taste – as deemed by Emine Saner, by Meisel was his Super Models Enter Rehab editorialx, a parody shoot commenting on Hollywood rehab phenomenon. The fashion world praises Meisel, while others slander. The subject of sex or prostitution has been present in many depictions of war. In films such as Apocalypse Nowxi and within classical art, it is present in the painting The Rape of a Sabine Woman by Nicolas Poussin. xii In these instances no controversy arose because of the depictions. In the book Fashion Spreads, Paul Jobling notes that there is a â€Å"contradiction between the ‘serious business of war’ and the ‘frivolous business of fashion’. † Did the controversy arise over this spread because the public or the academics assume that fashion is frivolous and therefore the opinions are invalid? Is it possible that the critics such as Emine Saner didn’t give Meisel the credibility of being able to protest against the war because it was done through Vogue? In conclusion, this image by Meisel has raised a lot of questions. It can not be said that Meisel’s editorial is either glamourising nor condemning the war in absolute sense. No matter what Meisel’s intentions are, the images do not exist to him alone but to the public, therefore any reaction the editorial ensues is valid and true, although as Hall says neither right not wrong.