“Pity the poor underwear manufacturer. His product is usually small. The variety of shapes in which his ware is sold is extremely limited, and respectable society is at best reluctant to see the product too explicitly shown … About the best the maker can hope for is to seek a way for the person modeling his latest creation to do it in some eye-catching manner- without exceeding the limits of current convention.”
(Goodrum and Dalrymple 1990: 201)
This statement makes the pivotal notion that it is not a great deal to be tasked with the task of advertising mens underwear, mainly due to the fact there is little variation in product. However after 130 years reality has shown us that manufactures have advertised male undergarments in a number of ways.
O’Barr (1994) states that there are two types/motivations for advertising. The first way in which companies advertise is when they openly portray the quality of the goods/services. Such as this Wilson Bro’s advert for an “Athletic Union Suit”. Which states about the quality of production, “no… surplus material”, and “made of the best materials”, as well as stating the comfort for the wearer in there “light, airy, roomy” undergarment.
The second motivation O’Barr states is when advertisers present ideas about society and culture.
Such as this 1940′s LUX advert. This was a common way in which advertisers during the mid 20th century would make it implicit or explicit that women washed garments. As Helga Dittmar (2008) talks about the psychological motives for purchasing rather than the functional. Which is linked to an underlying value system that places emphasis on financial/material wealth as a means for achieving important life goals. Even more so taping in to the heteronormative ideology of family life, and that it is synonymous with success and happiness.
Focusing on male underwear advertisements from the World War II era, we will look at the presentation of men. In this stage of history there was a poor socio-economic climate, which was caused by the war. Therefore in order to try and promote war in a positive light, males, many of whom where conscripted and signed up for war, where portrayed as Hero’s and Fighting the good fight.
Published in Punch’s November issue in 1939, at the start of the war, Chilprufe used this advert. They used an illustration of a man, this was common for the time. As photograph’s realism was “most undignified” (Advertiser Weekly 1936 [Jobbling 2005 : 127]). The tagline “BEST FOR NATIONAL SERVICE”, is utilising the war effort for commercial gain, and encouraging people who are either going to war, or wives of those at war to buy. Furthermore the advert focuses on the quality and sustainability of the garments, “PURE WOOL”, “rely on”, as the poor economic climate meant there was a lack of disposable income, and therefore by highlighting the quality of the garments it appeals to shoppers because it seems to be a good investment. This notion was further used later on in the war effort with many advertisers using the military code CC41, to show the coupon (rationing) value of there garments.
Post war manufactures started to change how they were making underwear. They started using more colours, and new materials. This was done in order to improve comfort and quality. But also was an effort to encourage and renew vigour in consumer spending post war, as the economy improved.
This 1953 advert by Viscana for example was advertising new materials, a kind of rayon material used to make the shorts. And furthermore focusing on male sporting/athletic physique.
These adverts of the 1940′s and 1950′s teach us that men where under pressure to conform to an idealised body shape, that of an athlete. As many advertisers used sportsmen and there testimonials to promote the underwear. Also it teaches us that men at the time where made to believe the heteronormative ideology of family life was synonymous with success and happiness.
Looking at modern day adverts for underwear its clear to me there are many similarities, but also differences in the way the male body is presented and masculinity on the whole.
I am specifically looking at one of Calvin Klien’s 2016 campaigns, shot by Tyrone Lebon. Calvin Klien used a number of celebrities to promote its “I __________ in #mycalvins” campaign. Although some of the people used had the athletic/muscular look that was common in the 1950′s, like Justin Bieber. Klien also used celebrities such as Yung Lean, and Young Thug, who both defy and challenge the social norms of masculinity.
In this advert for example Klien is still using the physique photography that was commonly used in 1950′s adverts. Also they are using a tag line, which Chilprufe did in there 1939 advert. The Chilprufe advert was taping into the current social stance on current events, and promoting conformity towards the war effort. I see that being similar to what Klien is doing with theres. Young Thug is at the pinnacle of challenging gender norms in todays society, and the more that society opens its eyes and accepts people for who they are, which is more and more accepted and encouraged in todays world we live. The idea of “disobey[ing]”, is a subversion of what Chilprufe’s tag line encouraging obeying rules in “national service”. However in contemporary culture breaking social norms in popular. Therefore both adverts are using a tag line message that reflects the society of the time they were made.
Comments
Post a Comment