Comments on: Race, Femininity, & Benign Nature in a Vintage Tobacco Ad

By: AlienGuardian

AlienGuardian — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:18:51 +0000

Agreed.

By: -g.

-g. — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:35:11 +0000

I think its a really interesting piece of work, but if I were doing the interpretation I’d guess the reason the spirit was personified as a woman was because it’s characterized in legend as “beautiful,” not gentle. This wouldn’t explain why the other person in the scene is female and not male, but I’d put that as a toss-up to traditional iconography: to have a naked white female and naked indigenous male would be too sexually suggestive, as the pairing was frequently used in that period to promote the idea “the lusty savage.” By making both figures female, the potential sexuality of the characters towards one another is neutralized and both are rendered inert objects for the (presumably male) viewer to look at. Even the animals seem more representative of wealth/abundance or the spirit’s connection to nature rather than gentility(the fox and what appears to be monkey being more renowned for mischieviousness than cuteness); the only real icon of benign nature I see is the peace pipe in the native american woman’s hand. Hence, for me at least, male gaze trumps benign femininity. But that’s just me.

By: Cyffermoon

Cyffermoon — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:06:02 +0000

T – I thought it was a funny way of summing up many of the cultural reasons why images of women are used in this way. Which are different from the reasons images of men are used as symbols. I didn’t realize it would somehow come off as “absolutist”. But… whatever?

By: Jeff Kaufman

Jeff Kaufman — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:51:39 +0000

I agree about vehicles, but not countries. Countries can be male or female. For example, germany is male (the fatherland). This site did something on national personifications a month ago or so: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/07/04/national-personifications/

Wikipedia also has a long list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_personification On the list I count 40 male humans and 49 female ones.

By: T

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:17:50 +0000

It was the absolute language “since women aren’t individuals or even real people” that I find tiresome… it doesn’t negate using women as symbol or even the male (or female) gaze.

But…

whatever…

By: Cyffermoon

Cyffermoon — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:22:08 +0000

Your opinion is right on – in my opinion.

By: Cyffermoon

Cyffermoon — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:21:30 +0000

Despite your pithy and dismissive tone, I’m curious. How exactly does the mere existence of men as symbols in art negate my interpretation of the use of women as symbols?

By: conductress

conductress — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:19:22 +0000

Yes, men and symbols of masculinity are used in art, but women are used more often in this sense. For example, Countries (Britannia, Mother Russia), virtues (Luck, Liberty, Justice, Victory), abstracts (Nature), objects (boats, cars), all are personified as female. These symbolic representations–including the one in this post–were created, by and large, by men. Accordingly, abstract concepts and places are personified as women. The presence of the male gaze is what’s important here, in my opinion.

By: qout

qout — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:46:33 +0000

Hey – this is an important clarification: the legend (as reported in An Empire of Plants) – didn’t describe the “beautiful spirit” as white: the artist just chose to depict the spirit as white.

By: Agu

Agu — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:23:50 +0000

Don’t you think that the “willingness to put non-white bodies more on display” is a result of different dress codes of Europeans and people living in warmer climates? I’m no expert on Native Americans, but in a lot of places in Africa people didn’t wear much (both men and women) because it was not practical given the weather and lifestyle. It was the Christian missionaries who did all they could to force people to wear European clothing… but in many places naked breasts were normal and not erotic in any way. So sometimes such a picture may be just realism. Would it be better if they dressed her in European or other clothing that had nothing to do with her culture? Seems it’s bad either way.

By: T

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:53:21 +0000

“Because you know, since women aren’t individuals or even real people, they can easily be used as symbols these concepts.”

Gawd… ‘cuz the male (or the penis alone) is never used in abstract iconography. Get over yourself.

By: Cyffermoon

Cyffermoon — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:30:03 +0000

It is ludicrous, to be sure, but it “makes sense” in an iconographic interpretation. The voluptuous white woman probably represents nature or the earth, as she usually represents some sort of lofty abstract concept while floating through the air, wrapped in a gauzy cloth. Because you know, since women aren’t individuals or even real people, they can easily be used as symbols these concepts.

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:26:56 +0000

To me, the most ludicrous thing about this ad is that the White (presumably European) woman is giving tobacco to the Native American woman when in fact, tobacco was a thoroughly American plant that Native Americans introduced to Europeans.