[previous
page 1 | 2 | 3
]
An example of Barthes'
myth, which is currently very dominant within mass-culture, especially
advertising, is that of the "natural." It would seem that this is somewhat
of a pun; the "natural" appearing to be "natural" through media mechanisms.
For example, a recent Toyota advertisement places a four-wheel drive in
the foreground of a mountainous landscape and asks "Wouldn't you rather
blend in with nature instead of traffic?" The placing of the car in such
a setting in order to give it the aura of the natural creates juxtaposition
as the product symbolises both nature and anti-nature. This embodies a
tension of a society, which both ravages the natural world, yet seeks to
represent its workings as natural, hence inviolable.7
This occurs in many other current advertisements where the word "natural"
is placed in the text or visual imagery of the "natural" is utilised as
a tool for selling. Judith Williamson in Decoding Adverising asks:
"Who, today, wants
to be unnatural, to eat unnatural food, to live in an unnatural way? While
we all do live thus, we simultaneously strive towards the lost paradise
of herbal shampoos and whole wheat bread, wearing 'natural' make-up and
'invisible' girdles."8
This also serves
to create meaning, and so the use of such tools takes on an inherent quality.
Natural objects and nature itself are being invested with cultural meaning.
Williamson writes "[t]he natural thing signifies as an empty form to be
filled by the product."9
A similar phenomenon
occurs with the use of glamour and beauty in advertising. This is a myth
which has had a particularly large impact within mass-culture. The "beauty"
myth surrounds us from all angles in all media. Print media, television,
films and advertising are all saturated with supposed ideals of beauty
and glamour. This is most probably the largest and most inescapable manifestation
of all myth. We as consumers are lead to strive for a certain physical
image because of the overbearing visual imagery which confronts us in everyday
life. However, we are totally unaware of this confrontation because of
its mythical quality. The beautiful people we see in movies, on television
and in the pages of magazines are portrayed as "naturally" appearing this
way. This is precisely why we as consumers strive to become as glamorous
as these models and actors we think it only "natural" to be this
way. The beauty myth, as many feminists have argued, is only a tremendous
front for a huge capitalist society. Behind the likes of Kate Moss in her
Calvin Klein jeans, lie huge corporate hierarchies that rely so heavily
on the consumer's belief in the myth. Not only is there a corporation behind
such images, but an entire artificial process in the "make-up" of the model
or actor.
So if media can perpetuate
the myths of nature and beauty, then how is national identity created by
such sources? For example, a magazine advertisement for Riccadonna Asti
wine shows a couple walking arm in arm, the male holding a bottle of the
wine. Underneath this image are the words "Unmistakably Italian" printed
across a red, white and green banner. But other than the reminder of the
Italian flag, what is it exactly that makes this scene "Unmistakably Italian"?
It may be one or more of the factors of the mise-en-scene of the advertisement,
such as the background architecture, the sidewalk tables or the raven-haired
models. However, these features are not exclusively Italian in their cultural
meaning, and so why is it that that we recognise this as an Italian scenario?
It is because of the connotations of these images when placed together
that we associate them with Italy. It is the reproduction of knowledge
we already have that helps us to know that this advertisement signifies
Italy. This displays how Barthes idea of a secondary meaning functions,
and can be likened to the example he gives of the cover of Paris- Match
of the young black soldier in a French uniform saluting the French flag.10
If there were to be a similar advertisement marking an "Unmistakably New
Zealand" product, what would be the signifiers of such an image?
New Zealand's national
identity is frequently identified with sport. This has come about due to
sporting successes where New Zealand has triumphed over much larger and
wealthier countries. An obvious recent example is the America's Cup (or
as the media has nicknamed it, "New Zealand's Cup.") The America's Cup
provides an excellent opportunity to observe the importance of the media
as it moulds peoples' understanding of the event.11
The lives of New Zealanders were infiltrated with updates of progress,
footage of racing, interviews and commentaries. As well as this, there
was a huge amount of merchandising surrounding the event. New Zealanders
could proudly don red socks in a patriotic gesture of support for Team
New Zealand. The socks represented support for the team, and thus wearing
them made public ones support and signified unity for those who did. The
feeling of team spirit and unity encouraged by the wearing of the red socks
disguised the fact that the America's Cup is a multi-million dollar event,
and this merchandising was yet another strain of moneymaking. In terms
of the New Zealand tourism campaign the America's Cup fills ten pages in
the 100% Pure New Zealand website alone, signifying its importance as a
tool for both "creating" and selling New Zealand at home and abroad.12
The same goes too for rugby
in New Zealand, especially in recent years where professionalism has
brought a whole new monetary meaning toward the game. Previously rugby
held its place in our national identity because of its "practical efficacy
as a symbol of the New Zealand nation derived from its practical effectiveness
as a mechanism of social integration."13
That is, rugby seemed to promote equality and unity at a local, regional
and national level. Presently, rugby still plays the part of informing
our view of ourselves as New Zealanders. But whether you are a follower
of "New Zealand's Big Game" or not, the coverage is so widespread across
the local media that it is inescapable. This is reflected in local newspapers,
radio or television news programs when a significant win or loss by
the All Blacks warrants top story over natural disasters, political
or international news and suchlike. The audience are saturated by the
manifestation of the rugby myth to the point where one has little or
no choice in finding out who is playing in the 'Super Twelve' final
or that Jonah Lomu has bought a mansion in Wellington. But the most
alarming realisation is that rugby is no longer a game of team spirit
but a corporate identity which we are paying Broadcasting Fees to support
its saturation upon New Zealand society whether we like it or not. The
cultural, political and economic implications of sport in New Zealand
are alarmingly striking.
