For the last few weeks in English Language and Literature, we have been exploring advertisements in the context of identity. Building on that, we have been Eli Rezkallah’s collection In A Parallel Universe, which parodies 1950s advertisements featuring women. You can see some examples here:

Several weeks of learning

I have been able to apply a lot of our learning so far to these images, and also learn some new things. It has allowed me to further explore the idea of women and representation of sex- or gender- based identities in advertising, some ideas around which I mind mapped below:

As you can see in the mind map, Rezkallah mostly seems to question the portrayal of female identity, particularly its domesticity and incapability, in his works. However, this inevitably leads to some questions being raised about male identity too due to how interconnected they are. Through analysing his works, we covered many topics such as:

• Style 
• Visual language techniques
• Satire 

Before exploring In A Parallel Universe, I didn’t really think the idea of style existed outside the realm of visual art or fashion design. However, its use in language has shown me that its definition is broader than what kind of visual aesthetic is employed, it is rather whatever the creator does that is outside of the defining rules of an artform. For example, in Rezkallah’s case, because he is parodying advertisements, he is following the various rules they follow – aim to sell a product, appeal to the target audience’s values, and be attention-grabbing (more of a modern rule). And yet, he changes things about the advertisements he parodies, aside from the sex of the main characters. He changes colour schemes. He modifies the content and position of text. He always uses the medium of photography. What surprised me most was that “style” included the content of the piece too – subject matter, mood, message, etc. When thought of in this way, Rezkallah’s style in this body of work can be considered his constant subject matter of gender roles, always parodying adverts from around the 1950s-1960s, always inverts the sex of the characters, and often modifies the advertisements to suit a modern (2010s or 2020s) audience. I think the existence of this as a concept in my mind now makes me pay attention to these things more when I look at bodies of work, and thus has broadened how I approach language and literature.

Looking at In A Parallel Universe with the class also made me aware of some more visual language techniques, particularly incongruity. This means making a part of the text stand out in its environment, or look weird. An example of this would be the airbrushing on the male characters – this looks incongruous to the audience as we mostly see such artificial physical perfection on women models only.

What does In A Parallel Universe tell humanity? Why does this matter?

Like many parodies, In A Parallel Universe is satirical in nature, meaning it mocks or questions something in the real world. Considering that all of Rezkallah’s works satirise advertisements featuring women from the 1950s-1960s, and always switches the characters’ sexes, this strongly implies that he is mocking something about the women characters in these types of advertisements. One may take this as him mocking the women, but the fact that he switches the sexes rather than, for example, exaggerating what the women do, creates a sense of incongruity for an audience raised in a patriarchal society. This is because often times, these parodies suggest that these advertisements represent female identity as one of servitude or inferiority to men – something we are so culturally used to that we may not be able to see it until we realise it is strange on a man. Seeing a man acting like a servant and be belittled is unnatural in a man’s world. 

Of course, nowadays some of these advertisements that In A Parallel Universe parodies may not be so accepted. For example, the last in the slideshow above would likely get strong opposition from various types of feminists online, eventually garnering an apology created by the company’s public relations team. However, this world order – in which it is strange for a man to be treated as the degraded servant and quite normal for women to be so – is still here. 

From my experience, this is seen a lot in the representation of attraction between females and males. It is absolutely normal for images of female bodies to be used to sell things to men (by attracting their gaze to the advert) and women (with the message that they need or should be attractive). In general, society also has much higher expectations not only of how women look, but how hard they try to achieve that. Women are expected to be skilled at applying makeup, shave off their natural pubescent hair (which some view with disgust), wear less comfortable and poorly made clothing (fashionably!), and constantly compose their body motions to take up less space.  An ugly man is a laughing stock, but society has space for him. An ugly woman is failing herself. But it’s not just appearance.

A woman accepting her body is strange. A woman being as confident as a man is strange. Femininity is still a performance art, 70 years on. 

I think Rezkallah was articulating this sort of point (much more clearly!) with In A Parallel Universe. But he is particularly pointing out that the mindset of men and women being different still persists. After all, if it didn’t, these would just be normal advertisements. In a sense, if you immediately understand the advertisement, you are part of the problem. This is furthered by how these works are posted on Instagram. Instagram is frankly filled with pictures of women, posing seductively or flatteringly. Therefore, after seeing and scrolling past these works, Instagram users may start to see this content, or rather the patterns they form, and start to wonder in what ways men and women are still put in seperate spheres. 

Comparison with Little Red-cap by Carol Ann Duffy