Adbusters Louibuton Ad

• Commodity Fetishism - 'The process of ascribing magic 'phantom-like' qualities to an object, wherby the human labour required to make that object is lost once the object is associated with a monetary value for exchange.'

How are representations of ethnicity constructed here?:

• Considering Paul Gilroy's theory of post colonial theory we see the representation of difference between the West's commodity fetishism versus elsewhere. The hegemonic standards of it simply being a luxurious place while elsewhere is not, we can see this as an example of what Claude Levi Strauss would call binary opposition in the imagery being conveyed the opposite of what 'true Louie Bouton' is.

How is the audience positioned?:

• The advertisement, is aimed at the preferred reading audience of anti-consumerist, more than likely left-wing Adbusters readership, while it could also cause confliction within those of the oppositional readings with the intent of stirring a conversation over the brand's ideology.
• 'Red soles are always in season.' - refers to Loubouton's signature red-lined soles on all of their produced shoes, using their signature identifier to point out the juxtaposition of the workers who produce the shoes and their poverty based living conditions.

Mise-en-scene:

• The arid background - Represents the drough riddled countries and living conditions of those who work in the sweatshops of Loubouton.

• We see Claude levi Strauss' binary opposition within the images displayed within this rich versus poor dynamic, emphasised through the ragged uniform-like outfits of the people in the first photo versus the runway model and her implied fancy dress and Loubouton shoes, this concept is further carried along via the use of black and white versus full colour in the lower image, quite literally making it richer visually as so to speak.
• Another binary opposition to make is the idea of many versus few. In the Loubouton runway image we see a singular set of legs but within the prior photo there is what is represented as a seemingly endless hoard of people in frame, within the context of the piece, its an excessive amount of suffering to create only one dress. - This is perhaps to make any potential oppostional readers to consider the effect of their brand loyalty and what they are supporting.

• Taking into consideration Paul Gilroy's post-colonialism theory, we see the coloured people pictured being represented in the light of desperate prisoners to some degree, with image being taken through a barbed wire fence. The outstretched hand of the man front and centre within it being symbolic of need of assistance. Though we see the needful expressions of these people, the image doesnt make direct address, they are in need of help, but potentially not from the spectator of the article as so to speak, in stark juxtaposition is the photo of the runway model, we cannot make a connection with her as person because we as spectators cannot see her face in comparison to the prior people, this disconnect speaks in length as to the commodity fetishism and brand loyalty of Loubouton supporters, they become nothing but a set of legs and the product, pairing these two images together in this culture jamming advertisement creates meaning through the majority favouring material possession over other living people.
• David Gauntlet's Pick and mix theory could be applied to the piece overall, with the counter argument of potential Loubouton purchasers being simply that they overlook any of the unethical means through which the product is created (in this case it is the pink dress/shoes) instead only acknowledging the clout and prestige that comes from adorning the clothing with brand's name upon it's label...
• The culture jamming aspect of this piece takes the often highly-regarded career of models and when paired with the assumed factory workers places the industry in a level of antagonism.