Barbie etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
Barbie etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

16 Mayıs 2017 Salı

Yes, Barbie has got bigger. But her old body-image message endures | Afua Hirsch

“Eurgh! This doll’s fat!” Those were the words of my five-year-old daughter and seven-year-old niece on encountering the Fashionistas range of new-size Barbies in a toyshop this weekend. To describe these dolls as “plus size” would be an exaggeration. But, given the emaciated state of regular Barbies, I can see what the fuss is about. These dolls look normal – and normal, in a Barbie context, looks decidedly weird.


I have to act. “See these Barbies,” I say, pointing at the more traditional ones. “They are really hungry. They haven’t had enough to eat. But these new Barbies” – I hold up a Fashionista – “feel much better. They’ve got strong legs, see?”


“Ohhhh,” one of them nods. I realise my explanation is not perfect: I don’t want these two telling skinnier children in the playground that they’re malnourished. But given that traditional Barbies represent the body shape of 1 in 100,000 real-life women, have a waist size 20cm smaller than a group of anorexia sufferers, and would have insufficient body fat to menstruate, I’ll take my chances.


There is no ideal way to counter the messages these impressionable young girls are absorbing about body image. I welcome the fact that Barbies now come in four body types and seven skin tones, and wear their hair in braids or Afros. Beyoncé’s stylist, Marni Senofonte, who designed those dolls, says: “I want a girl who is not necessarily small to say: ‘OK, I could wear a crop top, and I could wear jeans with big holes in and fishnets underneath it, and I am cute.’”


That’s great. But let’s not forget that the legacy of old Barbie – who in 1963 was released with a book entitled How to Lose Weight – looms large. So much so that when a five and seven year old – neither of whom have yet graduated on to being critical of their own bodies, thankfully – see a doll with a normal figure, their initial reaction was disgust.


The small world of Brexit



Theresa May greets Jean-Claude Juncker at 10 Downing Street.


Theresa May greets Jean-Claude Juncker at 10 Downing Street. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images

There has been plenty of debate about the estimated rise in hate crime since the EU referendum, which ranges from 40% to 100%. But less often discussed is the impact of the vote on British people’s sense of identity.


A recent report suggests that this is widespread, and perhaps more enduring. It finds that, since the referendum, ethnic minorities in the UK are now less likely to identify as British, and more likely to claim the identity of their ethnic heritage instead.


White British people too are becoming less likely to embrace Britishness or other national identities, such as English or Scottish, and more likely to identify with their local area or community. They have, according to Opinium, “withdrawn from a wider sense of belonging to focusing in on the immediate world around them”. Long after the bickering of Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker, these injuries to our identity will remain.


Celebrity shares



Stormzy at the Brixton Academy.


Stormzy at the Brixton Academy. Photograph: PJP photos/Rex Features

Labour has now pledged in its manifesto to scrap university tuition fees in its manifesto launch todayyesterday. But if, as is widely predicted, the Tories win, fees are likely to rise above the current £9,000 a year; and as long as they do so, inevitable comparisons will continue to be made with the cost of study in the US, which currently averages a cool $ 33,000 (£26,000) a year at a private college.


If we are going to have US-style fees, we will need US style benefactors, made generous by US-style salaries, which are 50% higher than UK equivalents in some sectors.


In the meantime, celebrities have been stepping in. The UK rapper Stormzy this week became the latest to dip into his fortune, giving a final-year Oxford student £9,000 to do her master’s at Harvard. With some of the funding promises currently going around, I wouldn’t be surprised if sourcing donations from superstars appears somewhere as an election pledge.



Yes, Barbie has got bigger. But her old body-image message endures | Afua Hirsch

28 Mayıs 2014 Çarşamba

Anatomical Barbie is lady-hating nonsense not art

one of Jason Freeny

Residing doll … 1 of Freeny’s anatomical Barbie sculptures. Photograph: Jason Freeny




What is artwork, proper now? You get one particular reply from a museum this kind of as Tate Modern and an additional from hunting across the vast buzzing panorama of modern news media. Everybody agrees that artwork can, these days, be pretty much something. Yet even though the official art planet takes that to suggest, say, an set up of the lights going off, common culture is total of things from sand sculptures to portraits created of bacteria that get labelled as artwork. The most recent example of such globally celebrated instant culture is a assortment of anatomical models primarily based on Barbie dolls and other well-known toys.


New York-based mostly artist Jason Freeny tends to make sculptures of Barbie that have their insides exposed to reveal – so goes the hype – the anatomic impossibility of this wasp-waisted doll. With her inner organs crushed together, Barbie is proven to be a dangerously extremely hard position model.


There are two factors very wrong with this “artwork”. Initial, anatomical Barbie is not art in any interesting way but merely a glib, one particular-get gimmick. A prop, a toy, a joke, a stunt – any of individuals phrases would say more about it than the wildly inflated declare that it is “art”. But what’s the point in arguing? Today the word “artwork” is liberally applied to something and every little thing from violent video video games to selfies. Of program, you can phone something artwork, which includes anatomical Barbie, but the result is to rob this when-grand thought of all that means.


But even much more apparent, and unsightly, is the reality that far from becoming some sort of male feminist artwork, the evisceration of Barbie is blatantly a violent misogynist attack. It is unsettling to see such a grisly act of symbolic destruction on a representation of the female physique, nevertheless idealised, fictional and commodified we think Barbie is. Exhibiting Barbie inside out is like sticking pins in a voodoo doll or throwing darts at a portrait.


The health-related waxworks that anatomical Barbie resembles are nowadays rightly witnessed as shudder-inducing freakshow exhibits. The cold objectification of womens’ bodies by Victorian anatomy models looks to most men and women to belong to the world of Jack the Ripper. So why on earth give cultural room to anatomical Barbie?


The word “art” used to make individuals nervous. It implied one thing difficult to understand. Right now, it implies a groovy fast fix of post-aesthetic entertainment. As for the challenging things, that can conveniently be dismissed with the sorts of political criticism no a single thinks to apply to anatomical Barbie. Hence it is easy to dismiss Picasso’s complex partnership with ladies as “misogynist”. But when it comes to something as crass and reductive as an anatomically exposed plastic doll, the obviously vicious assault it inflicts on an – albeit imaginary – entire body goes unchallenged.


In today’s mass media, “art” is taken to imply any eye-catching nonsense, and when something will get that designation it is assumed to be awesome, clever and in some sense past criticism. Even when it is nothing at all more than a tacky piece of female-hating nonsense.




Anatomical Barbie is lady-hating nonsense not art