Doo Uap, Doo Uap, Doo Uap

본문

i was thinking of the tourism poster that i mentioned in previous post, and seeing these women in traditional coustume made me think how this image produces meaning and gender. if i have to relate 'performative gender' to this image, i would have to borrow from Butler that, gender is a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being (45). thus, the image of women in Hanbok carefully preparing food is highly sexed gender as 'female' with (socially recognised or socially accepted) female characteristics, female roles and heterosexuality (who serves king). this reinforces coherent gender. so no good. i mean i wouldn't be this annoyed if there wasn't two women in hanbok and such text. it could've been better if there was both male and female, or two women smiling at camera (so they don't look very submissive), or no person, no text. it could've been better to appeal foreign tourists with only food images. don't put women in traditional coustume with no face or feast like a king kinda stuff.