Hungry for More?: A Creative Performance


1. Introduction (Explanation of street performance, Statement of purpose)

2. Designing the performance

3. Expectations and Types of questions asked

3. Actual reactions from males/females

4. What the experience was like for me personally

5. Conclusions (Are we really hungry for more, or do we know when to quit?)


  In order to creatively illustrate a personal response to my research findings , I decided to do a tongue-in-cheek street performance that would incorporate some of my opinions about the use of objectification in the media. It was my hope that my performance would use humor to elicit responses from the student body at the University of Georgia that would spark some discussion about how women's bodies are portrayed through advertising and the rhetoric that lies behind their use.


 I wanted to bring forward some of the messages that these ads are implying by actually going on the street and trying to directly "sell" something to an audience using these ads. I decided to use the classic image of a "sandwich sign" salesman who uses messages and images attached to a sign. I intentionally used very overtly sexual examples of ads on my sign as I knew that these ads would not only grab the most attention, but also be the most likely to offend and spark a negative reaction from the audience. I believe that in many ways advertising works on us on an unconscious level, and I wanted to bring the sub-textual messages and values that these type of ads suggest to the surface. The ads that I used varied in their controversy, marketing tactic and implication of their messages: from implied consumption of women's bodies (WAD cover and beer ads), to sexual humor (Burger King), to near pornography (Tom Ford). I used the message "Hungry for more?" not just because I was giving away food and that it may be an implied sexual suggestion, but because I wanted my audience to really considered if they really wanted "more" of these kinds of messages within the media. 


Ads featured include WAD magazine (top row left), Burger King (top row right), Budweiser (middle row left and right), Tom Ford cologne (bottom row left and right) and Michelob beer (bottom row center).


After some consideration, I choose free hot-wings as the product that I would be giving away. Hot wings are female body parts (parts of chickens) slathered with messy sauce that you consume and then throw away when you're done; they possess many qualities that I believe these ads often reduce women's bodies to: literal consumable products.


One factor that I soon realized would play into this performance was that I would be a biological male directly trying to give food to an audience using sexual-ized images of females, which would likely lead to more skepticism about my intentions from the audience. I decided to keep this factor in play (and not use an actual female to advertise) because I believed it made one of the criticisms about the objectification of women in media and advertising very transparent: that these ads are more often produced by dominant males from behind a curtain. They involve men using women's bodies to sell.


I expected to receive a lot of mixed reactions from the student body, but I knew that a considerable number would be offended by the images. What I anticipated was that female students would be most shocked, offended and reactive to the images and would be most likely to approach and start a conversation.  I anticipated that about half of the guys I talked to would be offended by the images and half would think that they do not go too far.

If someone approached me, I decided to ask them a series of questions (beyond just if they wanted a free hot-wing): 1. Do these ads make you hungrier (do you really want to consume more after seeing these images)? 2. Do you feel like these ads go too far (are these ads too explicitly sexual)? and 3. Do you feel that these ads are effective (do you feel like they induce the people that view them to want to buy the actual product being sold)? I choose these questions because I believed they would elicit self-reflection in the audience and allow them to reconsider the rhetoric underlying these kinds of ads.

On November 30th, 2011, I performed my piece at the "free speech zone" between the University of Georgia Bookstore and Tate Student Center between 1:30 and 2:30 PM. The goal of the performance was not to empirically record the kinds of reactions I received, but more to present an artistic performance that conveyed some critiques of the culture industry and provoke discussion.

The reactions to my performance were highly varied and at times surprising. The most common general reaction I received was apparent apprehension to approach the ads and overt disgust to the images; many people were likely skeptical of my intent and purpose behind what I was trying to do and failed to approach as I advertised free wings. For those that did approach, the most common response I received was from female students who understood many of the intentions behind my performance. In answering the questions, they agreed that the ads did not make them "hungrier," that many, but not all, of the ads went too far (particularly the Tom Ford ads), and that they may be effective ads for targeting men, but not for women. The response I received from males, who were less likely to approach, was a bit more varied. Some of the men responded (honestly) that the ads made them a little hungrier, that only one or two of the ads went too far (they may actually consider some of them creative), but that the ads were mostly minimal to moderately effective. Perhaps this lower level of effectiveness is reflected in the actual number of wings I was able to give away (8/16 wings).


In terms of my own personal reactions on how the experience was for me, I felt highly scrutinized and more embarrassed than I expected through others by this performance.. I assumed that more people would understand that my solicitation was tongue in cheek, but several students that reacted to my performance assumed more nefarious intentions. One male student that approached me stated that a female friend who had seen the ads was highly offended and seemed suspicious of my intent even after I explained the purpose behind what I was doing. Probably the most awkward moments occurred when someone passed by without approaching me, but kept staring at the sign for an extended period of time. In some ways, I felt self-objectified by wearing the ads in public. I'm not sure what sort of different personal reactions would be felt by a female doing this same public performance with my sign. Still, those that did approach and understood some of my intentions behind my solicitations put me more at ease. I'm happy I performed the piece


Overall, I believe that the piece achieved its goals. It provoked members of the student body to reconsider and discuss some of the messages that underlie objectifying advertisements. The piece offended and provoked; it forced others to respond to the images and messages. Individuals that approached understood many of the critiques of popular media that were presented through the performance and agreed with the criticisms. Are we "hungry for more" of this? Do we really want more objectification within our culture? Perhaps when held up to a more critical lens, we may finally draw a more stringent line within our media. Maybe we've finally had enough. Maybe we're full.