Representation Analysis

This Indie Music Magazine cover supports Laura Mulvey's theory of how women are sexualised in order to appeal to the male audience. This theory is known as 'The Male Gaze' and this cover supports this theory by including a shirtless female looking directly at the camera. The fact that she is shirtless shows that she is being used as an 'erotic object of desire', as theorised by Laura Mulvey, and her body language is also very provocative. She is being sexualised to make heterosexual males want to purchase the magazine to see more of her. The sexualisation is also supported by the colour red being used frequently on the cover, as red connotes lust and passion.

In terms of my own magazine, I may consider using a female character in a sexualised (yet subtle) way to ensure that the majority of males in my audience will be interested in my magazine.























This magazine cover supports Stanley Halls theory, because the girl has a facial expression that could connote 'a state of depression'. Also, the cover line used also connotes violence because it insinuates something relating to murder until you realise that the phrase is being used in relation to the camera.
The violent expression may also be linked to support Stanley Halls theory in the way that he says 'criminal activity increases between the ages of 12 & 24'. The cover also supports Osgerby's theory because the teenager is being represented as a 'mixed metaphor' - both fun and trouble.

In terms of my own magazine, I may try and show a 'mixed metaphor' representation of teenagers, because this will imply that the teenager I use is fun, which will appeal to the younger members in my audience.

When searching for Indie magazine covers that support/disrupt Sarita Malik's theory, I was unable to find a magazine cover that had a Black or Asian person featured on the front cover. This shows support for Sarita Malik's theory, because 'Black and Asian audiences are still not sufficiently catered for'. The majority of the Indie Magazines I studied were British, and they all had a white solo artist/band on the front cover. This shows further support for Sarita Malik's theory, as it shows that 'the reality of a lived multi-culturalism is not represented in the British media'. Also, the cover lines feature bands/artists that are all white people.  This discrimination against minority groups shows support for Sivanandan's theory of 'the whole society is unbalanced against us' because they are not being represented in an equal measure to the representation of white people.

In terms of my own magazine, I may try and disrupt Sarita Malik's theory by not further discriminating against Black and Asian people. However, as stated previously, I am considering having a slightly sexualised female character for my cover, so using a female Black/Asian person sexually may increase the negative image some people have for these groups of people, which is not something I want to do.




















This cover supports Andy Medhurst's theory because you are unable to see sexuality and 'without someone telling you their sexuality you have no way of knowing'. This cover shows evidence for this because Adam Lambert is an openly gay celebrity, but you have no way of knowing this just by looking at this cover. You could argue that you are able to guess his sexuality because he looks slightly feminine, but because he is not living up to the stereotypes gay men are categorised into, you can't know his sexuality just by looking at him. This cover could also disrupt Medhurst's theory because the magnification process isn't being used.

In terms of my own magazine, it doesn't matter so much whether I use a heterosexual or homosexual person for my magazine, because my audience wont be able to know their sexuality just by looking at them. This is also not what I want the audience to focus on.




This cover supports Higson's' theory because although the image doesn't show any patriotical features such as the Union Jack, all of the bands and artists featured on the main cover are all of a British nationality. This shows that the audience for this magazine mainly consists of British readers. However, many of the magazines have a variation of both British and American artists, with the exception of Q magazine, which only seems to focus on British musicians.

In terms of my own magazine, I did definitely want to include British artists, as I haven't considered incorporating bands of different nationalities in my magazine. This is because my magazine will be targeting British readers.





This cover supports Keith Gandal's theory because extreme mise-en-scene is used in this image to make the singer look different to the norm. This makes it less relatable to the middle and lower classes, because the culture and fashion is very different. This also supports Medhursts theory
because it presents middle and lower class people as 'awful because they aren't like us'.

In terms of my own magazine, I would want my person to be more relatable than the celebrity used on this magazine. I wouldn't want to use extreme mise-en-scene in my photoshoot, because this might make my magazine less relatable for the audience.




This cover supports Halls theory because this indie magazine is aimed around the B-C social classes, and people from these classes will find it difficult to relate to the celebrities presented on this front cover, especially because they are all smartly dressed. They also look like they have a lot of money, which makes them more relatable to people in the higher social classes, and less relatable for those in the lower social classes. This is why magazines with lower production values target members from the lower classes, because they use more rebellious, informally dressed music stars as they are more relatable.

I couldn't find any magazine covers that target a working class audience, which could support Richard Butsch's theory because it shows that working class males aren't respected enough to be included on the front of magazines. This is maybe because they are 'incompetent' and 'flawed'.

In terms of my own magazine, I would want my person/people to look more 'ordinary' in order to make them more relatable to the audience. Also, my magazine will have low production values as I don't have the equipment available to be able to make my magazine to the same standard as a professional high production value magazine such as Q magazine.