A Vibrant Blue That Engulfs the Dulled Pink

From: Eric

This photo, upon first glance, is an oversaturated one that includes a lamp with five arms emerging at its base, each one's light playing a part in flooding the background with an almost absurdly vibrant blue. Upon further inspection, one may notice that the arm furthest from the camera has a bulb that is turned off, or more likely burnt out, while being almost wedged into the corner and being slightly obstructed by the shining light in front, almost as if to hide it from immediate view. Looking even closer, it is seen that this arm appears to hold a light that resembles more of a pale pink than the blue radiating from its functional counterparts. Said pale pink abnormality is almost hidden in the corner and obstructed, but is present in this photo still. Why would a burnt out light, that would perhaps shine pink if it were working, be left in a photo that is seemingly meant to showcase a vibrant display of blue lights? Why do a poor job of almost hiding it in the corner, barely obstructed, rather than perhaps taking another photo where it is completely obstructed or even given a bulb, so that it may shine as well? Why would a piece of entertainment allow for a single female role to be given little to no chance to shine, while the male ones run rampant with purpose and dominance? Why would said female be written into this situation as if she were abnormal, the outlier, her existence only being stereotypical, brief, and/or mainly in reference to her male counterparts?

            The attached photo is meant to symbolize the feeling of pondering the two questions posed above. Said questions can be merged with the concept known as "The Smurfette Principle", which was first defined in an article entitled Hers; The Smurfette Principle by Katha Pollitt (published via The New York Times in 1991) as "a group of male buddies... accented by a lone female, stereotypically defined". This concept points out the lack of depth a singular female character will often be given in an otherwise male-dominated TV show or film, where all that defines them is that they are female, stereotypically so. The way in which the photo captures this idea is with its singular, almost hidden, and, not to mention, defunct light of dull pink -- that is only noticed as such because it is presented as the abnormality -- having its blue counterparts wash away its potential vibrancy ("pink and blue" representing "male and female", as societal gender norms would have it). The angle of shows like The Smurfs, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and even Seinfeld (to an extent) obstruct the vibrancy and true purpose that a female character could display by putting the supposedly dominant male ones at the front and center, as the blue light leans towards the center of the photo almost in an attempt to hide the pink impurity. This light is pink, broken, and nothing more and even if it were to receive a bulb, it would still be outshone by its blue counterparts, thus begging the question of why there are not anymore pink lights in the first place. The whole point of having a singular female role in a male-dominant show is to put on display that she is, whether directly intentional or not, the "difference", as the burnt out and dull pink light is only known in relation to the functional blue ones the photo. This blue was edited to be heavily saturated not just to further the ideas presented prior, but to also highlight how strange these aforementioned groups present themselves to be (as if life has been "edited" to fit the show's/film's own patriarchal narrative). There is an included sort of irony to this photo as well, that being the usage of the "pink = girl" and "blue = boy" generalization. This was done simply to highlight the normalcy this concept has in our society (as it is easily recognizable) and not to perpetuate the thought that it has a predisposed validity in practice.

            In conclusion, the lights had to be edited in order to fit the symbolism that was intended, just as real life situations have to seemingly be edited/altered in order for these stereotypes to be perpetuated in the media. This photo is meant to imply that these shows/films strike many as improbable and, thus, as a subliminal enforcement of societal gender roles. This is not meant to imply that women should not/cannot be in groups where males are the prevalent (in number) sex in real life, as that would be false and downright ignorant in its own right. Women have far more to them than their sex/gender, just as the men that they are often overshadowed and/or outnumbered by in the entertainment industry do.