Our cake was pink, feminine, and traditionally pretty, which was intentional. We wanted to use the same aesthetic that we were questioning. I think this contradiction was one of the more interesting aspects of the project. We were using something visually appealing and conventionally feminine to criticize the way femininity is packaged and marketed to women. Our flyer expanded on this idea through Rosalind Gill’s concept of postfeminist sensibility, which examines how ideals of independence and choice can coexist with traditional expectations of femininity.
This experience made me think more critically about the responsibility involved in creating visual arguments. A cake can attract attention, but it can’t necessarily communicate the complexity of an argument on its own. That’s why I think our flyer was so important. It allowed us to explain our choices and provide context that the cake couldn’t communicate independently. However, even with that additional information, the people presenting the work still needed to understand it. I think visual rhetoric can be effective when it’s supported by thoughtful explanations, but the message can easily become distorted when that responsibility isn’t taken seriously.
Leave a Reply