Gane 107) This potentially creates a stifling and an inability of women, the holders of virtue (especially given our imagery the virgin princess) to laugh at a torn dress and an exposed areola the way some European cultures do.
Fashion has become modern sexuality in the sense that it has the function of establishing these qualities or attributes. As everything gets drawn into this system gradually all culture is affected by this specific sexual character, not sex itself but sexualization; by an inverse movement sex itself is influenced by this new sexualization of all spheres, unique to our culture. As it is the feminine body which is the emblem of this process
The standards expressed by the Disneyland Princess are those that pervade the ideal, but do not represent the reality. In Bonbon land though the cow with its nipples frequently showing is not a "real" girl she is a realistic body morph, a normal sized woman endowed with a real set of breasts that are openly seen by the adults and children alike who visit the park.
Do Disneyland and Bonbon land say anything about the national identities associated with the parks?
It would go without saying that the cultural representation of Disneyland and Bonbon land are pervasive and would also be based almost entirely on conjecture, as placing meaning on imagery is often fraught with such. Yet it must also be said that Disneyland above all other places is synonymous with America;
The names of the Presidents change; that of Disney remains. Sixty-two years after the birth of Mickey Mouse, twenty-four years after the death of his master, Disney's may be the most widely known North American name in the world. He is, arguably, the century's most important figure in bourgeois popular culture. He has done more than any single person to disseminate around the world certain myths upon which that culture has thrived, notably that of an "innocence" supposedly universal, beyond place, beyond time - and beyond criticism.(1)So wrote David Kunzle in his 1991 introduction to Ariel Dorfman and Armand Mattelart's daring How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic (1968).
Disneyland is an American ideal in Technicolor and with all the base human characteristics hidden behind the glitz and glamour of the place. Baudrillard describes the connectivity between the Disneyland ideal and the representation of culture that is pervasive there;
The objective profile of the United States, then, may be traced throughout Disneyland, even down to the morphology of individuals and the crowd. All its values are exalted here, in miniature and comic-strip form. Embalmed and pactfied. Whence the possibility of an ideological analysis of...: digest of the American way of life, panegyric to American values, idealized transposition of a contradictory reality. To be sure. But this conceals something else, and that "ideological" blanket exactly serves to cover over a third-order simulation: Disneyland is there to conceal the fact that it is the "real" country, all of "real" America, which is Disneyland (just as prisons are there to conceal the fact that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal omnipresence, which is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, when in fact all of Los Angeles and the America surrounding it are no longer real, but of the order of the hyperreal and of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology), but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle. (Baudrillard NP)
Baudrillard even goes so far as to say that Disneyland is a cover for a whole of a society that is not real and only by its juxtaposition can one see the fact that one is "more real" than the other. This is actually andinterestign point in congruence with media sensationalism, which demonstrates that the "real" is actually much more base than reality, leaving the impression to outsiders that America is a criminal empire with pervasive social divides. So the world population has to choose one from the other a giant sensational criminal culture or a pretty princess castle land. (Krajicek 4-5) Where as in this other "Western" culture, Denmark, the base of the base is not necessarily sensationalized but made fun of, almost as if to desensitize people to it so it becomes less powerful, the way an drinking culture might allow young people to drink alcohol minimally so as to limit it psychological pull. We would presume that at Bonbon Land the majority of people keep their clothing on and also that most people are decent to one another there and elsewhere, so it may be conjectured that it could be working. Certainly the image of it is as crime is not seen as a serious problem in Denmark, where in America, the culture of juxtaposed denial v sensational (this is how you should live, feel and look v this is how most people live, feel and look) the culture is at the very least plagued by an almost universal bad image even though for the most part citizens are law abiding and decent absent a few common transgressions.
In What way to Disneyland and Bonbon land differ in terms the simulation of life?
The issue of simulation has been touched upon in comparison within the text of the previous sections, most logically the cultural representation section above, but more can be said about the simulation of life as both represent a different variation of simulation. American Disneyland the representation of peace, universal tolerance, prosperity and cleanliness while Bonbon land does and asks the park goers to believe nothing of the sort. Bonbon land is a simulation of extreme base culture. While Disneyland creates "Distory" Bonbon Land expresses real whimsy and the childishness that are claimed to be pervasive of Disneyland, but really a more adolescent childishness.
In "Memory and Pedagogy in the 'Wonderful World of Disney,'" Giroux raises a charge to which Disney has always been vulnerable: that the corporation/organization replaces fact with whimsy, sanitizes reality for its own nationalistic or narrative ends, and, in the words of Stephen Fjellman, rewrites history as "Distory."
Bonbon Land is a graphic representation of all that is funny to a 13-year-old boy, accidental nudity, open drunkenness, flatulence and defecation. Cholodenko discusses that art and film represented by the Disney as well as other popular media outlets there is a sense of non-essence that then becomes the essence, not unlike the unreal becoming the real, simulacrum.
In the art of the twentieth century, it is Andy Warhol who exemplifies this protean plasmaticness, this nonessence that is the "essence" of not only drawing, animation and film but of all the arts and media, a nonessence at once enabling and disenabling all claims to purity, including those not only of pure film but of pure painting.
While Bonbon Land is all essence, Disneyland is a 3d flat screen of life, without bathrooms and real skin.
Is there any particular representation at either park that is profound for the observer?
Within the pictures of Bonbon Land there was one that stood out above all others, especially to me, an American observer with a keen sense of the many ills of this culture. It was of a statue titled Aunt Jemima Statue of liberty. Where the Danish culture actually makes fun of the pervasive cultural problems associated with America. Here is the statue of liberty, the universal symbol of America in the form of one of the most pervasively racist media icons in human history the Aunt Jemima, though it like many other racially driven advertisements have been heavily watered down in the last 50 years. The viewer cannot help but appreciate the irony of this cultural icon, debased in a surreal representation of the "unreal." Even if the Americans can't always find a way to laugh at themselves at least the Europeans can.
Is postmodernism a reflection of the illusion of either parks or just one?
Postmodernism is expressed in both parks as the simple development of elaborate leisure opportunity is an aspect of the postmodern. Illusionary leisure is essentially the most postmodern of all the postmodern developments. Denzin expresses well what it means to be postmodern and to live in a postmodern world.
We inhabit a cultural moment that has inherited (and been given) the name postmodern. An interpretive social science informed by poststructuralism, Marxism, feminism, and the standpoint epistemologies aims to make sense of this historical moment called the postmodern... We seek an interpretive accounting of this historical moment, an accounting that examines the very features that make this moment…