The #waxchick outdoor media placement is about empowering women through placing provocative and perhaps controversial images of women across outdoor public billboards in the hope of two things - intially subversive works which can raise questions from the public and make then query the way we present women, and also 'empowering' or provocative works which raise questions in women and men of the boundaries women can push in these areas and playfully depicts how women can use their bodies in the way they want to.
When projected across a billboard or high-profile outdoor campaign, these images take on a new role.
The ominous nature of outdoor advertising to make us fall for its overpowering dominance created the shift in the effect of the imagery. Context is vital, and public reactions were entirely subject to their perceived understanding of the imagery, and where it had spawned from. Sometimes it is difficult to read: sexualised? exposing? portraying a sense of masculine fetish? All entirely subjective observations, but ones that traditional reading couldn't avoid - “How can these photographs be feminist?”
The subversive nature of the imagery is the important aspect of these works, and is why they must be both highly sexualised, advertising-esq, glossy and relatively ambiguous. For this is something I am distinctly looking to debate; what is the reception of such imagery from both women and men independently, and how can it perhaps challenge perceptions.